[dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, December 13th

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 17:45:49 +0000
"O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll at intel.com> wrote:

> 6.Efficiency of the review process:
> As part of the Tech Board discussions, the topic of patch reviews came up:
> - The question of slow reviews came up specifically in relation to a patch set a few months ago from NXP.
> - The key issue with reviews is that participating companies allocate time from their engineers to make contributions, but don't always allocate time for them to do reviews. The only way to fix this problem is for all participating companies to allocate more time to reviews. Thomas in particular has been highlighting this gap since the beginning of the open source project.
> - Maintainer responsibilities are being documented by John McNamara in the Contributor's Guidelines. Details are in this thread: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-December/051201.html. Those with ideas for improvement should contribute to that thread on the mailing list.

Some projects like BSD and Linux take an active maintainer model. The maintainer is repsonsible
for doing reviews and will accept changes after a few days by doing review on their own.
In these projects if no objections are received, it is up the maintainer to review and comment/accept.

Other projects like Openstack and DPDK use a passive maintainer model. Patches are expected
to be reviewed by the mailing list and acked before accepted.

There seems to be some confusion (and dissent) on which model is being used and why.