xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>
To: David Vrabel <dvrabel@cantab.net>
Cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
Subject: Re: Xen 4.3 release planning proposal
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:11:31 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2ecc5ed5-a95e-40e4-9e00-8d1378ce1eef@default> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <503F463E.90505@cantab.net>

> From: David Vrabel [mailto:dvrabel@cantab.net]
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:54 AM
> To: Dan Magenheimer
> Cc: George Dunlap; xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 4.3 release planning proposal
> 
> On 29/08/12 21:53, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> >
> > Maybe it is time to move to match the well-known highly-greased
> > Linux kernel release process?  This would include, for example, a short
> > window for new functionality and a xen-next for pre-window shaking
> > out and merging (of new functionality) and testing.  As has
> > been pointed out, xen-unstable is, well, unstable for far too long.
> >
> > It may not be necessary to aggressively match Linus' 8-9 week release
> > cycle or weekly rcN releases, but the core process is known to
> > work very well, is reasonably well documented, and will be familiar
> > to many in the open source community.
> 
> I think such a system only works if you have a short release cycle.  If
> the only time to merge new features is two weeks in every 6/9 months
> then that is just far too long and is not very contributor-friendly.

That wasn't my point (though I see I wasn't very clear).

I meant that the part of the release cycle where new functionality
is accepted (the "window") should be a smaller _percentage_ of the
release cycle.  With Linux, it is about 20-25%.  For Xen it is probably
closer to 60-80%.  Once the window closes, the RC's start and new
functionality is put into "xen-next".  At the next window, the
release-Linus (George in this case) decides which functionality
in xen-next is stable enough to be pulled in during the window.

Of course, 18 months is far too long a release cycle for this approach,
and 9 months may be too long as well.  I think a target cycle
of 6 months with a "window" of 6 weeks would be a step in
the right direction
 
> Xen doesn't have the number of contributors or changes that make a Linux
> kernel style process necessary.

Personally, I think that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.  It is too hard
to use or develop on xen-unstable in part because too much is thrown in
(which, as George pointed out, is a result of developers learning that
if it doesn't go in xen-unstable, it will wait for many months).

  reply	other threads:[~2012-08-30 16:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-08-20 16:46 Xen 4.3 release planning proposal George Dunlap
2012-08-20 19:14 ` Pasi Kärkkäinen
2012-08-21 12:56   ` George Dunlap
2012-08-21 18:27     ` Pasi Kärkkäinen
2012-12-17 23:57   ` Martinx - ジェームズ
2012-12-18  7:03     ` Pasi Kärkkäinen
2012-12-18 13:37       ` Martinx - ジェームズ
2012-12-18 13:49         ` Jan Beulich
2012-08-20 20:28 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-08-21 10:06   ` George Dunlap
2012-08-21 14:26     ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-08-21 14:43 ` Jan Beulich
2012-08-21 14:36   ` Attilio Rao
2012-08-21 14:55     ` Jan Beulich
2012-08-21 15:04   ` George Dunlap
2012-08-29 20:53 ` Dan Magenheimer
2012-08-30 10:24   ` Andrew Cooper
2012-08-30 10:53   ` David Vrabel
2012-08-30 16:11     ` Dan Magenheimer [this message]
2012-08-31 11:01       ` Jan Beulich
2012-08-31 17:59         ` Dan Magenheimer
     [not found] <mailman.11058.1345490072.1399.xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
2012-08-21 14:50 ` Andres Lagar-Cavilla
2012-08-21 18:44   ` Pasi Kärkkäinen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=2ecc5ed5-a95e-40e4-9e00-8d1378ce1eef@default \
    --to=dan.magenheimer@oracle.com \
    --cc=George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com \
    --cc=dvrabel@cantab.net \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).