Re: [dpdk-dev] Suggestions for the dpdk stable tree

["Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yuanhan Liu [mailto:yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 3:22 AM
> To: Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara@intel.com>
> Cc: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>; dev
> <dev@dpdk.org>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>; Thomas
> Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Suggestions for the dpdk stable tree
> 
> > We have been looking at identifying a maintainer and validation engineer
> internally to support the effort but haven't be able to finalize that.
> Once we do we will come back to the mailing list with a proposal and a
> request for comments.
> 
> I would nominate myself as the LTS tree maintainer, if it makes sense to
> have one.

Hi Yuanhan,

Thanks for putting your name forward. I think your experience as the dpdk-next-virtio
maintainer will help with this.


> > We would probably be looking at 16.04 or even 16.07 as the basis for the
> LTS at this stage.
> 
> Just one opinion from the view of vhost: since 16.07 is a vhost ABI/API
> refactoring release, I'd suggest to base on 16.07, and then we could have
> less conflicts to apply later bug fix patches.

Agreed. At this stage 16.07 make more sense.

I'll start a separate discussion thread about how the LTS process would work
to see if we can get some consensus from interested parties.

John.
--