On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 11:02:34AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 09:56:42AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > [...] > >> I think it's now time to plan the end game, preferably without even more > >> weeks of intense rebasing. > >> > >> Do we have consensus to move forward with Meson? If yes, I'd like to > >> propose to aim for merging as early as practical in the 5.2 cycle. > >> Rationale: rebasing build system changes on top of the Meson work is > >> probably easier than rebasing the Meson work, and avoids turning Paolo > >> into an overworked bottleneck. > >> > >> In more detail: > >> > >> 1. Pick a tentative deadline. > > > > I'd suggest we need a bare minimum of half a development cycle to. > > So if we want it tin 5.2, we need to make a strong push now and over > > next month to review it and iron out any obvious blocking testing > > problems. > > I had less than a "now and over next month" (>7 weeks!) in mind.
To be clear, I'm not recommending we wait that long - I'm just suggesting that is an upper bound after which we'd really need to wait for the dev cycle after. Ideally we would make a strong push to get it merged just 2 weeks after this release, ie by early september. > The choice of deadline is really about how much of Paolo's time we are > (and he is!) willing to spend on rebasing vs. how much risk of toothing > problems in master we are willing to accept. > > "First thing after 5.2 opens" would be ideal from a "avoid more > rebasing" point of view, but it may not be practical. > > Once the flood gates are open, we can probably just as well wait for the > initial flood to subside. All depends how quickly Paolo thinks it get to mergeable state.... Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
