From: Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>
Cc: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
Kexec Mailing List <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
WANG Chao <chaowang@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: More frequent kexec-tools releases
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 09:36:38 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52E85B26.2080203@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140128184042.GA7098@redhat.com>
Hello
On 01/29/2014 02:40 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Just now we were discussing that fedora kexec-tools should rebase to
> upstream kexec-tools every release so that we can test the latest code
> sooner.
>
> Then Dave Young pulled in some data about the kexec-tools release
> duration.
>
> Date: Tue Mar 19 10:46:46 2013 +0900
> kexec-tools 2.0.4 ~100 commits
>
> Date: Mon Jan 16 09:15:25 2012 +1100
> kexec-tools 2.0.3 ~100 commits
>
> Date: Thu Jul 29 13:40:00 2010 +0900
> kexec-tools 2.0.2 ~80 commits
>
> Date: Thu Aug 13 09:28:08 2009 +1000
> kexec-tools 2.0.1 ~60 commits
>
> Date: Sat Jul 19 10:31:30 2008 +1000
> kexec-tools 2.0.0
>
> So that is 5 release in 5.5 years. It is roughly 1 release per year.
>
> I am wondering if there is any interest in more frequent releases of
> kexec-tools. Say every 3 months or every 6 months.
>
> IMHO, it might be better if there are more frequent release of kexec-tools
> (say a release every 6 months) and then every 6 months distributions
> should be able to rebase to that new release.
>
> Thoughts?
Agreed. Sometimes, important changes in the kernel side will lead to the change
in the kexec-tools, so especially in this case, I think it might be better
to release a new version asap.
>
> Thanks
> Vivek
>
> _______________________________________________
> kexec mailing list
> kexec@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
>
--
Thanks.
Zhang Yanfei
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-29 1:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-28 18:40 More frequent kexec-tools releases Vivek Goyal
2014-01-29 1:36 ` Zhang Yanfei [this message]
2014-01-29 14:23 ` Vivek Goyal
2014-01-31 5:23 ` Simon Horman
2014-01-31 14:30 ` Vivek Goyal
2014-02-04 8:31 ` Simon Horman
2014-02-04 12:41 ` Simon Horman
2014-02-04 14:31 ` Vivek Goyal
2014-02-05 1:12 ` Zhang Yanfei
2014-02-05 6:49 ` Simon Horman
2014-02-05 13:20 ` Vivek Goyal
2014-02-06 1:55 ` Simon Horman
2014-02-06 14:23 ` Vivek Goyal
2014-02-06 23:58 ` Simon Horman
2014-02-07 2:20 ` Dave Young
2014-02-07 14:34 ` Vivek Goyal
2014-02-12 1:16 ` Simon Horman
2014-02-25 4:12 ` WANG Chao
2014-01-29 16:46 ` Khalid Aziz
2014-01-29 16:52 ` Vivek Goyal
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=52E85B26.2080203@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=zhangyanfei@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=chaowang@redhat.com \
--cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=horms@verge.net.au \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox