From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
To: Victor Kaplansky <victork@redhat.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] dpdk: vhost/virtio staging/testing tree
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:02:42 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160216040242.GF21426@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160212135131-mutt-send-email-victork@redhat.com>
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 01:54:21PM +0200, Victor Kaplansky wrote:
> Hi!
Hi Victor,
> Since I was maintaining an internal tree with patches related to
> vhost/virtio, I decided to make this staging tree public. It is
> useful to me and I hope it will be useful to others.
>
> Collecting patches like this allows tracking dependencies between
> patches, their improvement etc. I also rebase the tree so
> contributors don't have to.
I had same thoughts, before, aiming to speed the patch review and
merge process.
DPDK community, likely, has a culture of very slow patch review and
merge process: I often saw patches not get reviewed for weeks, even
months! I also saw that a patch has been ACK-ed, but not get merged
until few weeks has been passed. While I am inside the team, I
understand it's a very reasonable phenomenon: every one of us has
lots of tasks to do, and we intend to do the review after all tasks
have been finished.
Despite the fact, I was thinking that I could maintain a tree, so
that I could apply all virtio/vhost patches that has been ACKed in
the first time. Later, I will send pull request to Thomas, from
time to time. Thomas, on the other hand, only need to have a double
check of the patches from my request. If he has any concerns on
some specific patch (or patch set), I will drop them, and let the
author to send a new version.
Put simply, it's a similar style Linux kernel (and QEMU) takes.
Another thing worthy noting is that Bruce started to maintain
a such tree recently:
http://dpdk.org/browse/next/dpdk-next-net/
So, as long as Bruce merges patches quickly, it should not matter.
> Before publishing, I test the tree so it can serve as a known
> good state for people interested in preliminary testing of
> patches that aren't yet upstream, improving testing/validation as
> multiple people can test the same code.
I was thinking to build a very rough and simple test bot to
achieve that; however, no time for that.
--yliu
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-16 4:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-12 11:54 Victor Kaplansky
2016-02-16 4:02 ` Yuanhan Liu [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160216040242.GF21426@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com \
--to=yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=victork@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).