Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] 1.4 release schedule

[Blue Swirl]

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> wrote:
> Am 05.12.2012 20:58, schrieb Blue Swirl:
>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Hans de Goede <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/05/2012 08:28 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Anthony Liguori <address@hidden>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter Maydell <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4 December 2012 18:38, Blue Swirl <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The definition of the hard freeze bothers me. A few patches that went
>>>>>>> in after 1.3-rc0 were not bug fixes but just new features, so the
>>>>>>> difference between soft and hard freezes was not clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My vote for this would be to adhere to our definition
>>>>>> and only commit bugfixes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's get specific.  What was committed post hard freeze that's not a
>>>>> bug fix?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> d3067b0 Documentation: Update image format information
>>>> a13e5e0 Documentation: Update block cache mode information
>>>> 044d003 qemu-tech.texi: update implemented xtensa features list
>>>
>>>
>>> Adding missing / updating docs to be more accurate is a bug fix,
>>> and one with a very low chance of causing regressions at that.
>>
>> I don't think they are bug fixes but improvements to documentation
>> features. But I agree patches only touching documentation, comment and
>> string contents could be exempted.
>
> Actually these patches contain changes where the documentation didn't
> match the implementation. In other words, the documentation was indeed
> buggy.
>
> They also added some missing things, but as you said, improving
> documentation during the hard freeze isn't a bad thing anyway.
>
>>>> 74c856e tests: add thread pool unit tests
>>>> b2ea25d tests: add AioContext unit tests
>
> And the same is true for tests. They can only improve the release.
>
>> 1bc6b70 block: add bdrv_reopen() support for raw hdev, floppy, and cdrom
>
> Bug fix. Live commit on block devices was broken because the (already
> implemented) callbacks accidentally weren't added to all BlockDriver
> structs, but only to the 'file' one.
>
> I'll admit that the commit message doesn't make this very clear, but
> anyway you should probably trust subsystem maintainers a bit more that
> they know what they are doing.

I'm not objecting to committing patches like these. The description of
hard freeze just should take these into account, something like:

"After the hard feature freeze, the master branch in git is no longer
open for general development. Only bug fixes and improvements to
documentation will be accepted until the next release. Changes to
strings, comments and tests may be considered if they improve the
release."

>
> Kevin