From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:55031) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RZ0VS-00026G-17 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 08:28:55 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RZ0VM-0007tP-Cg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 08:28:54 -0500 From: "Justin M. Forbes" Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 07:28:44 -0600 In-Reply-To: <4EE20546.5000601@suse.de> References: <1323115683.6884.8.camel@fedora64.linuxtx.org> <4EE20546.5000601@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <1323437326.3968.31.camel@paddy.linuxtx.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Qemu stable releases List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Andreas =?ISO-8859-1?Q?F=E4rber?= Cc: Markus Armbruster , Alon Levy , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-stable@nongnu.org On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 13:55 +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 05.12.2011 21:08, schrieb Justin M. Forbes: > > Typically I get a flurry of patches shortly after > > a release (and they have already started for 1.0). I have tried to get > > a .1 release out in a timely manner, and then it seems patches for > > stable become few and far between. In the 0.14 and 0.15 series, not > > even enough to warrant a .2 release. Perhaps this is due to lack fixed > > issues, or lack of effort to submit to stable. > > > 3) Security fixes do not follow this schedule, and will trigger a stable > > release as needed. > > I would've thought that the usb-ccid CVE alone warrants a 0.15.2 of qemu > and qemu-kvm. I am surprised nothing has happened there yet... > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/128064/ > I suppose that also brings up the question of how long a stable branch should be supported? Perhaps we should do stable through 2 release cycles, so that 0.15 stable would stop when 1.1 is released? Justin