Re: Why nothing since 1.8.0?

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

2015-01-15 17:46, Matthew Hall:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 09:55:00PM +0000, O'driscoll, Tim wrote:
> > As you said, there's a balance to be struck, and too many subtrees may 
> > become unmanageable. With respect to your concern about developers having to 
> > potentially develop patches against multiple subtrees, this has never been 
> > raised as a concern by any of our development team. Is there any historical 
> > data on the number of changes that would fall into this category so we can 
> > see if it's a real problem or not?
> 
> Hi Tim,
> 
> What happens when a core API like rte_mbuf gets some changes, and you have to 
> update the PMD's to fit?
> 
> Do I have to make 10-20 odd random patches to separate PMD maintainers instead 
> of one set of patches to the PMD subtree?

Then the patchset is core-wide and must be managed in the main tree.

> To me it doesn't sound very nice for the guys maintaining the core. Given most 
> of the changes seem to be mbuf or eal this seems like a scaling issue to me.

In previous release, there were a lot of changes related to i40e.
And we expect to have the same level of activity for fm10k.

> But maybe I misunderstood the process.

No problem, we are starting experiencing this model and will write some
guidelines.

-- 
Thomas