2015-10-21 10:41, Matthew Hall:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:03:41AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > Compilation must be tested with GCC and clang, as static and shared
> > libraries
> > and for 32-bit and 64-bit targets.
>
> Is this process scripted somewhere?
Yes, I've sent a script:
On 2015/10/21 17:05, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-10-21 11:48, Panu Matilainen:
>> On 10/21/2015 11:25 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 2015-10-20 21:34, Stephen Hemminger:
Patch backlog is not getting better, now at 486.
How can we break this logjam?
Do I need to make a new "rea
On 2015/10/16 22:25, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:45:23AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> 2015-10-15 14:44, Stephen Hemminger:
>>> There are currently 428 patches in New state in DPDK patchwork.
>>>
>>> Thomas, could you start reducing that backlog?
>> Yes
>>
>>> The simplest so
On 10/21/2015 11:25 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-10-20 21:34, Stephen Hemminger:
>> Patch backlog is not getting better, now at 486.
>>
>> How can we break this logjam?
>> Do I need to make a new "ready for merge" tree?
>
> What would mean "ready for merge"?
> A lot of patches are acked but do
2015-10-21 11:48, Panu Matilainen:
> On 10/21/2015 11:25 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2015-10-20 21:34, Stephen Hemminger:
> >> Patch backlog is not getting better, now at 486.
> >>
> >> How can we break this logjam?
> >> Do I need to make a new "ready for merge" tree?
> >
> > What would mean "re
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:03:41AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Compilation must be tested with GCC and clang, as static and shared libraries
> and for 32-bit and 64-bit targets.
Is this process scripted somewhere?
Matthew.
2015-10-20 21:34, Stephen Hemminger:
> Patch backlog is not getting better, now at 486.
>
> How can we break this logjam?
> Do I need to make a new "ready for merge" tree?
What would mean "ready for merge"?
A lot of patches are acked but do not compile or doc is missing.
I have the feeling it wo
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:25:12AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-10-20 21:34, Stephen Hemminger:
> > Patch backlog is not getting better, now at 486.
> >
> > How can we break this logjam?
> > Do I need to make a new "ready for merge" tree?
>
> What would mean "ready for merge"?
> A lot of
Patch backlog is not getting better, now at 486.
How can we break this logjam?
Do I need to make a new "ready for merge" tree?
Hi Hemminger,
+1
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Zhu, Heqing
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 10:47 AM
> To: Stephen Hemminger; Thomas Monjalon
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK patch backlog
>
&g
2015-10-15 14:44, Stephen Hemminger:
> There are currently 428 patches in New state in DPDK patchwork.
>
> Thomas, could you start reducing that backlog?
Yes
> The simplest solution would be to merge some of the big patch series
> from Intel for the base drivers, then reviewers can focus on the
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:45:23AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-10-15 14:44, Stephen Hemminger:
> > There are currently 428 patches in New state in DPDK patchwork.
> >
> > Thomas, could you start reducing that backlog?
>
> Yes
>
> > The simplest solution would be to merge some of the big
+1
-Original Message-
From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 5:44 AM
To: Thomas Monjalon
Cc: dev at dpdk.org
Subject: [dpdk-dev] DPDK patch backlog
There are currently 428 patches in New state in DPDK patchwork.
Thomas
There are currently 428 patches in New state in DPDK patchwork.
Thomas, could you start reducing that backlog?
The simplest solution would be to merge some of the big patch series
from Intel for the base drivers, then reviewers can focus on the other
patches.
14 matches
Mail list logo
