From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58033) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b0lnJ-00049T-Oj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 May 2016 04:16:31 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b0lnE-000110-Es for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 May 2016 04:16:29 -0400 Received: from e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com ([195.75.94.108]:46533) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b0lnE-00010A-3X for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 May 2016 04:16:24 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 12 May 2016 09:16:20 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by d06dlp02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC4E12190046 for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 09:15:50 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.216]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u4C8GFLL15794660 for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 08:16:15 GMT Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u4C8GDIA020028 for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 02:16:14 -0600 References: <1462812240-31204-1-git-send-email-aurelien@aurel32.net> <5730CE8B.1000203@weilnetz.de> <573387F9.8080304@de.ibm.com> <57343365.3020603@de.ibm.com> <20160512100650.3dcafe3a.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> From: Christian Borntraeger Message-ID: <57343BCC.1000208@de.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:16:12 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160512100650.3dcafe3a.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-mips: fix call to memset in soft reset code List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Cornelia Huck Cc: Peter Maydell , Stefan Weil , Leon Alrae , QEMU Developers , Aurelien Jarno On 05/12/2016 10:06 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Thu, 12 May 2016 09:40:21 +0200 > Christian Borntraeger wrote: > >> Maybe a topic for this years QEMU summit could be to talk about >> release process and release criterias. > > +1 to that. > >> We could >> a: allow more patches , e.g. I thing that this patch would be have >> been taken in the Linux kernel a day before the release, see for >> example what is applied 4 days before a release as network fixes: >> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=4d8bbbff1227bbb27fdb02b6db17f080c06eedad >> 22 files changed, 258 insertions, 86 deletions > > Personally, I would probably go for something between applying this > patch and that networking pull :) > >> b: as we are strict and only apply hand selected patches, regressions are >> very unlikely, so we could release sooner. For example the CVE fixes could >> have just been taken and rc5 being released as final. (which we did anyway >> but 3 days later) >> >> c: we consider everything fine and keep the process >> >> d: better ideas > > One thing I've noticed is that softfreeze/early hardfreeze qemus often > seem more unstable than versions earlier in the development cycle - > probably because people panic and rush to get code in for the release. > I don't know if stricter rules/enforcement of what is supposed to go in > during softfreeze/hardfreeze would help here. Yes, there are some problems here. But I fully agree with Peter. We really do need more infrastructure and people to - maintain stable release much more often and for more than one release (that would allow to be less strict before a release) - have something like qemu-next - have something like kbuild test robot (aka 0-Day) - have releases more often (to reduce the pressure to rush in) Christian