From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 5/8] pdump: add new library for packet capturing support Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:32:39 +0200 Message-ID: <10727658.5TGes6emps@xps13> References: <1465575534-23605-1-git-send-email-reshma.pattan@intel.com> <3000552.2jYBPTLpa9@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: "Pattan, Reshma" , dev@dpdk.org To: "Mcnamara, John" Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com (mail-wm0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A97A7C45E for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:32:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f42.google.com with SMTP id f126so13303694wma.1 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 02:32:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2016-06-15 09:05, Mcnamara, John: > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > > 2016-06-14 10:38, Reshma Pattan: > > > The new librte_pdump library is added for packet capturing support. > > > > > > > And more importantly, we need a doc in the prog guide. > > > > Hi Thomas, > > The Programmers Guide update is in another part of the patchset. Can we get some clarification on the requirements for documentation within patchset? > > Should all documentation related to a feature be in the patch for the feature? From your recent comments on patches it looks like that is the way you prefer it. That is fine but there is some confusion because it seems that wasn't always a requirement in the past so it would be best to clarify, and preferably document this. When reading a patch (including after integration in the git tree), it is easier to understand when having the related doc with the code changes. > Also, it makes it a bit harder for the documentation maintainer (me in this case) to see doc changes within patches and to ack just the doc part. From a documentation maintainer point of view it would be best to have any, non-trivial, doc changes in a separate patch. I understand your concern. But you cannot assume every doc changes will be properly highlighted in the headline. I think you need to filter patches based on a content pattern: +++ b/doc/guides/