From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: DPDK Release Status Meeting 24/01/2018
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 09:27:27 -0500
Message-ID: <f7ta7jkc0xc.fsf@dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com>
References: <B27915DBBA3421428155699D51E4CFE23F512773@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <f7timycsajc.fsf@dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com>
 <ac1a01e1-b6c6-0d85-146d-aab6e20c492f@intel.com>
 <4043183.GGkcRsX4b2@xps>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, Jay Rolette <rolette@infinite.io>,
 "Mcnamara\, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>, "dev\@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>, "Dumitrescu\,
 Cristian" <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>, "Xu\, Qian Q" <qian.q.xu@intel.com>,
 Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com>,
 Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>, "Zhang\,
 Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>, Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>,
 "De Lara Guarch\, Pablo" <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>, "O'Hare\,
 Cathal" <cathal.ohare@intel.com>, Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com>,
 Timothy Redaelli <tredaelli@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC2355F25
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 15:27:35 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <4043183.GGkcRsX4b2@xps> (Thomas Monjalon's message of "Sat, 26
 Jan 2019 02:01:48 +0100")
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> writes:

> 26/01/2019 00:37, Ferruh Yigit:
>> On 1/25/2019 9:16 PM, Aaron Conole wrote:
>> > Jay Rolette <rolette@infinite.io> writes:
>> > 
>> >>>    * Questions from Intel Test about the use of the Stable Tree.
>> >>>      Do people use it? Each stable/LTS release requires a lot of
>> >>>      testing and there are currently 3 releases to be tested.
>> >>
>> >> We do @ infinite io.
>> > 
>> > +1.  Red Hat also uses the LTS releases.
>> 
>> I assume the question is around stable tree, not LTS.
>> We have LTS trees: 16.11, 17.11, 18.11
>> And a stable tree valid for one release, latest stable tree will be: 18.08.x
>> 
>> In the existence of the LTS, do we need to keep stable tree?

I misunderstood the question I guess.  I saw 'stable/LTS' and assumed it
was lumping them together, sorry.

Red Hat uses the LTS trees.  We don't use the 'stable' tree (ie: Red Hat
won't use 19.08.1).  Kevin can correct me if i got something wrong here.

> Not sure to understand this question.
> Yes we need 18.08.1 which is supposed to be more stable than 18.11.0.
>
>> > I'm curious why there are three?
>> > Isn't 16.11 deprecated now that 18.11 is released?  Maybe I
>> > misunderstand that part.
>> 
>> 16.11 will have latest release and later EOL. For one release there are three
>> LTS, other times two.
>
> 16.11.9 was supposed to be tested and released before 18.11.1.
> The plan was to have only 2 LTS at a time.

I was under the impression that the instant (X+2).11 releases, X.11 is
EOL.  I guess that's for someone else to explain (maybe a candidate for
something in doc/guides/.../release_cadence.rst to help clarify)?