From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45486) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cOmz2-0007ta-2z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2017 09:56:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cOmyy-0005nc-Tu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2017 09:56:08 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39582) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cOmyy-0005nM-Np for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2017 09:56:04 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 14:51:33 +0000 From: Stefan Hajnoczi Message-ID: <20170104145133.GD8194@stefanha-x1.localdomain> References: <20170103155347.GF14707@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <68e906ee-5604-644c-78cd-d39f0d164406@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OaZoDhBhXzo6bW1J" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <68e906ee-5604-644c-78cd-d39f0d164406@redhat.com> 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 --OaZoDhBhXzo6bW1J Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 05:06:13PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 03/01/2017 16:53, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > 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 t= he > >> release before that date even in case of a slip. > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> 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) > >> > >> 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? > >=20 > > I would shorten the soft freeze by 1 week. > >=20 > > Overall the 2.8 release went smoothly. We got unlucky right at the end > > with a release blocker but otherwise it was fine. >=20 > Then what about soft freeze on 2016-02-28? Sounds good to me. Peter? Stefan --OaZoDhBhXzo6bW1J Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYbQv1AAoJEJykq7OBq3PIu6YIAKt8A0TduToGP/FrLIbxho0g /8p+LXqbSWbOUZ6OgtXkHnu/gn7FesvhyYxMHztQ27+GSx8krx0R7MKOAUIPQNe6 Mi4fF9S9e1eSaoK7Kj8/0tWEqTWjjtUs5h4tE0YPBEHutgpjVv/CzLi8Go24toR6 58lyKycZakwA9h6GglYx8XxVvuoghC/parsS7TOKZnUMES6lgg58UdgthjDqy9yv /tRAra/wGhsp0RWWnJbkKSvt1vukgrFKe6iKdsuoblc7O3hJn0gRrX7XcWtlzfve DCUa72RrL7PlrlZv9c0Ov4hAck0TKkTlSoNx0158gu9gKW/V44KuQW2sRX/vLf0= =4ePI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OaZoDhBhXzo6bW1J--