[Qemu-devel] [ANNOUNCE] We are now in soft freeze for 1.6

[Qemu-devel] [ANNOUNCE] We are now in soft freeze for 1.6

[Anthony Liguori]

Hard freeze is two weeks away.

http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/1.6

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

Re: [Qemu-devel] [ANNOUNCE] We are now in soft freeze for 1.6

[Peter Maydell]

On 15 July 2013 16:15, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hard freeze is two weeks away.
>
> http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/1.6

I've just noticed that this is still inconsistent. That
page says:

"Soft feature freeze. Major features should have initial code
committed by this date."

but it links to http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/SoftFeatureFreeze
which says
"By the date of the soft feature freeze, any major feature
should have some code posted to the qemu-devel mailing list"

I'm pretty sure the latter is right (you only need code
posted, not committed) -- can we fix whichever of the two
pages is wrong, please?

thanks
-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [ANNOUNCE] We are now in soft freeze for 1.6

[Anthony Liguori]

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

> On 15 July 2013 16:15, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Hard freeze is two weeks away.
>>
>> http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/1.6
>
> I've just noticed that this is still inconsistent. That
> page says:
>
> "Soft feature freeze. Major features should have initial code
> committed by this date."
>
> but it links to http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/SoftFeatureFreeze
> which says
> "By the date of the soft feature freeze, any major feature
> should have some code posted to the qemu-devel mailing list"
>
> I'm pretty sure the latter is right (you only need code
> posted, not committed) -- can we fix whichever of the two
> pages is wrong, please?

It depends on the definition of "major".  Any *feature* should have
patches posted by soft freeze.  I guess a tiny feature would be an
exception.

For major features (things that have a high likelihood of breaking
things), the feature should have started getting merged already.

I'll update the wiki text to be clearer.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> thanks
> -- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [ANNOUNCE] We are now in soft freeze for 1.6

[Peter Maydell]

On 21 July 2013 13:52, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:
>> I've just noticed that this is still inconsistent. That
>> page says:
>>
>> "Soft feature freeze. Major features should have initial code
>> committed by this date."
>>
>> but it links to http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/SoftFeatureFreeze
>> which says
>> "By the date of the soft feature freeze, any major feature
>> should have some code posted to the qemu-devel mailing list"
>>
>> I'm pretty sure the latter is right (you only need code
>> posted, not committed) -- can we fix whichever of the two
>> pages is wrong, please?
>
> It depends on the definition of "major".  Any *feature* should have
> patches posted by soft freeze.  I guess a tiny feature would be an
> exception.
>
> For major features (things that have a high likelihood of breaking
> things), the feature should have started getting merged already.
>
> I'll update the wiki text to be clearer.

I note that http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/SoftFeatureFreeze
and http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/1.7 still disagree
about the definition of soft-freeze...

-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [ANNOUNCE] We are now in soft freeze for 1.6

[Peter Maydell]

On 21 July 2013 13:52, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:
>> I'm pretty sure the latter is right (you only need code
>> posted, not committed) -- can we fix whichever of the two
>> pages is wrong, please?
>
> It depends on the definition of "major".  Any *feature* should have
> patches posted by soft freeze.  I guess a tiny feature would be an
> exception.
>
> For major features (things that have a high likelihood of breaking
> things), the feature should have started getting merged already.

I've updated the wiki pages
http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/SoftFeatureFreeze
http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/1.7

based on this. If anybody thinks I've mangled the consensus,
let me know and I'll fix.

thanks
-- PMM