From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:53266)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <aliguori@us.ibm.com>) id 1Tg2tl-0001Uy-BJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 19:31:38 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <aliguori@us.ibm.com>) id 1Tg2tj-0004d2-RC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 19:31:37 -0500
Received: from e28smtp02.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.2]:35534)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <aliguori@us.ibm.com>) id 1Tg0Xs-0003QV-Lj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 17:00:53 -0500
Received: from /spool/local
	by e28smtp02.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use
	Only! Violators will be prosecuted
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org> from <aliguori@us.ibm.com>;
	Wed, 5 Dec 2012 03:30:37 +0530
Received: from d28relay05.in.ibm.com (d28relay05.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.62])
	by d28dlp01.in.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19E8EE004C
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed,  5 Dec 2012 03:30:19 +0530 (IST)
Received: from d28av04.in.ibm.com (d28av04.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.66])
	by d28relay05.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id
	qB4M0hW418284730
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 03:30:43 +0530
Received: from d28av04.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d28av04.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id
	qB4M0hch007018
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 09:00:44 +1100
From: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA-1szUyDjjo_vO-Am1jyVagOvWSpoAoyMR8mi11Yo7U=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87ip8ilt75.fsf@codemonkey.ws>
	<CAAu8pHtX8i2mZmuAu10nKJt6ar3eMRZBMhuXKa+SZvT8TzXjng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFEAcA-1szUyDjjo_vO-Am1jyVagOvWSpoAoyMR8mi11Yo7U=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 16:00:37 -0600
Message-ID: <87d2yp4gvu.fsf@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] 1.4 release schedule
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>, Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:

> On 4 December 2012 18:38, Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The definition of the hard freeze bothers me. A few patches that went
>> in after 1.3-rc0 were not bug fixes but just new features, so the
>> difference between soft and hard freezes was not clear.
>
> My vote for this would be to adhere to our definition
> and only commit bugfixes.

Let's get specific.  What was committed post hard freeze that's not a
bug fix?

The only thing I'm aware of is q35.  I asked Michael not to merge that
(he planned to) prior to the hard freeze because there was a specific
change I wanted to be made.  Normally, PCI bits would go through
Michael's tree but I felt the change really needed to be made.

So I agreed to take the bits post hard freeze so the change could be
made.  This is really was an exceptional case though and I don't think
it warrants a change in the description of hard freeze.  This was all
discussed on the mailing list too FWIW.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> -- PMM