[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU 2.7 release schedule?

From: Michael Roth
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU 2.7 release schedule?
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 14:15:07 -0500
User-agent: alot/0.3.6

Quoting Peter Maydell (2016-06-07 13:45:06)
> On 7 June 2016 at 18:29, Michael Roth <address@hidden> wrote:
> > I think it is actually bit shorter of a window this time. The last few
> > releases had around 2.5 to 3 months between n-1 release and hard freeze / 
> > rc0
> > for n+1, but the proposed date would be just around 2 months.
> Yeah, it's a bit short because the late-breaking CVEs meant we
> didn't release 2.6 until about two weeks later than we planned.
> If we want to have 2.5 months between n-1 and rc0, that would be
> something like
>  softfreeze 5 july
>  hardfreeze/rc0 26 july
>  rc1 2 august
>  rc2 9 august
>  rc3 16 august
>  release 22 august (before kvm forum) if we're lucky, or
>   30 august if we're not (more likely)
> [these dates are all +2 weeks on the previous suggestion.]
> > Being in late RC during KVM Forum also sounds like it could
> > be productive, but I'm not sure I'd want to be in that position
> > if I was Peter...
> From my POV the rc3-to-rc4 stage is not that much work, but
> it's hard to predict who might be the person with the last-minute
> required fix (which is usually why we end up with about a week
> of slip over the theoretical schedule). The tree is not supposed
> to change at that point. I can do the rc/release cutting mechanics
> remotely (assuming no disasters like stolen laptops etc); how about
> your part with the tarballs? Otherwise we can just do it either
> before or after the conference depending on how it goes.

Same for me, should be able to kick off everything remotely.

> But I think the real problem with a schedule which expects a
> release at the tail end of August is that we then only have
> three and a half months left til mid-December which is in
> practice the latest we want to do a release given holidays.
> So we can only avoid the short dev period this time round by
> having a short one next time instead.
> Maybe we could have +1 week rather than +0 or +2 (so softfreeze
> 28 June, rc0 19 July, release 16 August), as you suggest. That's
> currently feeling like the best compromise to me.

Yah, I think I agree. We'll have to make up the 2 weeks lost at some
point, but spreading it out avoids us finding ourselves in a similar
situation next release. Seems like maybe there may be more work
being targetted for 2.8 as well.

> thanks
> -- PMM

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]