Hi Thomas, > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 10:39 AM > To: Mcnamara, John <john.mcnam...@intel.com>; Iremonger, Bernard > <bernard.iremon...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Ananyev, > Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Dumitrescu, Cristian > <cristian.dumitre...@intel.com>; adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com; Singh, > Jasvinder <jasvinder.si...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10 0/4] flow classification library > > 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.
My mistake, it is marked as experimental in rte_flow_classify_version.map I can send a v11 patch set if needed. > > > 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 probably should have replied to this email. > I was really sure you were not targetting 17.11. We have always been targeting 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. This is a new library and should not impact anyone. I believe we have followed the process, so I think it should not be deferred to 18.02. Regards, Bernard.
