Re: RE: New Release Process

[Matt Ayres <matta@tektonic.net>]

Ian Pratt wrote:
>>> I was hoping you could clarify what the decisions were for the new 
>>> release process that you proposed at the Winter XenSummit.
>> We decided to try to aim for ~6 week intervals for 3.0.x 
>> releases, stablizing the tree in -unstable then doing the 
>> release and sweeping the code into 3.0-testing. We'll then 
>> try and backport critical fixes from -unstable into 
>> 3.0-testing and spin new 3.0.x-y build numbers as required. 
>> Any similarity to the Linux process is purely intentional :)
> 
> Here's my thoughts on how we should kick-off with the new release
> process:
> 
> It's been over 6 weeks since the 3.0.0 release, and the -unstable tree
> is actually looking pretty good right now -- two of the bugs I mentioned
> yesterday are now fixed. 
> 
> My current inclination is to call a 3.0.1 release Friday/Saturday and
> sweep the tree into -testing. Monday morning we'd then incorporate hvm
> and the 2.6.15 tree and work flat out to get that fully tested and
> stabilized ASAP, so SuSE can pick it up for SLES10.
> 

Most of the bugs I have encountered have been fixed and -unstable is 
running fairly stable.  I still experience the bug in bugzilla id # 487 
(No space left on device).

> 
> What do you think? Should we stick with 2.6.15 or go to 2.6.16-rc1 ?
> 

If my vote counts, I say 2.6.16-rc1 :)

> Any reason not to call 3.0.1 now? There are a load of bug fixes and
> improvements over 3.0.0.

I'd say 3.0.1 is required as -unstable has essentially become 
3.0-testing over the past few weeks.  I'd like to see a tree where 
-unstable is truly unstable and not the most stable.

Thank you,
Matt Ayres