5.1 proposed schedule

5.1 proposed schedule

[Peter Maydell]

Here's a draft schedule for 5.1:

2019-07-06: softfreeze
2019-07-14: hardfreeze, rc0
2019-07-21: rc1
2019-07-28: rc2
2019-08-04: rc3
2019-08-11: release, or rc4 if we need it
2019-08-18: release if we needed an rc4

Does that work for people? I don't think there's anything we
particularly need to try to shift the schedule to avoid but
we can easily move it back or forwards by a week or so.

thanks
-- PMM

Re: 5.1 proposed schedule

[Stefan Hajnoczi]

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 11:07 AM Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
> Here's a draft schedule for 5.1:
>
> 2019-07-06: softfreeze
> 2019-07-14: hardfreeze, rc0
> 2019-07-21: rc1
> 2019-07-28: rc2
> 2019-08-04: rc3
> 2019-08-11: release, or rc4 if we need it
> 2019-08-18: release if we needed an rc4
>
> Does that work for people? I don't think there's anything we
> particularly need to try to shift the schedule to avoid but
> we can easily move it back or forwards by a week or so.

Sounds good, thanks!

Stefan

Re: 5.1 proposed schedule

[Peter Maydell]

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 11:07, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Here's a draft schedule for 5.1:
>
> 2019-07-06: softfreeze

this should have read 2020-07-07 (Tuesday)...

> 2019-07-14: hardfreeze, rc0
> 2019-07-21: rc1
> 2019-07-28: rc2
> 2019-08-04: rc3
> 2019-08-11: release, or rc4 if we need it
> 2019-08-18: release if we needed an rc4

...and these are all obviously supposed to be 2020,
though the month/day numbers are otherwise correct.

thanks
-- PMM

Re: 5.1 proposed schedule

[Aleksandar Markovic]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 999 bytes --]

16:36 Pet, 29.05.2020. Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> је
написао/ла:
>
> On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 11:07, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
wrote:
> >
> > Here's a draft schedule for 5.1:
> >
> > 2019-07-06: softfreeze
>
> this should have read 2020-07-07 (Tuesday)...
>

I really like "Tuesdays" concept. It worked very well for me as a
submaintainer. I don't know its origin, but it works, bringing some degree
of order and predictability, and at the same seemingly not imposing larger
than necessary burden, and the end-of-week rush.

Just from my gut feeling, "Mondays" or "Fridays" wouldn't work that well.

Aleksandar

> > 2019-07-14: hardfreeze, rc0
> > 2019-07-21: rc1
> > 2019-07-28: rc2
> > 2019-08-04: rc3
> > 2019-08-11: release, or rc4 if we need it
> > 2019-08-18: release if we needed an rc4
>
> ...and these are all obviously supposed to be 2020,
> though the month/day numbers are otherwise correct.
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1422 bytes --]

Re: 5.1 proposed schedule

[Peter Maydell]

On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 09:03, Aleksandar Markovic
<aleksandar.m.mail@gmail.com> wrote:
> I really like "Tuesdays" concept. It worked very well for me as a submaintainer. I don't
> know its origin, but it works, bringing some degree of order and predictability, and at the
> same seemingly not imposing larger than necessary burden, and the end-of-week rush.

Yeah, it's just a pattern I've adopted because it seems to work -- the
first and last
days in the week didn't seem like a good idea because Monday wouldn't
give us any
time to try to investigate or fix something that came up over the weekend, and I
definitely didn't want to be trying to get tags or releases out last
thing on Friday
(it doesn't give us useful room to slip a tag by a day or so if
necessary). And I
don't work Wednesdays, so Tuesday is a natural choice.

thanks
-- PMM