From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40116) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bhBB2-0005dO-Iq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2016 03:52:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bhBAw-000309-LZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2016 03:52:15 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40650) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bhBAw-000303-Ff for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2016 03:52:10 -0400 References: <20160901140823.GA24262@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <20160906024335.cfmygl6rj4gssolg@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <10cce380-1a5e-e507-23ff-b09ae70b4acd@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 09:52:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160906024335.cfmygl6rj4gssolg@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] proposed release timetable for 2.8 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , Peter Maydell , QEMU Developers On 06/09/2016 04:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Based also on the discussion at QEMU summit, where there was consensus > > that three weeks between softfreeze and rc0 was too much, IMO we can > > shorten the period to just two weeks > > Do we intend to strengthen the soft freeze definition then? > One difficulty is that the definition for soft freeze at the moment is > that some code is on list. Some of these get reworked significantly. Yes, see Peter's answer to me. > I get flooded with patches just before the softfreeze, all conflicting, > all need some work, and it takes a bunch of back and forth to resolve > the conflicts. You are too good! :) Paolo