From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52493) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dIuSu-0000UY-Rj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 08 Jun 2017 06:14:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dIuSt-0006Qp-Dc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 08 Jun 2017 06:14:56 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]:35550) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dIuSt-0006P8-6h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 08 Jun 2017 06:14:55 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id x70so74195137wme.0 for ; Thu, 08 Jun 2017 03:14:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 11:14:52 +0100 From: Stefan Hajnoczi Message-ID: <20170608101452.GC4145@stefanha-x1.localdomain> References: <87zidtrr5a.fsf@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="QRj9sO5tAVLaXnSD" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87zidtrr5a.fsf@linaro.org> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] QEMU 2.10 release schedule List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alex =?iso-8859-1?Q?Benn=E9e?= Cc: Peter Maydell , Christian Borntraeger , qemu-devel --QRj9sO5tAVLaXnSD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 04:18:41PM +0100, Alex Benn=E9e wrote: >=20 > Peter Maydell writes: >=20 > > On 30 May 2017 at 11:11, Stefan Hajnoczi 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...) >=20 > 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? >=20 > 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 --QRj9sO5tAVLaXnSD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJZOSOcAAoJEJykq7OBq3PIT6QH/RDtw5dgFA7xzkOdkk0+ssb5 KbnYNyHZnSiP6tz3wmeF/uDLU6dL+fWbFCFUSOzG8bavLkzhGZanedm4i4mj6cqa CoiyIoVQEYdy91SKDD6xr8YxXoXV4MmVrMHMkuHMcieOlGRTsFTyAd9o6b9ywEQZ r2oX7pknox/h0236U4y4nPK1PQj2cokAchCbMLW8ozDbEonOMjpx1QUV/vBxab7V UjhfhhyD/JXAvx0BOqnHDYq1Awh+fPYREFA9cynAo0bUuEgQEUSAfm4yh+gELgtb 9b6JQN+fj1MBwsbyffDNrZkWAlGEGzJA7A8+3viCliECI+r8929F9kw2rZMDCfU= =rLbu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --QRj9sO5tAVLaXnSD--