24/10/2017 11:23, Mcnamara, John:
> From: Iremonger, Bernard
> >
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net]
> >
> > > I suppose you are OK to wait one more release and call for more
> > reviewers?
> >
> > This library was not ready for 17.11.RC1 having received some comments
> > just before the RC1 deadline.
> > It was then targeted for RC2 and we have pulled out all the stops to get
> > it ready for RC2.
> >
> > It is now at v10 of the patch set, there have been no review comments from
> > the community (apart from Intel), since RFC v3.
> >
> > I think that there has been ample time for the community to review this
> > patch set, calling for more reviewers at this point is not helpful.
I have to review some basic things in your series.
I did not take time to review it because I thought John told me it
would not make 17.11.
> > The API's of the library are marked as experimental, so there will be no
> > issues with ABI breakage, if there are requests for changes later.
It is not marked EXPERIMENTAL in the MAINTAINERS file.
> > I am not OK to wait one more release, I believe we have followed the
> > process correctly.
Yes, you followed the process.
> +1 for inclusion in RC2.
It is not common to add a new library in RC2.
When doing the RC1 announce, I did not mention this library
as a possible inclusion exception in RC2, and I had no feedback:
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/announce/2017-October/000153.html
I was really sure you were not targetting 17.11.
So I did not do the last pass review. Probably my mistake.
We are having a hard time with 17.11 release, so I would prefer avoiding
adding one more new library at this stage.
