qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] QEMU 0.14.0 release plan


From: Anthony Liguori
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] QEMU 0.14.0 release plan
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:29:22 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.10

On 11/29/2010 12:10 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 29.11.2010, at 18:42, Anthony Liguori wrote:

Hi,

0.13 was a mess of a release (largely due to my lack of time) and I'd like to 
get us back onto a predictable schedule.

Here's what I propose:

12/6 - fork off stable-0.14 tree; simultaneously release qemu-0.14.0-rc0

For the stable-0.14 tree, I'd like to have Justin be in charge of collecting patches.  
For stable-0.14 submissions, patches (or pull requests) specifically marked as [STABLE 
0.14] should be sent to the mailing list that are tested against that tree.  Sending a 
patch to against master with a comment saying "this should probably go to stable 
too" is not enough.

12/10 - release qemu-0.14.0-rc1

12/15 - release qemu-0.14.0-rc2; this should be the final release candidate 
with no changes make for GA other than a version bump

12/17 - release qemu-0.14.0

Post qemu-0.14.0, Justin will handle the stable tree and subsequent stable 
releases.

The rules for stable will continue to be what they are now.  Only bug fixes 
that are patches committed in master are candidates for stable (except in rare 
circumstances where that is not viable).

I think we should also try to implement an Ack process for stable.  For 
instance, I think it would make sense for Justin to send out stable patch 
candidates regularly and require 3 community Acked-by's for the patch to go 
into stable.  I'm not sure if this is too much process but by the same token, 
as long as we full the above rule, this should be a trivial step for folks to 
follow.
3 is quite a lot.

Is 2 just right?

Thoughts?
Please set up a mailing list we can just CC for stable candidates, so they 
don't get lost. Motivation for keeping track of stable stuff differs between 
developers and it's essential to make the kick-off easily accessible. It's 
worked out very well for Linux, so why not for us?

Is the desire to filter mail or have private discussions that are not on qemu-devel?

If it's the former, a [STABLE] tag in the subject would work just as well. If it's the later, I think it runs contrary to the goal of getting more people involved in stable.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

Alex





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]