From: Jerin Jacob <jer...@marvell.com> Based on techboard meeting[1] action item, defining the process for a new library approval in principle.
[1] https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2023-January/260035.html Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <jer...@marvell.com> --- RFC..v1: - Fix the review comments by Konstantin, Keven, Thomas at http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20230213092616.3589932-1-jer...@marvell.com/ doc/guides/contributing/index.rst | 1 + doc/guides/contributing/new_library.rst | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 49 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/guides/contributing/new_library.rst diff --git a/doc/guides/contributing/index.rst b/doc/guides/contributing/index.rst index 7a9e6b368e..ef627329f1 100644 --- a/doc/guides/contributing/index.rst +++ b/doc/guides/contributing/index.rst @@ -18,3 +18,4 @@ Contributor's Guidelines vulnerability stable cheatsheet + new_library diff --git a/doc/guides/contributing/new_library.rst b/doc/guides/contributing/new_library.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..7dde8cbe64 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/guides/contributing/new_library.rst @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause + Copyright(c) 2023 Marvell. + +Process for new library approval in principle +============================================= + +Rationale +--------- + +Adding a new library to DPDK with proper RFC and then full patch-sets is significant work. +In order to save effort, developers will get an early approval in principle, or early feedback in +case the library is not suitable for various reasons. + +Process +------- + +#. When a contributor would like to add a new library to DPDK code base, the contributor must send + the following items to DPDK mailing list for technical board approval-in-principle. + + * Purpose of the library. + * Scope of work: outline the various additional tasks planned for this library, such as + developing new test applications, adding new drivers, and updating existing applications. + * Expected usage models of the library. + * Any licensing constraints. + * Justification for adding to DPDK. + * Any other implementations of the same functionality in other libraries/projects and how this + version differs. + * Public API specification header file as RFC. + + * Optional and good to have. + * Technical board may additionally request this collateral if needed to get more clarity + on scope and purpose. + * Any new library dependencies to DPDK. + +#. Technical board to schedule discussion on this in upcoming technical board meeting along with + author. Based on the technical board schedule and/or author availability, technical board may + need a maximum of **five** technical board meeting slots. + +#. Based on mailing list and technical board meeting discussions, technical board to vote and share + the decision in the mailing list. The decision outcome can be any of the following. + + * Approved in principal + * Not approved + * Further information needed + +#. Once technical board approves the library in principle, it is safe to start working on the + implementation. However, the patches will need to meet the usual quality criteria in order to be + effectively accepted. -- 2.40.1
