From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?windows-1252?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=E9?= Subject: Re: [xen 4.6 retrospective] [urgent] rename "freeze" window and make release branch as soon as possible after RC1 Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 12:57:46 +0200 Message-ID: <55C48F2A.2030400@citrix.com> References: <7E9B07F9-2704-4A10-9D7C-F71689B399E1@gmail.com> <4A8A7422-12B0-492F-BA67-6DD9489DDE4B@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1ZNfLe-0004x5-UR for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 10:58:03 +0000 In-Reply-To: <4A8A7422-12B0-492F-BA67-6DD9489DDE4B@gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Lars Kurth , xen devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org El 05/08/15 a les 11.22, Lars Kurth ha escrit: > This is one item of feedback, which I believe is a quick win for us. This is one piece of feedback from a list of items that have during the last few weeks been raised with me personally, either during face-2-face conversations in a private e-mail thread. See http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-08/msg00173.html for information on the retrospective > > > = Issue / Observation = > The name "freeze" window/period - aka the time period from when we "feature freeze" until we branch master and/or make the release leads some contributors to mistakenly assume that development for the next release stops. I saw a few mails on xen-devel@ recently, pointing out to contributors that development does not stop during "freeze". Chatting to Ian Campbell, he mentioned that he replied to several different people who said they were waiting for the tree to reopen. Maybe choosing a better name will help. > > In addition, we used to branch master a lot earlier I believe up to Xen 4.1 (around RC2 or RC3). At some point we started branching master when we release. I do not know why we changed, but it seems we did not have any issues branching master around RC2 or RC3. Branching earlier, would mean that contributors do not have to carry patches for as long as they do now, and the risk of having to rebase patches several times is lower. > > = Possible Solution / Improvement = > Change Terminology: > * Keep "Feature Freeze" as is +1 > * Rename "Freeze Window/Period" to "Stabilisation Window/Period" or something similar -1. IMHO all projects I work with use the "freeze" terminology, changing it to something else is just going to confuse people. > * Make clear that "Stabilisation Window/Period" != no development in the "Development Update x.y mail template" +1 Roger.