Thanks for formalizing our process. 13/02/2023 10:26, jer...@marvell.com: > --- /dev/null > +++ b/content/process/_index.md
First question: is the website the best place for this process? Inside the code guides, we have a contributing section, but I'm not sure it is a good fit for the decision process. In the website, you are creating a new page "process". Is it what we want? What about making it a sub-page of "Technical Board"? > @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ > ++++ > +title = "Process" > +weight = "9" > ++++ > + > +## Process for new library approval in principle > + > +### Rational s/Rational/Rationale/ > + > +Adding a new library to DPDK codebase with proper RFC and then full > patch-sets is > +significant work and getting early approval-in-principle that a library help > DPDK contributors > +avoid wasted effort if it is not suitable for various reasons. That's a long sentence we could split. > + > +### Process > + > +1. When a contributor would like to add a new library to DPDK code base, the > contributor must send > +the following items to DPDK mailing list for TB approval-in-principle. I think we can remove "code base". TB should be explained: Technical Board. > + > + - Purpose of the library. > + - Scope of the library. Not sure I understand the difference between Purpose and Scope. > + - Any licensing constraints. > + - Justification for adding to DPDK. > + - Any other implementations of the same functionality in other > libs/products and how this version differs. libs/products -> libraries/projects > + - Public API specification header file as RFC > + - Optional and good to have. You mean providing API is optional at this stage? > + - TB may additionally request this collateral if needed to get more > clarity on scope and purpose. > + > +2. TB to schedule discussion on this in upcoming TB meeting along with > author. Based on the TB > +schedule and/or author availability, TB may need maximum three TB meeting > slots. Better to translate the delay into weeks: 5 weeks? > + > +3. Based on mailing list and TB meeting discussions, TB to vote for > approval-in-principle and share > +the decision in the mailing list. I think we should say here that it is safe to start working on the implementation after this step, but the patches will need to match usual quality criterias to be effectively accepted.
