Re: KVM call agenda for Tuesda, August 28th

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>]

Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> writes:

> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 07:59:47PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 28.08.2012 16:27, schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
>> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 02:55:56PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> >> On 28 August 2012 14:30, Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >>> - 1.2 branching, or creation of a "cpu-next" tree where "good to be
>> >>>   merged" patches can live until 1.2 is done;
>> >>
>> >> With 1.3 due for release in just over a week, it seems unlikely
>> >> that it's worth branching at this point...
>> > 
>> > Well, the closer to the release, the smaller the cost of branching as we
>> > won't have many patches entering the 1.2 branch, anyway.
>> 
>> The idea behind the new release model is to never branch for releases,
>> so that we can easily bisect between v1.2 and v1.3, both tags being on
>> the same branch. So I don't think a 1.2 branch is likely.
>
> That means that every branch to be merged after 1.2 has to be rebased on
> top of 1.2 before being merged?

I'd prefer not to do next trees unless it's for a clear subsystem that
already exists and will continue to exist.

If someone wants to be a CPU subsystem maintainer, that's great, and we
can keep the tree open regardless of the release.  But just having a
temporary tree for 3 weeks is more pain than it's worth.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> -- 
> Eduardo