On 5/18/2023 2:21 PM, jer...@marvell.com wrote: > From: Jerin Jacob <jer...@marvell.com> > > Based on techboard meeting[1] action item, defining the process for a > new library approval in principle. > > [1] > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2023-January/260035.html > > Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <jer...@marvell.com> > --- > RFC..v1: > - Fix the review comments by Konstantin, Keven, Thomas at > http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20230213092616.3589932-1-jer...@marvell.com/ > > doc/guides/contributing/index.rst | 1 + > doc/guides/contributing/new_library.rst | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 49 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 doc/guides/contributing/new_library.rst > > diff --git a/doc/guides/contributing/index.rst > b/doc/guides/contributing/index.rst > index 7a9e6b368e..ef627329f1 100644 > --- a/doc/guides/contributing/index.rst > +++ b/doc/guides/contributing/index.rst > @@ -18,3 +18,4 @@ Contributor's Guidelines > vulnerability > stable > cheatsheet > + new_library > diff --git a/doc/guides/contributing/new_library.rst > b/doc/guides/contributing/new_library.rst > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000..7dde8cbe64 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/doc/guides/contributing/new_library.rst > @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause > + Copyright(c) 2023 Marvell. > + > +Process for new library approval in principle > +============================================= > + > +Rationale > +--------- > + > +Adding a new library to DPDK with proper RFC and then full patch-sets is > significant work. > +In order to save effort, developers will get an early approval in principle, > or early feedback in > +case the library is not suitable for various reasons. > + > +Process > +------- > + > +#. 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 technical board > approval-in-principle. > + > + * Purpose of the library. > + * Scope of work: outline the various additional tasks planned for this > library, such as > + developing new test applications, adding new drivers, and updating > existing applications. > + * Expected usage models of the library. > + * Any licensing constraints. > + * Justification for adding to DPDK. > + * Any other implementations of the same functionality in other > libraries/projects and how this > + version differs. > + * Public API specification header file as RFC. > + > + * Optional and good to have. > + * Technical board may additionally request this collateral if needed > to get more clarity > + on scope and purpose. > + * Any new library dependencies to DPDK. > + > +#. Technical board to schedule discussion on this in upcoming technical > board meeting along with > + author. Based on the technical board schedule and/or author availability, > technical board may > + need a maximum of **five** technical board meeting slots. > + > +#. Based on mailing list and technical board meeting discussions, technical > board to vote and share > + the decision in the mailing list. The decision outcome can be any of the > following. > + > + * Approved in principal > + * Not approved > + * Further information needed > + > +#. Once technical board approves the library in principle, it is safe to > start working on the > + implementation. However, the patches will need to meet the usual quality > criteria in order to be > + effectively accepted.
Looks reasonable to me, and it is good to start to document the process anyway, we can tweak it later if required, hence: Acked-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com>
