From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: Xen 4.5 Development Update (GA slip by a week) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:35:33 +0000 Message-ID: <1421750133.10440.206.camel@citrix.com> References: <20150105200832.49EFC6A059F@l.oracle.com> <54BE27440200007800056CFE@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YDW9p-0008Sn-EC for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:35:37 +0000 In-Reply-To: <54BE27440200007800056CFE@mail.emea.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Lars Kurth , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 09:00 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 05.01.15 at 21:08, wrote: > > = Timeline = > > > > Xen 4.5 is a 10 month release. The dates are: > > > > * Feature Freeze: 24th September 2014 > > * First RC: 24th October [Friday!] > > * RC2: Nov 11th > > * RC2 Test-day: Nov 13th > > * RC3: Dec 3rd. > > * RC3 Test-day: Dec 4th > > * RC4: Dec 15th > > * RC4 Test-day: Dec 17th > > > > <==== WE ARE HERE ===> > > > > Release Date: Jan 14th. > > So when is it intended to announce the release, It's done, isn't it: http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-announce/2015-01/msg00001.html (not sent to xen-devel though, by mistake I presume?) > at once opening the 4.5 tree for backports I'm interested in this too, mainly because of the upcoming 4.4 stable release, since I want to backport ARM fixes to all relevant trees at once, rather than trying to track different things in different trees. I realise now that this has lead to me missing 4.4.X-rc1, and hence maybe wasn't the best idea. > (of interest to me in case I'm going to continue > to be the stable tree maintainer, the voting on which was also > supposed to be happening already afaict), leaving aside the fact > that there's already a tools side one? I had assumed the result was that you were uncontested, on the basis that everyone else had stood "if Jan doesn't want to continue" (in some wording or other), hence no need for a vote. All IMHO. Ian.