From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:49571) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qt1SE-0007o3-T9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 14:00:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qt1SD-0000tC-PI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 14:00:02 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f42.google.com ([209.85.210.42]:47830) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qt1SD-0000sr-KG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 14:00:01 -0400 Received: by pzk37 with SMTP id 37so9107792pzk.29 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:59:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E495E9C.2060806@codemonkey.ws> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:59:56 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4E43DD21.9030907@us.ibm.com> <4E441DB7.9090501@codemonkey.ws> <4E444FA8.6040606@redhat.com> <4E47D1AC.70906@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Planning for 1.0 (and freezing the master branch) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Blue Swirl Cc: Kevin Wolf , Stefan Hajnoczi , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Marcelo Tosatti , "Justin M. Forbes" , qemu-devel , Gerd Hoffmann , "Edgar E. Iglesias" , Aurelien Jarno , Avi Kivity On 08/14/2011 02:30 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:>> Maybe something more like: >> >> 2 months development >> -rc0 goes out (master enters soft feature freeze) > > Why an rc0 at this point? 0.15-rc0 was in a bad shape because it was > forked just after heavy development (ga etc). It could be called -beta1 instead of -rc0. We just need to tag it with something. > I'd nominate release > candidates only after soft freeze, then there would not be any major > changes. Though a rc0 could attract testing efforts from outside and > for those, the earlier the better. > >> 2 weeks development in master, stabilization and careful consideration of >> new features >> -rc1 goes out (master enters hard feature freeze) >> 1 week stabilization >> -rc2 goes out >> 1 week stabilization >> -rc3 goes out, -rc3 becomes release > > So at this point master would be released? What's the difference in > time between rc3 and release? Ideally, nothing. Having an -rc3 is just a conservative mechanism to make sure that there is an absolute final call for testing before teh release. > > Overall this would only give a duty cycle of 67%. For 4 weeks total > freeze, the development would need to be 4 months for an 80% duty > cycle. But I think this version could work too. Yeah, that's more or less what I'm proposing for 1.0 :-) Regards, Anthony Liguori > >> I think a shorter cycle could work better long term. I think it needs to be >> done as part of the master branch though and I'd wait until 1.1 to implement >> it. >> >> Regards, >> >> Anthony Liguori >> >