From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36189) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgsi6-0004YK-Ni for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2016 08:09:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgsi1-0004Nh-2T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2016 08:09:10 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53868) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgsi0-0004NY-Te for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2016 08:09:05 -0400 From: Markus Armbruster References: Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2016 14:09:02 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Peter Maydell's message of "Mon, 5 Sep 2016 12:10:35 +0100") Message-ID: <87eg4yy2e9.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: QEMU Developers , Stefan Hajnoczi Peter Maydell writes: > On 1 September 2016 at 12:18, Peter Maydell wrote: >> I know 2.7 isn't quite out the door yet, but I figured we should >> kick off the discussion of 2.8's schedule. At the QEMU Summit there >> was some discussion on how we're doing with releases, and I think >> the consensus view was that we should try to cut down the softfreeze >> period and also be stricter about (a) making sure pull requests get >> in in a timely way before rc0 and (b) we don't take new features >> during softfreeze. > > It occurs to me that if anybody has the patience to do some tedious > data-mining, it would be interesting to know for all the commits > that went in after rc0 whether they were: > * fixing bugs that were already present in our previous release > * fixing regressions (ie bugs introduced after the previous release) > * fixing bugs in features that are new in this release > * new features > * fixing bugs introduced by other post-rc0 commits > * security fixes > > ie if we were stricter about "no commits unless they're fixes for > regressions, fixes for things new in this release or security fixes", > would this reduce the number of commits we do post-freeze much? Almost 300 commits to classify. I'm afraid that's too tedious even for me. We could require such a classification for acceptance post 2.8-rc0. Spreads the work.