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
