From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52489)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <agraf@suse.de>) id 1WYD6M-0004lD-PV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 07:25:10 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <agraf@suse.de>) id 1WYD6D-000334-TN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 07:25:02 -0400
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:38438 helo=mx2.suse.de)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <agraf@suse.de>) id 1WYD6D-00032x-Mr
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 07:24:53 -0400
Message-ID: <53467F83.4020508@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 13:24:51 +0200
From: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFEAcA_HW3wKJLDJaFC=HU6pQebmnbO8N2-7gJH8FXbQszw-yg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA_HW3wKJLDJaFC=HU6pQebmnbO8N2-7gJH8FXbQszw-yg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we have a 2.0-rc3 ?
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <afaerber@suse.de>, Michael Roth <mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@amazon.com>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>


On 10.04.14 13:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
> So far I know of at least three fixes which should probably
> go into 2.0:
>   * my fix for the configure stack-protector checks on MacOSX
>   * MST's pull request updating the ACPI test blobs
>   * MST says we need to update the hex files for ACPI too
>     (otherwise you get a different ACPI blob depending on whether
>      your build system had iasl or not, if I understand correctly)
>
> Are there any others?
>
> So we have two choices:
>
> (A) get those fixes into git today, and tag an rc3; that
> would then need some testing time and presumably we'd hope
> to tag it as the 2.0 release on Monday or Tuesday next week
>
> (B) say that the above are not worth fixing in 2.0 proper
> and plan to do a 2.0.1 in a few weeks with the above plus
> any other breakage that people find.
>
> Opinions?

I think the best way forward is to do both. Do an rc3 with _only_ those 
patches. Wait until Tuesday and do the final GA tag there.

Then schedule a 2.0.1 in a few weeks. There will be bug fixes.

And don't apply last-minute fixes from mst in the future :).


Alex