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 CA209429E1; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:31:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A141E40A7E; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:31:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A013400D7; Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:31:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E75F3200972; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 18:31:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 24 Apr 2023 18:31:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t= 1682375507; x=1682461907; bh=0MoKbMF73cOLc0p5cN+Ij6RGTRnQsF9vNQ4 QhVbCyv0=; b=PNjU9s49iMYYe2+MXMpKqlC/FDYQ96zmrWVohhyT12wpLW0v2aN dDDD2O4iMGRxTs1A2zOzuhQxNANoo85P89yROAbPh5LJZGfKRz7M8506O17X2mo3 YqATrkxMX3xy2dw41KlHczQXLOjChwMDs9F23bdsr/NpILc1up8rS2xVMJHJuDv6 hUlae/WMwyvaUhXM6Vn6eqdx50atqTA0H/FO8W2/TV8bhDhoYCW31Ax2kfkixtQY S/siF44M3Zhe+eTvHVvx4RcTcmpSejxocN8WMGsrd2iBt+aoHABtLHK8lujgrTYN iWgY3u5Cj3TR7K+agEMuOHp8TLOMh7snUrw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1682375507; x=1682461907; bh=0MoKbMF73cOLc0p5cN+Ij6RGTRnQsF9vNQ4 QhVbCyv0=; b=hG/Klv7fj9UuDv57QkMa7YdO68QVOLQpPZ55PWyU/FyJ5cLCh1s 9nby2sxH/rpEORkjaCcXlB1wKu8b6+BJvRuobVNQ78qefAuPHamDAP5uLg67hLwo wylUsdIO21+xJ/LV8dAvYRFl8qsp4ie/U5Zo7cH+gwuTaEkALOfL8pDx1wM8U3Og lWVuzNen7e8zSxML+uBH9NvKNuxMdWEpIshn+DovLm9Uou6gLKXW5gIv7sPVnM2F Ws0DYxNFhs+TVyJPNVQOEiNuePQ0+0BVx14mbpB5KVFC4XL+44Cq40GRGSCFSetL zqx5pf58KIQ1tYGsNN8lF2BJa1WK3lnhEOg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrfeduuddgudduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvvefufffkjghfggfgtgesthhqredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeegtddtleejjeegffekkeektdejvedtheevtdekiedvueeuvdei uddvleevjeeujeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfh hrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 18:31:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Jerin Jacob Cc: Jerin Jacob , web@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org, techboard@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-web] [RFC PATCH] process: new library approval in principle Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:31:43 +0200 Message-ID: <2995154.687JKscXgg@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20230213092616.3589932-1-jerinj@marvell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 17/04/2023 15:33, Jerin Jacob: > 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: > @Thomas Monjalon Could you check the below comments and share your > opinion to make forward progress. >=20 > > > 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 Maybe that the contributing guide is the best place. I'm OK with a new file doc/guides/contributing/new_library.rst which could document more than the policy in future (like things to remember and to check). > > > > +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 It will be easier if starting with the goal: In order to save effort, developers will get an early approval in principle, or early feedback in case the library is not suitable for various reasons. > > > > > > > > + - 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. OK > > > > + - 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" OK > > > > +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. OK