From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: RFC: Survey on release cycle Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:12:15 +0000 Message-ID: <5632374F.80401@citrix.com> References: <20151012173222.GE2421@zion.uk.xensource.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 1ZrosU-0007Xl-0R for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:12:34 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20151012173222.GE2421@zion.uk.xensource.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: Wei Liu , Xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 12/10/15 18:32, Wei Liu wrote: > Hi all > > > > Please express your preference with -2 (strongly argue against), -1 > (not happy but not against), +1 (happy but won't argue for) and +2 > (happy and argue for). With my XenServer hat on, the precise release doesn't matter too much. For a XenServer release, we will choose something (generally lastest stable-X.Y) and freeze on it, with only targeted bug/security fixes being backported later on. However, with my upstream hat on, we do have a problem, and changing the release cadence seems to be a plausible experiment to investigate fixing it. > > # 6 months release cycle + current stable release scheme > # 6 months release cycle + LTS scheme +1 to either of these. > > > # 9 months release cycle + current stable release scheme -1 > > Don't change anything. -1 ~Andrew