Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] QEMU 0.14.0 release plan

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>]

On 11/29/2010 12:10 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 29.11.2010, at 18:42, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>    
>> Hi,
>>
>> 0.13 was a mess of a release (largely due to my lack of time) and I'd like to get us back onto a predictable schedule.
>>
>> Here's what I propose:
>>
>> 12/6 - fork off stable-0.14 tree; simultaneously release qemu-0.14.0-rc0
>>
>> For the stable-0.14 tree, I'd like to have Justin be in charge of collecting patches.  For stable-0.14 submissions, patches (or pull requests) specifically marked as [STABLE 0.14] should be sent to the mailing list that are tested against that tree.  Sending a patch to against master with a comment saying "this should probably go to stable too" is not enough.
>>
>> 12/10 - release qemu-0.14.0-rc1
>>
>> 12/15 - release qemu-0.14.0-rc2; this should be the final release candidate with no changes make for GA other than a version bump
>>
>> 12/17 - release qemu-0.14.0
>>
>> Post qemu-0.14.0, Justin will handle the stable tree and subsequent stable releases.
>>
>> The rules for stable will continue to be what they are now.  Only bug fixes that are patches committed in master are candidates for stable (except in rare circumstances where that is not viable).
>>
>> I think we should also try to implement an Ack process for stable.  For instance, I think it would make sense for Justin to send out stable patch candidates regularly and require 3 community Acked-by's for the patch to go into stable.  I'm not sure if this is too much process but by the same token, as long as we full the above rule, this should be a trivial step for folks to follow.
>>      
> 3 is quite a lot.
>    

Is 2 just right?

>> Thoughts?
>>      
> Please set up a mailing list we can just CC for stable candidates, so they don't get lost. Motivation for keeping track of stable stuff differs between developers and it's essential to make the kick-off easily accessible. It's worked out very well for Linux, so why not for us?
>    

Is the desire to filter mail or have private discussions that are not on 
qemu-devel?

If it's the former, a [STABLE] tag in the subject would work just as 
well.  If it's the later, I think it runs contrary to the goal of 
getting more people involved in stable.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Alex
>
>