On 21 July 2013 13:52, Anthony Liguori <aligu...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: >> I've just noticed that this is still inconsistent. That >> page says: >> >> "Soft feature freeze. Major features should have initial code >> committed by this date." >> >> but it links to http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/SoftFeatureFreeze >> which says >> "By the date of the soft feature freeze, any major feature >> should have some code posted to the qemu-devel mailing list" >> >> I'm pretty sure the latter is right (you only need code >> posted, not committed) -- can we fix whichever of the two >> pages is wrong, please? > > It depends on the definition of "major". Any *feature* should have > patches posted by soft freeze. I guess a tiny feature would be an > exception. > > For major features (things that have a high likelihood of breaking > things), the feature should have started getting merged already. > > I'll update the wiki text to be clearer.
I note that http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/SoftFeatureFreeze and http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/1.7 still disagree about the definition of soft-freeze... -- PMM
