24/10/2017 11:53, Iremonger, Bernard: > Hi Thomas, > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > 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.
OK, let's make a deal: If you can address my comments in v11 and if there is no compilation issue, then I will take it in RC2.
