[Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch

[Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch

[Anthony Liguori]

Hi,

I'd like to announce the creation of a QEMU stable branch based on the 
recent 0.10.0 release.  You can access it via anonymous SVN via:

  svn co svn://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/qemu/branches/stable_0_10_0

The stable branch will receive bug fixes from trunk until at least the 
next major release.  If submitting a bug fix, please consider also 
testing the patch against stable and sending multiple patches if 
appropriate.  Using a tag in the subject line like [STABLE] would also 
be helpful to indicate to the maintainers that a patch should be 
considered for the stable tree.

As the stable tree accumulates fixes, we'll make new stable releases 
from the tree.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

Re: [Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch

[Ryan Harper]

* Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> [2009-03-05 13:02]:
> Hi,
> 
> I'd like to announce the creation of a QEMU stable branch based on the 
> recent 0.10.0 release.  You can access it via anonymous SVN via:
> 
>  svn co svn://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/qemu/branches/stable_0_10_0

is it also available via git mirrors?


-- 
Ryan Harper
Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center
IBM Corp., Austin, Tx
ryanh@us.ibm.com

Re: [Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch

[Anthony Liguori]

Ryan Harper wrote:
> * Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> [2009-03-05 13:02]:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to announce the creation of a QEMU stable branch based on the 
>> recent 0.10.0 release.  You can access it via anonymous SVN via:
>>
>>  svn co svn://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/qemu/branches/stable_0_10_0
>>     
>
> is it also available via git mirrors?
>   

Not yet.  I was hoping hpa could add a git mirror on kernel.org...

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

Re: [Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch

[H. Peter Anvin]

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> 
> Not yet.  I was hoping hpa could add a git mirror on kernel.org...
> 

Is this different from

http://git.kernel.org/?p=virt/qemu/qemu.git;a=summary

?

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

Re: [Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Ryan Harper wrote:

> * Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> [2009-03-05 13:02]:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I'd like to announce the creation of a QEMU stable branch based on the 
> > recent 0.10.0 release.  You can access it via anonymous SVN via:
> > 
> >  svn co svn://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/qemu/branches/stable_0_10_0
> 
> is it also available via git mirrors?

http://repo.or.cz/w/qemu.git?a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/svn/stable_0_10_0

FWIW the repo.or.cz mirror automatically fetches all branches.

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: [Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch

[Avi Kivity]

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to announce the creation of a QEMU stable branch based on the 
> recent 0.10.0 release.  You can access it via anonymous SVN via:
>
>  svn co svn://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/qemu/branches/stable_0_10_0
>
> The stable branch will receive bug fixes from trunk until at least the 
> next major release.  If submitting a bug fix, please consider also 
> testing the patch against stable and sending multiple patches if 
> appropriate.  Using a tag in the subject line like [STABLE] would also 
> be helpful to indicate to the maintainers that a patch should be 
> considered for the stable tree.
>
> As the stable tree accumulates fixes, we'll make new stable releases 
> from the tree.
>

Will a stable release be called 0.10.0.1 or 0.10.1? (I'd prefer the latter)

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

Re: [Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch

[Anthony Liguori]

Avi Kivity wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to announce the creation of a QEMU stable branch based on 
>> the recent 0.10.0 release.  You can access it via anonymous SVN via:
>>
>>  svn co svn://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/qemu/branches/stable_0_10_0
>>
>> The stable branch will receive bug fixes from trunk until at least 
>> the next major release.  If submitting a bug fix, please consider 
>> also testing the patch against stable and sending multiple patches if 
>> appropriate.  Using a tag in the subject line like [STABLE] would 
>> also be helpful to indicate to the maintainers that a patch should be 
>> considered for the stable tree.
>>
>> As the stable tree accumulates fixes, we'll make new stable releases 
>> from the tree.
>>
>
> Will a stable release be called 0.10.0.1 or 0.10.1? (I'd prefer the 
> latter)

I was thinking the later but am open to suggestion.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

Re: [Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch

[Avi Kivity]

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'd like to announce the creation of a QEMU stable branch based on 
>>> the recent 0.10.0 release.  You can access it via anonymous SVN via:
>>>
>>>  svn co svn://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/qemu/branches/stable_0_10_0
>>>
>>> The stable branch will receive bug fixes from trunk until at least 
>>> the next major release.  If submitting a bug fix, please consider 
>>> also testing the patch against stable and sending multiple patches 
>>> if appropriate.  Using a tag in the subject line like [STABLE] would 
>>> also be helpful to indicate to the maintainers that a patch should 
>>> be considered for the stable tree.
>>>
>>> As the stable tree accumulates fixes, we'll make new stable releases 
>>> from the tree.
>>>
>>
>> Will a stable release be called 0.10.0.1 or 0.10.1? (I'd prefer the 
>> latter)
>
> I was thinking the later but am open to suggestion.

In this case, the branch ought to be called stable_0_10, no?


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

Re: [Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch

[Anthony Liguori]

Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> In this case, the branch ought to be called stable_0_10, no?

That's not a bad idea if everyone agrees that 0.10.1 is good stable 
naming convention.  I was hoping to have the first stable release about 
2 weeks after the 0.10.0 release FWIW.  There's already some good stuff 
in the stable tree.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

Re: [Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch

[Andreas Färber]

Anthony,

Am 08.03.2009 um 17:12 schrieb Anthony Liguori:

> I was hoping to have the first stable release about 2 weeks after  
> the 0.10.0 release FWIW.  There's already some good stuff in the  
> stable tree.

Could you please consider the configure patches for that release. They  
were intended to make it into 0.10.0 but are mostly still unreviewed.

Open issues in 0.10.0 include:
* undocumented command line switches
* $OS_CFLAGS ignored for some compile tests
* $CFLAGS ignored for compile tests
* L14N issues when grep'ing tool output

Thanks,

Andreas

Re: [Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch

[Anthony Liguori]

Andreas Färber wrote:
> Anthony,
>
> Am 08.03.2009 um 17:12 schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>
>> I was hoping to have the first stable release about 2 weeks after the 
>> 0.10.0 release FWIW.  There's already some good stuff in the stable 
>> tree.
>
> Could you please consider the configure patches for that release. They 
> were intended to make it into 0.10.0 but are mostly still unreviewed.

Sure, but one of the patches was an [RFC] so another version is needed 
before it could be considered for review.

The other patch got some valid comments against it that still haven't 
been resolved.  If you post newer versions, they can be considered for 
stable.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Open issues in 0.10.0 include:
> * undocumented command line switches
> * $OS_CFLAGS ignored for some compile tests
> * $CFLAGS ignored for compile tests
> * L14N issues when grep'ing tool output
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andreas
>
>
>

RE: [Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch

[Dietmar Maurer]

I just wonder if 0.XX is a good name for a stable release. May is suggest to increase the major number (1.XX). 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org] On
> Behalf Of Anthony Liguori
> Sent: Sonntag, 08. März 2009 17:13
> To: Avi Kivity
> Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org; kvm-devel
> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch
> 
> Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> > In this case, the branch ought to be called stable_0_10, no?
> 
> That's not a bad idea if everyone agrees that 0.10.1 is good stable
> naming convention.  I was hoping to have the first stable release about
> 2 weeks after the 0.10.0 release FWIW.  There's already some good stuff
> in the stable tree.

Re: [Bulk] RE: [Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch

[Doug Schaefer]

Dietmar Maurer wrote:
> I just wonder if 0.XX is a good name for a stable release. May is suggest to increase the major number (1.XX). 
>
>
>   

It's not that stable....

Doug.

Re: [Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch

[Paul Brook]

On Monday 09 March 2009, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
> I just wonder if 0.XX is a good name for a stable release. May is suggest
> to increase the major number (1.XX).

I think you're confusing stability with features and completeness.

Paul

RE: [Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch

[Dietmar Maurer]

> I think you're confusing stability with features and completeness.

IMHO both stability is good and kvm/qemu has quite many features.
Anyways,
it does not really matters if you prefer 0.XX (although it is quite
uncommon
to use zero as major number for a software used by 10000 or more
people).

- Dietmar

Re: [Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch

[Laurent Desnogues]

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com> wrote:
>> I think you're confusing stability with features and completeness.
>
> IMHO both stability is good and kvm/qemu has quite many features.

I guess it depends on what targets you're talking about. Don't forget
qemu supports CPU other than x86 and also has various user mode
implementations.


Laurent

Re: [Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 11:12:47AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> >In this case, the branch ought to be called stable_0_10, no?
> 
> That's not a bad idea if everyone agrees that 0.10.1 is good stable 
> naming convention.  I was hoping to have the first stable release about 
> 2 weeks after the 0.10.0 release FWIW.  There's already some good stuff 
> in the stable tree.

I think 0.10.1 makes perfect sense for next stable release name.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London   -o-   http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o-  http://virt-manager.org  -o-  http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505  -o-  F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|

Re: [Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch

[Paul Brook]

> >>  svn co svn://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/qemu/branches/stable_0_10_0
> > Will a stable release be called 0.10.0.1 or 0.10.1? (I'd prefer the
> > latter)
>
> I was thinking the later but am open to suggestion.

Definitely the latter. I think the branch is mis-named, it should be 
stable_0_10 (with 0_10_0, 0_10_1 etc tags for actual releases).

Paul

Re: [Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch

[Avi Kivity]

Paul Brook wrote:
>>>>  svn co svn://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/qemu/branches/stable_0_10_0
>>>>         
>>> Will a stable release be called 0.10.0.1 or 0.10.1? (I'd prefer the
>>> latter)
>>>       
>> I was thinking the later but am open to suggestion.
>>     
>
> Definitely the latter. I think the branch is mis-named, it should be 
> stable_0_10 (with 0_10_0, 0_10_1 etc tags for actual releases).
>   

This is my preference as well.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

Re: [Qemu-devel] ANNOUNCE: QEMU 0.10.0 stable branch

[Anthony Liguori]

Paul Brook wrote:
>>>>  svn co svn://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/qemu/branches/stable_0_10_0
>>>>         
>>> Will a stable release be called 0.10.0.1 or 0.10.1? (I'd prefer the
>>> latter)
>>>       
>> I was thinking the later but am open to suggestion.
>>     
>
> Definitely the latter. I think the branch is mis-named, it should be 
> stable_0_10 (with 0_10_0, 0_10_1 etc tags for actual releases).
>   

FWIW, I renamed the branch to stable_0_10.

Regards,

Anthony Liguroi

> Paul
>