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 50EEBA00BE; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:22:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE4D31DA3C; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:22:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 897561DA3B for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:22:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [107.15.85.130] (helo=localhost) by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1jTknD-00016h-P1; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:22:21 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:22:14 -0400 From: Neil Horman To: Ray Kinsella Cc: Thomas Monjalon , ray.kinsella@intel.com, Kevin Laatz , dev@dpdk.org, bruce.richardson@intel.com, harry.van.haaren@intel.com, david.marchand@redhat.com, Haiyue Wang , ktraynor@redhat.com Message-ID: <20200429112214.GA1900834@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> References: <20200330121502.25555-1-kevin.laatz@intel.com> <1651663.4herOUoSWf@thomas> <484d2d27-10d0-9e6a-c525-ee05b82e905c@ashroe.eu> <2126936.ZQ0cqP7t2B@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Spam-Status: No Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] eal/cpuflags: add x86 based cpu flags X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 02:58:07PM +0100, Ray Kinsella wrote: > > > On 27/04/2020 13:31, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 27/04/2020 11:27, Ray Kinsella: > >> On 25/04/2020 17:04, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> PS: Who is REALLY maintaining the ABI? > >>> We really miss someone who carefully check all these things, > >>> and take care of the doc and tooling. > >> > >> I would say that I am missing these changes to libabigail.ignore, which would be useful. > >> Should we consolidate the ABI Policy and ABI Versioning sections of the MAINTAINERS file? > > > > Yes, I think it does not make sense spliting ABI topic in 2 sections > > in MAINTAINERS file. > > We need to have a clear ownership covering policy, libs, tooling and doc. > > Let's agree to merge all in one section please. > > > > I would suggest merging and listing myself and Neil as maintainers? > Unless you are aware of another potential owner? > I'm ok with this Neil > Ray K > >