Quoting Peter Maydell (2016-06-07 13:45:06) > On 7 June 2016 at 18:29, Michael Roth <mdr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > I think it is actually bit shorter of a window this time. The last few > > releases had around 2.5 to 3 months between n-1 release and hard freeze / > > rc0 > > for n+1, but the proposed date would be just around 2 months. > > Yeah, it's a bit short because the late-breaking CVEs meant we > didn't release 2.6 until about two weeks later than we planned. > > If we want to have 2.5 months between n-1 and rc0, that would be > something like > softfreeze 5 july > hardfreeze/rc0 26 july > rc1 2 august > rc2 9 august > rc3 16 august > release 22 august (before kvm forum) if we're lucky, or > 30 august if we're not (more likely) > > [these dates are all +2 weeks on the previous suggestion.] > > > Being in late RC during KVM Forum also sounds like it could > > be productive, but I'm not sure I'd want to be in that position > > if I was Peter... > > From my POV the rc3-to-rc4 stage is not that much work, but > it's hard to predict who might be the person with the last-minute > required fix (which is usually why we end up with about a week > of slip over the theoretical schedule). The tree is not supposed > to change at that point. I can do the rc/release cutting mechanics > remotely (assuming no disasters like stolen laptops etc); how about > your part with the tarballs? Otherwise we can just do it either > before or after the conference depending on how it goes.
Same for me, should be able to kick off everything remotely. > > But I think the real problem with a schedule which expects a > release at the tail end of August is that we then only have > three and a half months left til mid-December which is in > practice the latest we want to do a release given holidays. > So we can only avoid the short dev period this time round by > having a short one next time instead. > > Maybe we could have +1 week rather than +0 or +2 (so softfreeze > 28 June, rc0 19 July, release 16 August), as you suggest. That's > currently feeling like the best compromise to me. Yah, I think I agree. We'll have to make up the 2 weeks lost at some point, but spreading it out avoids us finding ourselves in a similar situation next release. Seems like maybe there may be more work being targetted for 2.8 as well. > > thanks > -- PMM >
