From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A11B14296D; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 15:34:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C388410EA; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 15:34:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-ua1-f48.google.com (mail-ua1-f48.google.com [209.85.222.48]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 061AC40698; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 15:34:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ua1-f48.google.com with SMTP id o2so16902455uao.11; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 06:34:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681738450; x=1684330450; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=iYNfjPOPZb+FD+XnaLwN+beD0StCF33o6DclYmDfGgc=; b=TukkXqoAbx3EQ44PfeIz5WfFzI2IWkvJblRJesBQWIkM/VnG+VDUfByYjiOAij+e2i vWb5UhrmiNTsS/FhBUhHGvrlOPFqAYFHWdKIvlbSckeCnPrNBMOOUC7b1kzHrnIWyn0i obsDR7TQtAkQUMzkWIydrIn0vUyoTPw3R9xdmsbfDao2xIDP0K+lJWoISHiVIkmIuD3B kw8VWT/I7dTbhqnxOf+dxNg4hBo6NU3vG52ey5qqJToX318z83xf4MKYs9jm+kvJJxMe 4Won9DrPrReQ4hDgXrT+VGUq5X7gdqine2+C4CelaXTHq3qGLsFTgI4SLDvnUtd0iFXF AFiw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681738450; x=1684330450; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=iYNfjPOPZb+FD+XnaLwN+beD0StCF33o6DclYmDfGgc=; b=ao7n/JndVEGVJj/ONDhvH5g7jevyLc6P9JJTvgUd4LfCVOFhOARA00PNH1zJH8udg5 zn/027ZKGazynS5oN1bNkOUR7mwNJ9JJViwczNLPEpdpOgdJArgpBtdZAnLkUBzQeLd2 Gbg47PBZIOHcriyxLH+y4nV8XhEokVlo3I+Z+DADQ4iSUlS8E1y4P/IzC0xQ4mUSaV7y yVcRtzFnrJ14rIm3vKFhXFnmMPNrz3zX7Q5J0OUBXxLGzryPm5DS9LdPC1MVU5WHfXcj DZ1PBb2oTnqu8c6d8oEAtYTbNNr+aWOxpH8w8M0GeUy5KSejsLoqo+EUWJ3Eoub+2YnA pkKQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9din1AW+jG2FLz/6tQUntIfO7MwYVUJT+Mby/N6vXVNxVjHP2sm 8j2GuhFlbtifkjGpzCtKS8friusgoa0Gf0qtiV8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350aTLxpWpPZxhk/cX5OYyDKyNxgWhb1NxoPZSTVBAK6R5IYxJ5lO6+OB6uEQZUaJGNSGHbZFadyKyl/9GzHBZv0= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:2081:0:b0:43c:2acb:9a60 with SMTP id g123-20020a1f2081000000b0043c2acb9a60mr8316954vkg.3.1681738450155; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 06:34:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230213092616.3589932-1-jerinj@marvell.com> <11338869.jrtcCam0TZ@thomas> In-Reply-To: From: Jerin Jacob Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 19:03:44 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [dpdk-web] [RFC PATCH] process: new library approval in principle To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Jerin Jacob , web@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org, techboard@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: web@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK website maintenance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: web-bounces@dpdk.org On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 6:18=E2=80=AFPM Jerin Jacob = wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 7:17=E2=80=AFPM Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 11:55=E2=80=AFPM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for formalizing our process. > > > > Thanks for the review. > > Ping @Thomas Monjalon Could you check the below comments and share your opinion to make forward progress. > > > > > > > > > 13/02/2023 10:26, jerinj@marvell.com: > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/content/process/_index.md > > > > > > First question: is the website the best place for this process? > > > > > > Inside the code guides, we have a contributing section, > > > but I'm not sure it is a good fit for the decision process. > > > > > > In the website, you are creating a new page "process". > > > Is it what we want? > > > What about making it a sub-page of "Technical Board"? > > > > Since it is a process, I thought of keeping "process" page. > > No specific opinion on where to add it. > > If not other objections, Then I can add at > > doc/guides/contributing/new_library_policy.rst in DPDK repo. > > Let me know if you think better name or better place to keep the file > > > > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ > > > > ++++ > > > > +title =3D "Process" > > > > +weight =3D "9" > > > > ++++ > > > > + > > > > +## Process for new library approval in principle > > > > + > > > > +### Rational > > > > > > s/Rational/Rationale/ > > > > Ack > > > > > > > > > + > > > > +Adding a new library to DPDK codebase with proper RFC and then ful= l patch-sets is > > > > +significant work and getting early approval-in-principle that a li= brary help DPDK contributors > > > > +avoid wasted effort if it is not suitable for various reasons. > > > > > > That's a long sentence we could split. > > > > OK Changing as: > > > > Adding a new library to DPDK codebase with proper RFC and full > > patch-sets is significant work. > > > > Getting early approval-in-principle that a library can help DPDK > > contributors avoid wasted effort > > if it is not suitable for various reasons > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > +### Process > > > > + > > > > +1. When a contributor would like to add a new library to DPDK code= base, the contributor must send > > > > +the following items to DPDK mailing list for TB approval-in-princi= ple. > > > > > > I think we can remove "code base". > > > > Ack > > > > > > > > TB should be explained: Technical Board. > > > > Ack > > > > > > > > > + > > > > + - Purpose of the library. > > > > + - Scope of the library. > > > > > > Not sure I understand the difference between Purpose and Scope. > > > > Purpose =E2=86=92 The need for the library > > Scope =E2=86=92 I meant the work scope associated with it. > > > > I will change "Scope of the library" to, > > > > - Scope of work: Outline the various additional tasks planned for this > > library, such as developing new test applications, adding new drivers, > > and updating existing applications. > > > > > > > > > + - Any licensing constraints. > > > > + - Justification for adding to DPDK. > > > > + - Any other implementations of the same functionality in other = libs/products and how this version differs. > > > > > > libs/products -> libraries/projects > > > > Ack > > > > > > > > > + - Public API specification header file as RFC > > > > + - Optional and good to have. > > > > > > You mean providing API is optional at this stage? > > > > Yes. I think, TB can request if more clarity is needed as mentioned bel= ow. > > "TB may additionally request this collateral if needed to get more > > clarity on scope and purpose" > > > > > > > > > + - TB may additionally request this collateral if needed to = get more clarity on scope and purpose. > > > > + > > > > +2. TB to schedule discussion on this in upcoming TB meeting along = with author. Based on the TB > > > > +schedule and/or author availability, TB may need maximum three TB = meeting slots. > > > > > > Better to translate the delay into weeks: 5 weeks? > > > > Ack > > > > > > > > > + > > > > +3. Based on mailing list and TB meeting discussions, TB to vote fo= r approval-in-principle and share > > > > +the decision in the mailing list. > > > > > > I think we should say here that it is safe to start working > > > on the implementation after this step, > > > but the patches will need to match usual quality criterias > > > to be effectively accepted. > > > > OK. > > > > I will add the following, > > > > 4. Once TB approves the library in principle, it is safe to start > > working on its implementation. > > However, the patches will need to meet the usual quality criteria in > > order to be effectively accepted. > > > > > > > > > >