From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: DPDK patch backlog Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:03:41 +0200 Message-ID: <2265365.ZSeGOJNMlR@xps13> References: <20151015144406.1aaca698@xeon-e3> <2717598.bIV87FGGpb@xps13> <5627514D.1010103@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Panu Matilainen Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com (mail-wi0-f169.google.com [209.85.212.169]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A609372 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:04:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: by wicfv8 with SMTP id fv8so64789140wic.0 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 02:04:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5627514D.1010103@redhat.com> 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" 2015-10-21 11:48, Panu Matilainen: > On 10/21/2015 11:25 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2015-10-20 21:34, Stephen Hemminger: > >> Patch backlog is not getting better, now at 486. > >> > >> How can we break this logjam? > >> Do I need to make a new "ready for merge" tree? > > > > What would mean "ready for merge"? > > A lot of patches are acked but do not compile or doc is missing. > > Well, isn't that one quite reasonable definition of being "ready"? > - patch must be acked > - patch must apply and compile (when relevant) > - is appropriately documented (commit message style and all) Yes. Compilation must be tested with GCC and clang, as static and shared libraries and for 32-bit and 64-bit targets. Documented means good commit message and doc or release notes updated.