Re: [dpdk-dev] next technical board meeting, 2017-04-06

["Dumitrescu, Cristian" <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>]

> > My Soap box comment:
> >    I think we are limiting DPDK’s growth by only focusing on a few new PMDs
> and reworking the existing code. We need to look forward and grow DPDK as
> a community to get more people involved in adding more applications and
> new designs. I believe DPDK.org needs to be a bigger community and not
> just a I/O library called DPDK. We need to actively move the organization to
> include more then just a high speed I/O library. Some will focus on DPDK and
> others will focus on providing a higher level applications, libraries and
> features.
> 
> Sorry, I completly disagree with that vision. I think the scope of dpdk
> should be more focused.
> 
> Today, when someone adds a feature, (s)he sometimes updates eal, or
> mbuf,
> or any core layer required for its need. It can be just a hack, no matter
> if the feature works. I have many examples like this.
> 
> This makes any rework/enhancement of core libs painful.
> Having separated core libs would encourage people to submit proper
> generic enhancements, to have stable APIs.
> 

Hi Olivier,

I think I understand your problem (reduce the effort of updating the "core" libs), but I also think your proposed solution (ignore all the other libs and apps that are being broken by the change) is wrong.

When faced with a change that has ripple effect everywhere, why not post an RFC and ask for help from the other maintainers to share the burden?

Regards,
Cristian