On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 02:07:05PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 09:36:03PM +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > The 1.0.3 release was on the 5th March, and right now we have > > accumulated 'only' 150 commits since the release. Based on this I > > would suggest to wait a couple of weeks before to enter a freeze > > for the following release. This mean we drift from the usual end > > of month, but the ratio of freeze/devel will remain more or less > > constant as well as the expected size of change in the new release. > > So if this is fine I would suggest to enter freeze for 1.0.4 > > on the 5th of April for a release around the 12. Unless there is > > a reason to push a release earlier, > > I would prefer it if we just stuck to a release on/near April 1st > regardless of how many changes have accumulated. IMHO a predictable > release date once a month on/near 1st of the month is more important > than the amount of code that has been changed.
to release on the 1st we would have to freeze this Monday meaning only 2.5 weeks of development after a freeze for 1.3 which took 1.5 weeks. I was considering the ratio of freeze time vs. open time too. We could try to freeze on the 29 to try to ship on the 5th April one month after the 1.0.3, Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Open Source and Standards, Red Hat veill...@redhat.com | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
