From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36521) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bkBAQ-0005V2-8O for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 10:28:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bkBAM-0004Qg-IW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 10:28:01 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41028) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bkBAM-0004QN-DB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 10:27:58 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 15:27:55 +0100 From: Stefan Hajnoczi Message-ID: <20160914142755.GC16438@stefanha-x1.localdomain> References: <20160901140823.GA24262@stefanha-x1.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NU0Ex4SbNnrxsi6C" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] proposed release timetable for 2.8 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Paolo Bonzini , QEMU Developers --NU0Ex4SbNnrxsi6C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 04:11:43PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 5 September 2016 at 15:47, Paolo Bonzini 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 > > > > * softfreeze is a deadline for _maintainers_ to post their large pull > > requests. Developers are unaffected, except that the maintainers will > > be stricter. >=20 > I think there is a difference for developers, because our > current definition (http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/SoftFeatureFreeze) > says that "non-trivial features should have code posted to the list". > If you want feature pull reqs to be onlist by the softfreeze date > then that means developers need to get their patches onlist (and > indeed through code review) earlier. >=20 > So for practical purposes I don't think it makes much difference: > if you're a dev trying to get a feature into 2.8 then you will > need to get it all code reviewed and into the maintainer's tree > about a week earlier than under our current longer schedule with > a more relaxed attitude to late-feature-stuff. Describing it > all this way might be clearer to everybody about when stuff needs > to be done, though. Sound good. That's why I made a distinction between hard freeze and -rc0. If maintainers are still sending significant pull requests up until the hard freeze deadline then the chance of merging them and releasing an -rc0 on the same day are slim. If we're stricter and say that soft freeze is the deadline for feature pull requests from maintainers then tagging an -rc0 is easy because there will be way less churn. Stefan --NU0Ex4SbNnrxsi6C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX2V5rAAoJEJykq7OBq3PIr90H/ipzan6/NlfU76lzTqDxso5e d7VRFvc8jW8DW8YQrKE0yOpRmFDNitYITeTuycXDa/7CI5Va8nB3hl7SkM6GRK1W Z8/USLTccLNL+/uIU0vmHMkSSQZozFol6oZOAqIvHnhJFk4RqNJBa1fBKmTZaVHM BVMNzT7inYHX8sv1rxrsGVcoiGijALdgdF5gceXj7OGqe1wRKQ3S78HJtIc9W3s8 lG3Dt9E9wk3Dj255CaSwphiw8Upj5sV+qFQWiED9SASTVn6op65IbB7xJ5Zu9xnw yo97Hw5Hjtw1HeTRCk8AzEb+yGdHjFVvdC3c/q2bWbMyxgq4uIoKTGRuHjwMRQY= =6vgi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --NU0Ex4SbNnrxsi6C--