From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eduardo Habkost Subject: Re: KVM call agenda for Tuesda, August 28th Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:03:49 -0300 Message-ID: <20120828180349.GT2886@otherpad.lan.raisama.net> References: <87ipc4gd35.fsf@elfo.mitica> <20120828133028.GB6223@otherpad.lan.raisama.net> <20120828142707.GD6223@otherpad.lan.raisama.net> <503D0713.3090302@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Peter Maydell , Juan Quintela , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, KVM devel mailing list , Igor Mammedov To: Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4rber?= Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <503D0713.3090302@suse.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 07:59:47PM +0200, Andreas F=E4rber 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 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... > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > 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? --=20 Eduardo