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 16:28:00 -0300 Message-ID: <20120828192800.GV2886@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> <20120828180349.GT2886@otherpad.lan.raisama.net> <87a9xebzfx.fsf@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Peter Maydell , KVM devel mailing list , Juan Quintela , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Igor Mammedov , Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4rber?= To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87a9xebzfx.fsf@codemonkey.ws> 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 02:15:30PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Eduardo Habkost writes: >=20 > > 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 wr= ote: > >> >>> - 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 release= s, > >> 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 > I'd prefer not to do next trees unless it's for a clear subsystem that > already exists and will continue to exist. >=20 > 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. How exactly this would cause pain? I am already maintaining a branch for myself with a huge list of patches, to be able to continue working on things I want to send to 1.3. The difference is that in addition to that, I am willing to gather the patches that seem to be "ready to go" on a more stable branch, and send them as a single pull request (or even a plain patch series by mail) to the list once 1.2 is out. --=20 Eduardo