From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
"Justin M. Forbes" <jmforbes@linuxtx.org>,
qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
"Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>,
Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Planning for 1.0 (and freezing the master branch)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 23:54:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E444FA8.6040606@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E441DB7.9090501@codemonkey.ws>
Hi,
>> In general the idea is OK. Especially soft freeze could solve problems
>> like those qemu-ga inclusion had.
>>
>> Two weeks for soft freeze would be close to OK but I think a month of
>> hard freeze is too long. With the previous releases, the problems in
>> stable were ironed out within a week or two. How about 2 + 2?
>
> I feel like 2 weeks was too short for this release and releases in the
> past.
Well, one reason for the release process not being that smooth is that a
big pile of stuff was merged just before 0.15-rc0. First because there
was a noticable backlog due to maintainers vacation, and second because
a bunch of people wanted there stuff be merged for 0.15.
I think two weeks soft freeze and two weeks hard freeze should work
reasonable well. I think shorter release cycles will help too, so the
pressure to get stuff in before the freeze is lower as the following
release isn't that far away.
So how about this:
- roughly four weeks development phase.
- two weeks soft freeze (aka no big stuff).
- two weeks hard freeze (aka bugfixes only).
Don't be too strict about this, if there is a reason to slip (xmas
holiday season, summer vacation time, kvm forum, $bignewfeature took a
bit longer to stabilize, $whateverelse) just stretch the development
phase (or soft freeze) a bit. We would probably end up with 4-5
releases/year when following this model.
>> I'm not convinced about merge window model at least how it's used with
>> Linux kernel development.
Agree. A short two-week merge window would work out nicely only if we
would run a qemu-next so most issues can be sorted beforehand. I don't
think we have the man power to actually do that.
>> I'd rather
>> try to keep the code base at (sort of) release quality at all times
>> and merge changes every now and then.
Agree. I think we are not that bad here today. I'm running qemu from
fresh master checkouts quite alot and I rarely hit bugs.
cheers,
Gerd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-11 21:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-11 13:46 [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Planning for 1.0 (and freezing the master branch) Anthony Liguori
2011-08-11 17:30 ` Blue Swirl
2011-08-11 18:21 ` Anthony Liguori
2011-08-11 21:54 ` Gerd Hoffmann [this message]
2011-08-12 20:46 ` Blue Swirl
2011-08-14 13:46 ` Anthony Liguori
2011-08-14 19:30 ` Blue Swirl
2011-08-15 17:59 ` Anthony Liguori
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=4E444FA8.6040606@redhat.com \
--to=kraxel@redhat.com \
--cc=anthony@codemonkey.ws \
--cc=aurelien@aurel32.net \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=blauwirbel@gmail.com \
--cc=edgar.iglesias@gmail.com \
--cc=jmforbes@linuxtx.org \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/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.