[ewg] Re: [ofa-general] OFED Jan 28 meeting summary on RC3readiness

[Tziporet Koren]

Woodruff, Robert J wrote:
>
> I hate to keep slipping this, but I think it is important to get
> what RedHat needs into OFED 1.3, so I am not apposed to this.
>
> I think however that perhaps after 1.3, we should discuss our process
> a bit to try to get a little better at making our original
> release dates. I think we are getting hit with feature creep, allowing
> some pretty major changes after the feature freeze date, late in the
> release cycle.
>   
I agree - we must do a better work in OFED 1.4
Main thing is that all companies will think in advance on the new 
features they  want to drive and not come with features in the last minute.
> I also think that we do need to be a little more careful
> and selective about what features go into OFED, as it is suppose to be
> an enterprise release rather than an experimental code release. 
>   
This is true but from first OFED version we decided that not all 
components must be in production level and that we allow components that 
are in experimental state as long as they do not harm the stability of 
the full package
We may revisit this decision.
I think we should have a session on OFED target and expectations in Sonoma
> For the kernel code, I think that this means keeping things a little
> closer to the kernel.org kernel features and if something is not
> upstream, then
> press for getting it upstream (or at least queued for upsteam) 
> rather than allowing big patches into OFED that have not had a good
> review. 
> The way we are working now, if it is getting into OFED, people are less
> aggressive at getting things upstream. 
>   
> Perhaps we can have a discussion about this at the Sonoma workshop.
>
>
>   
I agree we should have such a discussion at Sonoma

Tziporet