From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:12:47 -0500 Message-ID: <49B3EE7F.40604@codemonkey.ws> References: <49B01FFD.7040900@codemonkey.ws> <49B3A7C1.2090707@redhat.com> <49B3E29F.1080400@codemonkey.ws> <49B3E4E8.9080700@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm-devel To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.250]:21024 "EHLO an-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752685AbZCHQMx (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Mar 2009 12:12:53 -0400 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c2so669367anc.1 for ; Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:12:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <49B3E4E8.9080700@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Avi Kivity wrote: > > In this case, the branch ought to be called stable_0_10, no? That's not a bad idea if everyone agrees that 0.10.1 is good stable naming convention. I was hoping to have the first stable release about 2 weeks after the 0.10.0 release FWIW. There's already some good stuff in the stable tree. Regards, Anthony Liguori