From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEB9B2BB4 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 20:06:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Feb 2017 11:06:48 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,195,1484035200"; d="scan'208";a="936950520" Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.28]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Feb 2017 11:06:47 -0800 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.173]) by irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.38]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 19:06:46 +0000 From: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" To: Thomas Monjalon , "Richardson, Bruce" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] decision process to accept new libraries Thread-Index: AQHSiQ9wf27zg1K60E+lz3/idhyOGKFzf9OAgAAPmACAAdSCIA== Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 19:06:45 +0000 Message-ID: <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D89126527526E0@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B035B99794@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> <3736276.ftqFo2Af7c@xps13> <20170221134658.GA208676@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <1746585.AAhpvkiIzm@xps13> In-Reply-To: <1746585.AAhpvkiIzm@xps13> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiMWZmOGY5ZmYtN2I0OS00NDFiLTk1MWMtMzk2YzM4ODA0NWNlIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjIuMTEuMCIsIlRydXN0ZWRMYWJlbEhhc2giOiIrRFVrNWw5Q1Z0UzVZdkExTncwVWlIRjhoR1dWNmNTUHN6M3JiT0FjcWtNPSJ9 x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] decision process to accept new libraries 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 19:06:50 -0000 ... > The impact of having separate repositories is to reduce the work of a > contributor touching many areas in a rework. This cost is transfered > to the maintainer of the separate repository impacted by the change > in the main repository. So it becomes this question: > Do we prefer requiring some maintenance work from the contributors or > from the maintainers? IMO it is not fair for a contributor of the "main" repository to break stuf= f in other repos without fixing the other repos. This essentially leads to the "other" repos becoming second class citizens = that can be broken at any time without prior notice or the right to influen= ce the change. The amount of maintenance work becomes very difficult to qua= ntify (e.g. we all know what a ripple effect a chance in the mbuf structure= can cause to any of those "other" DPDK libraries). This is likely to lead= to different release schedules for every of those "other" repos and big ha= ssle in building a single unified DPDK release package. Or is it desired th= at DPDK release package should only contain the "main" repo? What would be the advantages to this model, Thomas? And what are the issues= with the current model of "you break it, you fix it"?