From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37272 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ObH2c-0004mh-Sf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:55:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ObH2b-00017U-Cd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:55:42 -0400 Received: from mail-yx0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173]:61599) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ObH2b-00017L-AB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:55:41 -0400 Received: by yxn35 with SMTP id 35so1607455yxn.4 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:55:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C45E31A.9070905@codemonkey.ws> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:55:38 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call minutes for July 20 References: <20100720144551.GB32665@x200.localdomain> <20100720162952.GK26579@hall.aurel32.net> In-Reply-To: <20100720162952.GK26579@hall.aurel32.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Aurelien Jarno Cc: Chris Wright , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org On 07/20/2010 11:29 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > It's a pitty I can't easily attend to this conference call, as it seems > a lot of decisions are taken there. Anyway let me comment the part > concerning 0.12 stable: > Is it a matter of time zone or conflict? The call has historically been centered around KVM issues but these days it's hard to make such a clear distinction.. > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 07:45:51AM -0700, Chris Wright wrote: > >> 0.12.stable >> - start w/ git tree + pull requests >> - release process is separate from commit access >> - justin will put up a tree for pull requests >> - there's current backlog, what about that? >> > I think someone should actively follow the patches committed to HEAD and > backport them when they seems to be stable material. I guess it's what's > Justin plans to do. > > OTOH, it might be useful if people sending patches to HEAD adds a small > comment about cherry-picking the patch to stable if it applies. > My big concern with -stable is testing. For folks interested in helping out, what I'd really like to see is people explicitly testing their patches on -stable. IOW, just saying "this is probably stable material" is not nearly as helpful as saying, "I've verified this cherry picks cleanly to stable and tested there." >> - anthony's concern with -stable is the testing (upstream tree gets more >> testing than -stable) >> > Debian gets regular uploads with the contents of the -stable tree > between to releases. Also patches from trunk are all cherry-picked from > HEAD. > That's good to know. My main point was that proportionately speaking, the master branch gets considerably more testing than the stable branch. Considering that there is a higher expectation of stable too, the testing requirement for it is pretty high in my opinion. Regards, Anthony Liguori >> - 0.12.5? >> - planning to do next w/ 0.13 release >> - aurelien may cut a release >> > Following the minutes from last week, I sent a call for release, with a > deadline today. I only got the patch series from Kevin. There are > currently 44 patches waiting in the stable tree, so I guess we can go > for a release. I plan to do that later this week if nobody opposes. > >