[dpdk-dev] Vendor specific sub-trees under next-net

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 10/13/2017 12:29 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> Hi Thomas, et al
> 
> Previously it has been mentioned [1] to have vendor specific driver
> trees under next-net.
> 
> And recently Mellanox agreed to have a Mellanox tree [2].
> 
> Intel also agrees to have next-net-intel, and Helin will be maintaining
> it, thanks to Helin for volunteering.
> 
> Other vendors with multiple drivers are Cavium, 6wind and NXP.
> 
> 
> - Is there a name for Mellanox maintainer?
> 
> - What do other vendors, mentioned above, thinks about creating their
> own sub-tree?
> 
> - Are the vendor sub-trees and their maintainers need to be approved by
> tech-board?
> 
> 
> And what I understand from vendor specific sub-trees is, instead of
> driver patches going into next-net directly, they will go into vendor
> tree and next-net will pull from them.
> 
> This will distribute the maintenance work among the vendors, also will
> give more control to vendors on their patches.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> ferruh
> 
> 
> [1]
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-September/075094.html
> 
> [2]
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-October/078277.html
> 

Using correct mail address for Thomas.