Re: [dpdk-web] [RFC PATCH] process: new library approval in principle

[Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 11:55 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks for formalizing our process.

Thanks for the review.

>
> 13/02/2023 10:26, jerinj@marvell.com:
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/content/process/_index.md
>
> First question: is the website the best place for this process?
>
> Inside the code guides, we have a contributing section,
> but I'm not sure it is a good fit for the decision process.
>
> In the website, you are creating a new page "process".
> Is it what we want?
> What about making it a sub-page of "Technical Board"?

Since it is a process, I thought of keeping "process" page.
No specific opinion on where to add it.
If not other objections, Then I can add at
doc/guides/contributing/new_library_policy.rst in DPDK repo.
Let me know if you think better name or better place to keep the file

>
> > @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
> > ++++
> > +title = "Process"
> > +weight = "9"
> > ++++
> > +
> > +## Process for new library approval in principle
> > +
> > +### Rational
>
> s/Rational/Rationale/

Ack

>
> > +
> > +Adding a new library to DPDK codebase with proper RFC and then full patch-sets is
> > +significant work and getting early approval-in-principle that a library help DPDK contributors
> > +avoid wasted effort if it is not suitable for various reasons.
>
> That's a long sentence we could split.

OK Changing as:

Adding a new library to DPDK codebase with proper RFC and full
patch-sets is significant work.

Getting early approval-in-principle that a library can help DPDK
contributors avoid wasted effort
if it is not suitable for various reasons


>
> > +
> > +### Process
> > +
> > +1. 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 TB approval-in-principle.
>
> I think we can remove "code base".

Ack

>
> TB should be explained: Technical Board.

Ack

>
> > +
> > +   - Purpose of the library.
> > +   - Scope of the library.
>
> Not sure I understand the difference between Purpose and Scope.

Purpose → The need for the library
Scope → I meant the work scope associated with it.

I will change "Scope of the library" to,

- 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.

>
> > +   - Any licensing constraints.
> > +   - Justification for adding to DPDK.
> > +   - Any other implementations of the same functionality in other libs/products and how this version differs.
>
> libs/products -> libraries/projects

Ack

>
> > +   - Public API specification header file as RFC
> > +       - Optional and good to have.
>
> You mean providing API is optional at this stage?

Yes. I think, TB can request if more clarity is needed as mentioned below.
"TB may additionally request this collateral if needed to get more
clarity on scope and purpose"

>
> > +       - TB may additionally request this collateral if needed to get more clarity on scope and purpose.
> > +
> > +2. TB to schedule discussion on this in upcoming TB meeting along with author. Based on the TB
> > +schedule and/or author availability, TB may need maximum three TB meeting slots.
>
> Better to translate the delay into weeks: 5 weeks?

Ack

>
> > +
> > +3. Based on mailing list and TB meeting discussions, TB to vote for approval-in-principle and share
> > +the decision in the mailing list.
>
> I think we should say here that it is safe to start working
> on the implementation after this step,
> but the patches will need to match usual quality criterias
> to be effectively accepted.

OK.

I will add the following,

4.  Once TB approves the library in principle, it is safe to start
working on its implementation.
However, the patches will need to meet the usual quality criteria in
order to be effectively accepted.


>
>