From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E103B378E for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:16:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5988A7AE93; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:16:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-41-137.bos.redhat.com (ovpn-116-6.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.6]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uAGKGwi1002346 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:16:59 -0500 To: "Mcnamara, John" , "moving@dpdk.org" References: From: Dave Neary Message-ID: <582CBEBA.5030301@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:16:58 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.23 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:16:59 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Proposal a Committer model X-BeenThere: moving@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK community structure changes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:17:00 -0000 Hi, Does it make sense to have this discussion on "moving"? I thought this list was reserved for conversations related to the move to the LF, while this seems like something which is independent of, and orthogonal to, the move. Shouldn't this be a topic of discussion for the developer community, dev@dpdk.org? Thanks, Dave. On 11/15/2016 06:35 PM, Mcnamara, John wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to propose a change to the DPDK committer model. Currently we have one committer for the master branch of the DPDK project. > > One committer to master represents a single point of failure and at times can be inefficient. There is also no agreed cover for times when the committer is unavailable such as vacation, public holidays, etc. I propose that we change to a multi-committer model for the DPDK project. We should have three committers for each release that can commit changes to the master branch. > > There are a number of benefits: > > 1. Greater capacity to commit patches. > 2. No single points of failure - a committer should always be available if we have three. > 3. A more timely committing of patches. More committers should equal a faster turnaround - ideally, maintainers should also provide feedback on patches submitted within a 2-3 day period, as much as possible, to facilitate this. > 4. It follows best practice in creating a successful multi-vendor community - to achieve this we must ensure there is a level playing field for all participants, no single person should be required to make all of the decisions on patches to be included in the release. > > Having multiple committers will require some degree of co-ordination but there are a number of other communities successfully following this model such as Apache, OVS, FD.io, OpenStack etc. so the approach is workable. > > John > -- Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338