Re: [spp] [spp 02181] Re: [PATCH 4/9] spp_vf: add BSD license

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On 2/22/2018 8:10 AM, Yasufumi Ogawa wrote:
> On 2018/02/16 23:40, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 2/16/2018 9:01 AM, Yasufumi Ogawa wrote:
>>> On 2018/02/15 19:22, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> On 2/9/2018 7:16 AM, Yasufumi Ogawa wrote:
>>>>> On 2018/02/09 12:03, Nakamura Hioryuki wrote:
>>>>>> Thank you for reviewing and pointing out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Revised patches are posted in the following emails.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also DPDK is switching to SPDX tags, that makes license headers easy, we can
>>>>>>> think about same thing for spp. Not for this patchset, but for future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, Thank you for information.
>>>>>> "spp_vf: add BSD license" is deleted from revised patchset, we will make
>>>>>> change license header for future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, "[PATCH 8/9] spp_vf: refactor to comply with coding style" is
>>>>>> deleted, because this will conflict with Yasufumi’s patch
>>>>>> "[PATCH 2/2] spp_vf: update to improve usability"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Hiroyuki, Ferruh
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for comments for licensing. I did not be aware switching SPDX.
>>>>> I think we should add this topic in next TODOs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hiroyuki, thanks for contribution. However, I think it is not needed to
>>>>> revise license only for spp_vf at this time. We should revise all of spp.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ferruh, If you find Hiroyuki's reply after merged previous patches,
>>>>> could you do not re-merge revised patches to avoid to waste your time? I
>>>>> would like to update all of files and send another patches later.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Yasufumi,
>>>>
>>>> Sure, I will wait for your patchset.
>>>>
>>>> btw, DPDK v18.02 is out now and available for testing with spp.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> ferruh
>>>
>>> Thanks Ferruh! I will try SPP with latest DPDK v18.02!
>>>
>>> Before update the version of SPP, I would like to merge patches from
>>> Kentaro and me. Could you check and merge it ?
>>>
>>> Kentaro sent 9 patches
>>> [spp] [PATCH 1/9] spp_vf: refactor to comply with coding rule
>>> ...
>>> [spp] [PATCH 9/9] spp_vf: change log level setting
>>
>> I believe a new version of this series sent, a set with 7 patches [1].
>> Missing version information in the patchset and missing patchwork support makes
>> it hard to trace.
> Hi Ferruh,
> 
> I did not think of patchwork. I think it is good idea if SPP can use 
> patchwork for patch management.
> 
> Although I am not sure if it is possible to use patchwork on dpdk.org, 
> do you have any idea for using it for SPP, or allowed only for 'dev'?

I know from other projects, it is technically possible to share single patchwork
for multiple mail list. But not sure how difficult to setup or maintain that model.

cc'ed Thomas for comment.

> 
> Thanks,
> Yasufumi
> 
>>
>> [1]
>> [PATCH 1/7] spp_vf: refactor to comply with coding rule
>> [PATCH 2/7] spp_vf: refactor comments and variable names
>> [PATCH 3/7] spp_vf: change header file to doxygen format
>> [PATCH 4/7] spp_vf: add VLAN tag operate function to port
>> [PATCH 5/7] spp_vf: refactor struct and variable names
>> [PATCH 6/7] spp_vf: add VID classification to the classifier
>> [PATCH 7/7] spp_vf: change log level setting
>>
>>
>>>
>>> and I sent 5 patches.
>>> [spp] [PATCH 1/3] spp_nfv: enable to patch ports with resource ID
>>> [spp] [PATCH 2/3] spp: add validation for patch command
>>> [spp] [PATCH 3/3] spp_vm: enable to patch ports with resource ID
>>> [spp] [PATCH 1/2] spp: update to improve usability
>>> [spp] [PATCH 2/2] spp_vf: update to improve usability
>>
>> Sure I will get these.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> ferruh
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yasufumi
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Yasufumi
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
>