From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EAE8A04FD for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 09:04:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 096FF1C2A7; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 09:04:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 216451C2A5 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 09:04:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FEC7224C9; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 03:04:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 14 Jan 2020 03:04:10 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=5m92uKZ5Wib3XlNyLznQbpgwcPsnqHixiN0/Wq+pk3w=; b=hMsUcmfakq/I D3HC9rJmGXN/Gi4nC4AH/1+KZjhRdob0SUaXNvKMhsYC2qSEHTjo6nTVhiw67xRI /A2wj2DSIp37nIbpgxBYL2X0ZeiniJRML/mQy9RU//opFayZYE2lDrD14mXm/3+1 FFVEcO9ghv0W05z7MagSOeKpLiEkUsA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=5m92uKZ5Wib3XlNyLznQbpgwcPsnqHixiN0/Wq+pk 3w=; b=HFsQqkpjbr2vES3cPpzkTUGuAOy46oD96Ec1qtgX9wI+HtV52LuGx9AKu dx7lbCmNLAlau3RoZviS8WuQ2+D73DEqjo+A0K/XLh6E9H9RW/R2eBUhCx7l54qJ UQPwFh/t4Bgq2eeoeI92MASMDzMmnwYDWDIJ/8h2tsTb1ZAnyjQooQ6EgBDEg0Y2 iQaSy9cb/5yyTqFFJ/WCQRdvVpPiiAWj0puA8L4qHmKVDHjNu8pq7Unu2exKuBMH Fe5lABDwA9OycrRWcKlR+Mn7WmMfYwZqNsdUxN/Sv1jLH+N86Yq9xOfWk+gjSDfl YrxglXNUuPAbJnn5XGtEsy+MTyrTg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrvdejuddguddugecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ffohhmrghinhepughpughkrdhorhhgnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeen ucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth enucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0ACA630602DB; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 03:04:08 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Chen, Zhaoyan" Cc: David Marchand , "Zhang, XuemingX" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "Yigit, Ferruh" , "Xu, Qian Q" , "Mcnamara, John" , "Yu, PingX" , alialnu@mellanox.com, ci@dpdk.org Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 09:04:06 +0100 Message-ID: <2347250.TLnPLrj5Ze@xps> In-Reply-To: <9DEEADBC57E43F4DA73B571777FECECA41E9E23A@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <9DEEADBC57E43F4DA73B571777FECECA41E9E23A@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] Master compilation failures in Intel CI X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "ci" 14/01/2020 08:18, Chen, Zhaoyan: > - most of the patches in patchset are aimed to specific PMD driver, > but just several patches for makefile/build script/config file(common files).. in patchset. > (e.g. https://patchwork.dpdk.org/patch/64384/) > This kind of patchset will be pointed to dpdk master We should filter out config/, mk/ and MAINTAINERS in the decision. > - one patchset includes document change and other specific PMD driver change. > This kind of patchset will be pointed to dpdk master For doc/, we must make sure each part of the doc is well sorted in MAINTAINERS so we can distinguish crypto and ethdev docs for instance. > For these 2 situations, basically, next-* branches are ahead of master, > developers expected their patches could be tested on next-*, since that is code base under developing. > > So applying these kinds of patchsets to next-* are more meaningful for them. I agree.