From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
To: "Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] QEMU 2.10 release schedule
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 11:14:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170608101452.GC4145@stefanha-x1.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87zidtrr5a.fsf@linaro.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1203 bytes --]
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 04:18:41PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:
>
> > On 30 May 2017 at 11:11, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Here is a first stab at the next release schedule:
> >>
> >> Beginning of development phase: 2017-04-20
> >> Soft feature freeze: 2017-07-18
> >> -rc0: 2017-07-25
> >> -rc1: 2017-08-01
> >> -rc2: 2017-08-08
> >> -rc3: 2017-08-15
> >> -rc4: 2017-08-22
> >
> > Are we going with the same definitions of soft/hard freeze
> > as last time around?
> >
> > (I thought last release was a complete mess in terms of
> > getting code in in an orderly manner for the freeze,
> > personally...)
>
> Do we want to have a broad plan for the order things need to go in
> before the feature freeze or stick to a first to the gate approach?
>
> Obviously we don't want to stall the process waiting for delayed series
> that might end up getting dropped but having the broad sketches might
> make it easier for developers to prioritise what patches queues to drain
> first?
Any further thoughts on this? Otherwise we can default to the way
things were done in previous releases.
Stefan
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-08 10:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-30 10:11 [Qemu-devel] [RFC] QEMU 2.10 release schedule Stefan Hajnoczi
2017-05-30 11:07 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-05-30 11:21 ` Christian Borntraeger
2017-05-31 13:06 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2017-06-07 18:24 ` Marc-André Lureau
2017-06-08 10:13 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2017-05-31 14:25 ` Peter Maydell
2017-05-31 15:18 ` Alex Bennée
2017-06-08 10:14 ` Stefan Hajnoczi [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170608101452.GC4145@stefanha-x1.localdomain \
--to=stefanha@gmail.com \
--cc=alex.bennee@linaro.org \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).