* [Qemu-devel] Proposal for 2.9 release schedule @ 2016-12-23 14:15 Paolo Bonzini 2017-01-03 15:53 ` Stefan Hajnoczi 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Paolo Bonzini @ 2016-12-23 14:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stefan Hajnoczi, Peter Maydell, qemu-devel Considering that Easter is on April 16th, we'd probably want to have the release before that date even in case of a slip. On the other hand, the Christmas / New Year break here means that we'll 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? Thanks, Paolo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for 2.9 release schedule 2016-12-23 14:15 [Qemu-devel] Proposal for 2.9 release schedule Paolo Bonzini @ 2017-01-03 15:53 ` Stefan Hajnoczi 2017-01-03 16:06 ` Paolo Bonzini 2017-03-13 18:13 ` Peter Maydell 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Stefan Hajnoczi @ 2017-01-03 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paolo Bonzini; +Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi, Peter Maydell, qemu-devel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 953 bytes --] 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 the > release before that date even in case of a slip. > > On the other hand, the Christmas / New Year break here means that we'll > 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? I would shorten the soft freeze by 1 week. Overall the 2.8 release went smoothly. We got unlucky right at the end with a release blocker but otherwise it was fine. Stefan [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for 2.9 release schedule 2017-01-03 15:53 ` Stefan Hajnoczi @ 2017-01-03 16:06 ` Paolo Bonzini 2017-01-04 14:51 ` Stefan Hajnoczi 2017-03-13 18:13 ` Peter Maydell 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Paolo Bonzini @ 2017-01-03 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 the >> release before that date even in case of a slip. >> >> On the other hand, the Christmas / New Year break here means that we'll >> 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? > > I would shorten the soft freeze by 1 week. > > 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for 2.9 release schedule 2017-01-03 16:06 ` Paolo Bonzini @ 2017-01-04 14:51 ` Stefan Hajnoczi 2017-01-06 15:12 ` Peter Maydell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Stefan Hajnoczi @ 2017-01-04 14:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paolo Bonzini; +Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi, Peter Maydell, qemu-devel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1213 bytes --] On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 05:06:13PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > 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 the > >> release before that date even in case of a slip. > >> > >> On the other hand, the Christmas / New Year break here means that we'll > >> 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? > > > > I would shorten the soft freeze by 1 week. > > > > 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? Sounds good to me. Peter? Stefan [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for 2.9 release schedule 2017-01-04 14:51 ` Stefan Hajnoczi @ 2017-01-06 15:12 ` Peter Maydell 2017-01-09 10:41 ` Stefan Hajnoczi 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Peter Maydell @ 2017-01-06 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stefan Hajnoczi; +Cc: Paolo Bonzini, Stefan Hajnoczi, qemu-devel On 4 January 2017 at 14:51, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 05:06:13PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> 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 the >> >> release before that date even in case of a slip. >> >> >> >> On the other hand, the Christmas / New Year break here means that we'll >> >> 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? >> > >> > I would shorten the soft freeze by 1 week. >> > >> > 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? > > Sounds good to me. Peter? Are we retaining the "make sure you have your pull requests on the list by the softfreeze date" rule this time around? thanks -- PMM ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for 2.9 release schedule 2017-01-06 15:12 ` Peter Maydell @ 2017-01-09 10:41 ` Stefan Hajnoczi 2017-01-09 11:11 ` Peter Maydell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Stefan Hajnoczi @ 2017-01-09 10:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Maydell; +Cc: Paolo Bonzini, Stefan Hajnoczi, qemu-devel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1619 bytes --] On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:12:28PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 4 January 2017 at 14:51, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 05:06:13PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> 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 the > >> >> release before that date even in case of a slip. > >> >> > >> >> On the other hand, the Christmas / New Year break here means that we'll > >> >> 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? > >> > > >> > I would shorten the soft freeze by 1 week. > >> > > >> > 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? > > > > Sounds good to me. Peter? > > Are we retaining the "make sure you have your pull requests on the list > by the softfreeze date" rule this time around? I hope so. It helps keep the freeze time bounded. Stefan [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for 2.9 release schedule 2017-01-09 10:41 ` Stefan Hajnoczi @ 2017-01-09 11:11 ` Peter Maydell 2017-01-09 12:27 ` Paolo Bonzini 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Peter Maydell @ 2017-01-09 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stefan Hajnoczi; +Cc: Paolo Bonzini, Stefan Hajnoczi, qemu-devel On 9 January 2017 at 10:41, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:12:28PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 4 January 2017 at 14:51, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 05:06:13PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> 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 the >> >> >> release before that date even in case of a slip. >> >> >> >> >> >> On the other hand, the Christmas / New Year break here means that we'll >> >> >> 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? >> >> > >> >> > I would shorten the soft freeze by 1 week. >> >> > >> >> > 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? >> > >> > Sounds good to me. Peter? >> >> Are we retaining the "make sure you have your pull requests on the list >> by the softfreeze date" rule this time around? > > I hope so. It helps keep the freeze time bounded. OK. The dates above work ok for me, so I've updated the wiki: http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/2.9 If we're going to standardize on the new softfreeze definition we should update http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/SoftFeatureFreeze I guess. thanks -- PMM ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for 2.9 release schedule 2017-01-09 11:11 ` Peter Maydell @ 2017-01-09 12:27 ` Paolo Bonzini 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Paolo Bonzini @ 2017-01-09 12:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Maydell, Stefan Hajnoczi; +Cc: qemu-devel, Stefan Hajnoczi On 09/01/2017 12:11, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 9 January 2017 at 10:41, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:12:28PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> On 4 January 2017 at 14:51, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 05:06:13PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>>> 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 the >>>>>>> release before that date even in case of a slip. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On the other hand, the Christmas / New Year break here means that we'll >>>>>>> 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? >>>>>> >>>>>> I would shorten the soft freeze by 1 week. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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? >>>> >>>> Sounds good to me. Peter? >>> >>> Are we retaining the "make sure you have your pull requests on the list >>> by the softfreeze date" rule this time around? >> >> I hope so. It helps keep the freeze time bounded. > > OK. The dates above work ok for me, so I've updated the wiki: > http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/2.9 > > If we're going to standardize on the new softfreeze definition we should > update http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/SoftFeatureFreeze I guess. Done, any help with the wording is welcome of course. Paolo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for 2.9 release schedule 2017-01-03 15:53 ` Stefan Hajnoczi 2017-01-03 16:06 ` Paolo Bonzini @ 2017-03-13 18:13 ` Peter Maydell 1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Peter Maydell @ 2017-03-13 18:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stefan Hajnoczi; +Cc: Paolo Bonzini, Stefan Hajnoczi, qemu-devel On 3 January 2017 at 16:53, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com> 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 the >> release before that date even in case of a slip. >> >> On the other hand, the Christmas / New Year break here means that we'll >> 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) [these should all have been 2017, heh] >> 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? > > I would shorten the soft freeze by 1 week. I hadn't noticed that this meant that we had a 1 week softfreeze period. This completely failed, partly because I didn't think we'd gone down to just 1 week, partly because I was away at a conference last week when rc0 was theoretically due, and partly because of the enormous pile of merges that needed to be done -- I only finished the merge work on the Saturday. I plan to tag rc0 tomorrow (the 14th) and push all the other dates out by a week accordingly. thanks -- PMM ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-03-13 18:13 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2016-12-23 14:15 [Qemu-devel] Proposal for 2.9 release schedule Paolo Bonzini 2017-01-03 15:53 ` Stefan Hajnoczi 2017-01-03 16:06 ` Paolo Bonzini 2017-01-04 14:51 ` Stefan Hajnoczi 2017-01-06 15:12 ` Peter Maydell 2017-01-09 10:41 ` Stefan Hajnoczi 2017-01-09 11:11 ` Peter Maydell 2017-01-09 12:27 ` Paolo Bonzini 2017-03-13 18:13 ` Peter Maydell
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).