From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:57116) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SawXa-0003DT-A4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 18:11:23 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SawXY-0003Yk-O7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 18:11:21 -0400 Received: from mail-bk0-f45.google.com ([209.85.214.45]:54714) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SawXY-0003YP-HR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 18:11:20 -0400 Received: by bkwj10 with SMTP id j10so3047630bkw.4 for ; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 15:11:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4FCA8E86.4000808@codemonkey.ws> References: <4FC9E241.5020305@codemonkey.ws> <4FCA8E86.4000808@codemonkey.ws> Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 23:11:17 +0100 Message-ID: From: Peter Maydell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] QEMU 1.2.0 Release Schedule List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Blue Swirl , qemu-devel On 2 June 2012 23:07, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 06/03/2012 04:16 AM, Blue Swirl wrote: >> I think the previous freeze was a bit long, mainly the problem is how >> to handle merging of different development trees (QOM vs. PPC for >> example). So 2,5 weeks could be nice. > > Yes, I feel it was a little long also. I agree that the period when master was closed was too long, but if we shorten the freeze period will we still have time to collect all the bugfixes that crop up? One option would be to decouple these two things by actually branching for release at some point so we can reopen master before release. -- PMM