From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <web-bounces@dpdk.org>
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>
 <CALBAE1Pg3hLnbKN3revGVGzk=sRhTL6iDdJx-GQC25vaT4Pw0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALBAE1P6Mh0GZUhgiUYM+kLig5s_Ss5zZZxXrm8=ggvinWcnog@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALBAE1P6Mh0GZUhgiUYM+kLig5s_Ss5zZZxXrm8=ggvinWcnog@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 19:03:44 +0530
Message-ID: <CALBAE1MTAaRrvr7k5oxrtbkwVne0egLf-BKpbJP7qrLxxmioBg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-web] [RFC PATCH] process: new library approval in principle
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>, 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 <web.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/web>,
 <mailto:web-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/web/>
List-Post: <mailto:web@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:web-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/web>,
 <mailto:web-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: web-bounces@dpdk.org

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 6:18=E2=80=AFPM Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>=
 wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 7:17=E2=80=AFPM Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.co=
m> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 11:55=E2=80=AFPM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalo=
n.net> 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.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >