From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38761) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cORPN-0003ey-Ia for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2017 10:53:54 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cORPK-00069s-HK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2017 10:53:53 -0500 Received: from mail-wj0-x243.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c01::243]:32867) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cORPK-00069l-B5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2017 10:53:50 -0500 Received: by mail-wj0-x243.google.com with SMTP id kp2so72326436wjc.0 for ; Tue, 03 Jan 2017 07:53:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 15:53:47 +0000 From: Stefan Hajnoczi Message-ID: <20170103155347.GF14707@stefanha-x1.localdomain> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="VuQYccsttdhdIfIP" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for 2.9 release schedule List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , Peter Maydell , qemu-devel --VuQYccsttdhdIfIP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 03:15:58PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Considering that Easter is on April 16th, we'd probably want to have the > release before that date even in case of a slip. >=20 > On the other hand, the Christmas / New Year break here means that we'll > have to make the development time 1-2 week shorter in practice. >=20 > 2016-02-21 2.9 soft freeze > 2016-03-07 hard freeze / rc0 > 2016-03-28 rc3 (+3 weeks) > 2016-04-04 rc4 or release > 2016-04-11 release (if rc4) >=20 > One possibility is to make soft freeze happen a few days later. > Peter/Stefan, how did the experiment go with the new rules for soft > freeze? Is it worth repeating it for 2.9 and would it make sense to > shorten soft freeze given the new rules? I would shorten the soft freeze by 1 week. Overall the 2.8 release went smoothly. We got unlucky right at the end with a release blocker but otherwise it was fine. Stefan --VuQYccsttdhdIfIP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYa8kLAAoJEJykq7OBq3PI9YkIAJ98x1OCNeJTwHKTiCtNTdJO kOMfxsMrpGu7g0k1e+KfPVTQ8q910iAdibA7pWiYe4yy2D6S+N4pQE5Dgg3U7rBw mym339MWc8Y8yaqxGcox1hl2w0ddECJYuj9MJMofWwcQ1ibJoPZYP3156bhS8Gq+ wqFHcnkokZf40BVBJP8m9NC3fq01ziylT1gocajzAaB0itiApFTWBYlzlJi6rie3 gtxkneUxV0E0vqneuDGKSj5Xt1TJyPkWmm0+mNjduTccQIU8VtfWJkafjrLFQkeE hAP3f39m/nPhr4Gxm7YjjsT7nqME/fVVW0CGoEzkSI/8qWZmFgGFwLTibRFa9rs= =Pt3T -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --VuQYccsttdhdIfIP--