Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] doc: process for new library approval in principle

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>]

On 5/18/2023 2:21 PM, jerinj@marvell.com wrote:
> From: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>
> 
> Based on techboard meeting[1] action item, defining the process for a
> new library approval in principle.
> 
> [1]
> https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2023-January/260035.html
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>
> ---
> RFC..v1:
> - Fix the review comments by Konstantin, Keven, Thomas at
> http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20230213092616.3589932-1-jerinj@marvell.com/
> 
>  doc/guides/contributing/index.rst       |  1 +
>  doc/guides/contributing/new_library.rst | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 49 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 doc/guides/contributing/new_library.rst
> 
> diff --git a/doc/guides/contributing/index.rst b/doc/guides/contributing/index.rst
> index 7a9e6b368e..ef627329f1 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/contributing/index.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/contributing/index.rst
> @@ -18,3 +18,4 @@ Contributor's Guidelines
>      vulnerability
>      stable
>      cheatsheet
> +    new_library
> diff --git a/doc/guides/contributing/new_library.rst b/doc/guides/contributing/new_library.rst
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..7dde8cbe64
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/doc/guides/contributing/new_library.rst
> @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> +   Copyright(c) 2023 Marvell.
> +
> +Process for new library approval in principle
> +=============================================
> +
> +Rationale
> +---------
> +
> +Adding a new library to DPDK with proper RFC and then full patch-sets is significant work.
> +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.
> +
> +Process
> +-------
> +
> +#. When a contributor would like to add a new library to DPDK code base, the contributor must send
> +   the following items to DPDK mailing list for technical board approval-in-principle.
> +
> +   * Purpose of the library.
> +   * 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.
> +   * Expected usage models of the library.
> +   * Any licensing constraints.
> +   * Justification for adding to DPDK.
> +   * Any other implementations of the same functionality in other libraries/projects and how this
> +     version differs.
> +   * Public API specification header file as RFC.
> +
> +       * Optional and good to have.
> +       * Technical board may additionally request this collateral if needed to get more clarity
> +         on scope and purpose.
> +   * Any new library dependencies to DPDK.
> +
> +#. Technical board to schedule discussion on this in upcoming technical board meeting along with
> +   author. Based on the technical board schedule and/or author availability, technical board may
> +   need a maximum of **five** technical board meeting slots.
> +
> +#. Based on mailing list and technical board meeting discussions, technical board to vote and share
> +   the decision in the mailing list. The decision outcome can be any of the following.
> +
> +   * Approved in principal
> +   * Not approved
> +   * Further information needed
> +
> +#. Once technical board approves the library in principle, it is safe to start working on the
> +   implementation. However, the patches will need to meet the usual quality criteria in order to be
> +   effectively accepted.


Looks reasonable to me, and it is good to start to document the process
anyway, we can tweak it later if required, hence:

Acked-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>