From: "Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>
To: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "moving@dpdk.org" <moving@dpdk.org>
Subject: [dpdk-dev] Proposal for a new Committer model
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:20:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <B27915DBBA3421428155699D51E4CFE202661F22@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
Repost from the moving@dpdk.org mailing list to get a wider audience.
Original thread: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000059.html
Hi,
I'd like to propose a change to the DPDK committer model. Currently we have one committer for the master branch of the DPDK project.
One committer to master represents a single point of failure and at times can be inefficient. There is also no agreed cover for times when the committer is unavailable such as vacation, public holidays, etc. I propose that we change to a multi-committer model for the DPDK project. We should have three committers for each release that can commit changes to the master branch.
There are a number of benefits:
1. Greater capacity to commit patches.
2. No single points of failure - a committer should always be available if we have three.
3. A more timely committing of patches. More committers should equal a faster turnaround - ideally, maintainers should also provide feedback on patches submitted within a 2-3 day period, as much as possible, to facilitate this.
4. It follows best practice in creating a successful multi-vendor community - to achieve this we must ensure there is a level playing field for all participants, no single person should be required to make all of the decisions on patches to be included in the release.
Having multiple committers will require some degree of co-ordination but there are a number of other communities successfully following this model such as Apache, OVS, FD.io, OpenStack etc. so the approach is workable.
John
next reply other threads:[~2016-11-17 9:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-17 9:20 Mcnamara, John [this message]
2016-11-18 6:00 ` Matthew Hall
2016-11-18 18:09 ` Neil Horman
2016-11-18 19:06 ` Jerin Jacob
2016-11-20 4:17 ` Stephen Hemminger
2016-11-21 8:52 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-22 19:52 ` Neil Horman
2016-11-22 20:56 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-11-23 13:48 ` Neil Horman
2016-11-23 14:01 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-11-23 15:33 ` Neil Horman
2016-11-23 16:21 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-11-23 20:13 ` Neil Horman
2016-11-24 9:17 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-25 19:55 ` Neil Horman
2016-11-23 8:21 ` Mcnamara, John
2016-11-23 14:11 ` Neil Horman
2016-11-23 15:41 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-11-23 20:19 ` Neil Horman
2016-11-24 5:53 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-11-25 20:05 ` Neil Horman
2016-11-29 19:12 ` Neil Horman
2016-11-30 9:58 ` Mcnamara, John
2016-12-02 16:41 ` Mcnamara, John
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=B27915DBBA3421428155699D51E4CFE202661F22@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=john.mcnamara@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=moving@dpdk.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).