From: Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_oss@crudebyte.com>
To: virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
virtio@lists.oasis-open.org, virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] Plans for releasing a VIRTIO 1.2 spec
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 15:04:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1716817.ojcOkzPiJ8@silver> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <871r27qw8o.fsf@redhat.com>
On Montag, 20. Dezember 2021 13:47:03 CET Cornelia Huck wrote:
> We are due (or rather overdue) for a new release of the VIRTIO spec. As
> doing a release takes some time, we need to tie things up soon (remember
> that there will also be a next revision for changes that don't make the
> cut.)
>
> We propose to declare a freeze on changes starting January 25th, 2022 (no
> new non-editorial changes committed). This would mean that any ballot
> needs to conclude on January 24th the latest (and therefore has to be
> opened before January 17th). Any change that you want to see included in
> 1.2 has to reach enough consensus to open a ballot in early January 2022.
>
> Next steps would be creating a Comittee Specification Draft (and voting
> on it), putting it out for review, and then creating (and voting on) a
> Comittee Specification, hopefully before the end of March 2022.
>
> To reiterate, anything that should be included in VIRTIO 1.2 needs to
> have a ballot started
>
> *before January 17th, 2022*
>
> at the very latest (preferably earlier).
As holidays are starting this week, that realistically means a window of about
just one or two weeks, for both bringing a discussion eventually to its spec
commit, as well as concluding its subsequent ballot.
Maybe it's just me, but considering that the last virtio revision was 3 years
ago, that sounds like a sudden hammer fall to me.
> This should give us enough time to tie up most proposals currently
> actively discussed. Again, remember that anything that is late will
> simply make it into the next release instead.
Which will be when approximately?
> Please let us know if you have any concerns.
>
> The VIRTIO TC Chairs
Spec issues that won't make it through within this narrow time window would
not suffer under any negative consequences in form of reluctance for their
actual implementation patches on Linux kernel / QEMU side, would they?
Best regards,
Christian Schoenebeck
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-20 14:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-20 12:47 [virtio-dev] Plans for releasing a VIRTIO 1.2 spec Cornelia Huck
2021-12-20 14:04 ` Christian Schoenebeck [this message]
2021-12-20 15:02 ` [virtio] Re: [virtio-comment] " Cornelia Huck
2022-01-25 10:58 ` [virtio] The virtio spec is now in FREEZE for 1.2 Cornelia Huck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1716817.ojcOkzPiJ8@silver \
--to=qemu_oss@crudebyte.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org \
--cc=virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org \
--cc=virtio@lists.oasis-open.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.