re Issue #194: virtio-net: clarify coalescing parameters settings

re Issue #194: virtio-net: clarify coalescing parameters settings

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Hello!
The ballot on issue #194 is set to conclude however some comments by TC
members made me think some members were confused about the voting
process. In particular two members abstained leaving
a comment which makes me think they were actually against merging
the proposal.

I would like to clarify two things:

- 1.4 release (for which this is targeted) is not imminent.
  there's no reason to merge a controversial patch, we can
  work until there is a rough consensus.

- even with a non released spec we do try to maintain compatibility
  so it's a level of commitment to accept a patch.


Further the ballot was part of a big batch of 5 ballots
at the same time, and the description in the commit log
and the text itself do not 100% align.


Given all this, I am inclined to let the discussion go on
a bit longer, and re-do the vote with a new version
of the proposal.


Objections?

-- 
MST

Re: re Issue #194: virtio-net: clarify coalescing parameters settings

[Heng Qi]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 07:26:15 -0400, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hello!
> The ballot on issue #194 is set to conclude however some comments by TC
> members made me think some members were confused about the voting
> process. In particular two members abstained leaving
> a comment which makes me think they were actually against merging
> the proposal.


Have the comments from Pasic, Halil and Liu, Si-Wei been addressed?
I don't see an updated response. If you have more comments, please reply :)

> 
> I would like to clarify two things:
> 
> - 1.4 release (for which this is targeted) is not imminent.
>   there's no reason to merge a controversial patch, we can
>   work until there is a rough consensus.
> 
> - even with a non released spec we do try to maintain compatibility
>   so it's a level of commitment to accept a patch.
> 
> 
> Further the ballot was part of a big batch of 5 ballots
> at the same time, and the description in the commit log
> and the text itself do not 100% align.
> 
> 
> Given all this, I am inclined to let the discussion go on
> a bit longer, and re-do the vote with a new version
> of the proposal.
> 
> 
> Objections?
> 
> -- 
> MST
>