From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44400) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cQZ2o-0005yq-9M for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 09 Jan 2017 07:27:23 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cQZ2l-000095-5n for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 09 Jan 2017 07:27:22 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-x244.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::244]:36119) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cQZ2k-00008Z-V0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 09 Jan 2017 07:27:19 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-x244.google.com with SMTP id r126so1475058wmr.3 for ; Mon, 09 Jan 2017 04:27:18 -0800 (PST) Sender: Paolo Bonzini References: <20170103155347.GF14707@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <68e906ee-5604-644c-78cd-d39f0d164406@redhat.com> <20170104145133.GD8194@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <20170109104143.GB30228@stefanha-x1.localdomain> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <7bcc9ad8-6538-beeb-e1d4-f84f4d5a5eab@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 13:27:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for 2.9 release schedule List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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 wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:12:28PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> On 4 January 2017 at 14:51, Stefan Hajnoczi 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