Thomas Monjalon ; dev@dpdk.org;
>> techbo...@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] decision process and DPDK scope
>>
>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:20:47 +
>> Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>
>>>> I think we can use this case to avoid seeing it a
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger
> Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 10:49 PM
> To: Richardson, Bruce
> Cc: Thomas Monjalon ; dev@dpdk.org;
> techbo...@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard]
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 06:23:11PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2017-02-10 15:54, Bruce Richardson:
> > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 02:49:05PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:20:47 +
> > > Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I think we can use this case to avoid
2017-02-10 15:54, Bruce Richardson:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 02:49:05PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:20:47 +
> > Bruce Richardson wrote:
> >
> > > > I think we can use this case to avoid seeing it again in the future.
> > > > I suggest that the technical board sh
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 02:49:05PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:20:47 +
> Bruce Richardson wrote:
>
> > > I think we can use this case to avoid seeing it again in the future.
> > > I suggest that the technical board should check whether every new proposed
> > > feat
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:20:47 +
Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > I think we can use this case to avoid seeing it again in the future.
> > I suggest that the technical board should check whether every new proposed
> > features are explained, discussed and approved enough in the community.
> > If need
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 12:11:39PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Hi all,
>
Hi Thomas,
thanks for kicking off the discussion here.
> When DPDK was a small project, it was easy to propose a major change,
> get feedback from the few contributors and figure a decision.
> It had the drawback of the
7 matches
Mail list logo
