From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49615)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1bgvcy-0003nT-RP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2016 11:16:05 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1bgvcs-0003ry-Rb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2016 11:16:03 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38568)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1bgvcs-0003rr-LJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2016 11:15:58 -0400
References: <CAFEAcA9J6Yxqqeg+BzEjNJfuX1Zr93i3797J+3QD-HXHMANUew@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160901140823.GA24262@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
	<b56e6658-33cb-2d2d-1a46-e49d7d5ab8ae@redhat.com>
	<CAFEAcA9Hxac3VEGFcq2QNAXAwvsZu=cg+vWbTVD6q0zxdx452Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <bc17f5c8-a7a0-495b-9956-ded7bf1652fe@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 17:15:55 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA9Hxac3VEGFcq2QNAXAwvsZu=cg+vWbTVD6q0zxdx452Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] proposed release timetable for 2.8
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>
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>



On 05/09/2016 17:11, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > Based also on the discussion at QEMU summit, where there was consensus
> > that three weeks between softfreeze and rc0 was too much, IMO we can
> > shorten the period to just two weeks
> >
> > * softfreeze is a deadline for _maintainers_ to post their large pull
> > requests.  Developers are unaffected, except that the maintainers will
> > be stricter.
> 
> I think there is a difference for developers, because our
> current definition (http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/SoftFeatureFreeze)
> says that "non-trivial features should have code posted to the list".
> [...] for practical purposes I don't think it makes much difference:
> if you're a dev trying to get a feature into 2.8 then you will
> need to get it all code reviewed and into the maintainer's tree
> about a week earlier than under our current longer schedule with
> a more relaxed attitude to late-feature-stuff. Describing it
> all this way might be clearer to everybody about when stuff needs
> to be done, though.

I agree.

Paolo