From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41465) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cORbQ-0001hd-AH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2017 11:06:21 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cORbM-0000eC-Va for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2017 11:06:20 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47120) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cORbM-0000e5-PW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2017 11:06:16 -0500 References: <20170103155347.GF14707@stefanha-x1.localdomain> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <68e906ee-5604-644c-78cd-d39f0d164406@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 17:06:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170103155347.GF14707@stefanha-x1.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for 2.9 release schedule List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , Peter Maydell , qemu-devel On 03/01/2017 16:53, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 03:15:58PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Considering that Easter is on April 16th, we'd probably want to have t= he >> release before that date even in case of a slip. >> >> On the other hand, the Christmas / New Year break here means that we'l= l >> have to make the development time 1-2 week shorter in practice. >> >> 2016-02-21 2.9 soft freeze >> 2016-03-07 hard freeze / rc0 >> 2016-03-28 rc3 (+3 weeks) >> 2016-04-04 rc4 or release >> 2016-04-11 release (if rc4) >> >> One possibility is to make soft freeze happen a few days later. >> Peter/Stefan, how did the experiment go with the new rules for soft >> freeze? Is it worth repeating it for 2.9 and would it make sense to >> shorten soft freeze given the new rules? >=20 > I would shorten the soft freeze by 1 week. >=20 > Overall the 2.8 release went smoothly. We got unlucky right at the end > with a release blocker but otherwise it was fine. Then what about soft freeze on 2016-02-28? Thanks, Paolo