Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for 2.9 release schedule
On 3 January 2017 at 16:53, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 03:15:58PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Considering that Easter is on April 16th, we'd probably want to have the >> release before that date even in case of a slip. >> >> On the other hand, the Christmas / New Year break here means that we'll >> have to make the development time 1-2 week shorter in practice. >> >> 2016-02-21 2.9 soft freeze >> 2016-03-07 hard freeze / rc0 >> 2016-03-28 rc3 (+3 weeks) >> 2016-04-04 rc4 or release >> 2016-04-11 release (if rc4) [these should all have been 2017, heh] >> One possibility is to make soft freeze happen a few days later. >> Peter/Stefan, how did the experiment go with the new rules for soft >> freeze? Is it worth repeating it for 2.9 and would it make sense to >> shorten soft freeze given the new rules? > > I would shorten the soft freeze by 1 week. I hadn't noticed that this meant that we had a 1 week softfreeze period. This completely failed, partly because I didn't think we'd gone down to just 1 week, partly because I was away at a conference last week when rc0 was theoretically due, and partly because of the enormous pile of merges that needed to be done -- I only finished the merge work on the Saturday. I plan to tag rc0 tomorrow (the 14th) and push all the other dates out by a week accordingly. thanks -- PMM
Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for 2.9 release schedule
On 09/01/2017 12:11, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 9 January 2017 at 10:41, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:12:28PM +, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> On 4 January 2017 at 14:51, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 05:06:13PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 03/01/2017 16:53, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 03:15:58PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> Considering that Easter is on April 16th, we'd probably want to have the >>> release before that date even in case of a slip. >>> >>> On the other hand, the Christmas / New Year break here means that we'll >>> have to make the development time 1-2 week shorter in practice. >>> >>> 2016-02-21 2.9 soft freeze >>> 2016-03-07 hard freeze / rc0 >>> 2016-03-28 rc3 (+3 weeks) >>> 2016-04-04 rc4 or release >>> 2016-04-11 release (if rc4) >>> >>> One possibility is to make soft freeze happen a few days later. >>> Peter/Stefan, how did the experiment go with the new rules for soft >>> freeze? Is it worth repeating it for 2.9 and would it make sense to >>> shorten soft freeze given the new rules? >> >> I would shorten the soft freeze by 1 week. >> >> Overall the 2.8 release went smoothly. We got unlucky right at the end >> with a release blocker but otherwise it was fine. > > Then what about soft freeze on 2016-02-28? Sounds good to me. Peter? >>> >>> Are we retaining the "make sure you have your pull requests on the list >>> by the softfreeze date" rule this time around? >> >> I hope so. It helps keep the freeze time bounded. > > OK. The dates above work ok for me, so I've updated the wiki: > http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/2.9 > > If we're going to standardize on the new softfreeze definition we should > update http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/SoftFeatureFreeze I guess. Done, any help with the wording is welcome of course. Paolo
Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for 2.9 release schedule
On 9 January 2017 at 10:41, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:12:28PM +, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 4 January 2017 at 14:51, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 05:06:13PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> On 03/01/2017 16:53, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >> >> > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 03:15:58PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> >> Considering that Easter is on April 16th, we'd probably want to have >> >> >> the >> >> >> release before that date even in case of a slip. >> >> >> >> >> >> On the other hand, the Christmas / New Year break here means that we'll >> >> >> have to make the development time 1-2 week shorter in practice. >> >> >> >> >> >> 2016-02-21 2.9 soft freeze >> >> >> 2016-03-07 hard freeze / rc0 >> >> >> 2016-03-28 rc3 (+3 weeks) >> >> >> 2016-04-04 rc4 or release >> >> >> 2016-04-11 release (if rc4) >> >> >> >> >> >> One possibility is to make soft freeze happen a few days later. >> >> >> Peter/Stefan, how did the experiment go with the new rules for soft >> >> >> freeze? Is it worth repeating it for 2.9 and would it make sense to >> >> >> shorten soft freeze given the new rules? >> >> > >> >> > I would shorten the soft freeze by 1 week. >> >> > >> >> > Overall the 2.8 release went smoothly. We got unlucky right at the end >> >> > with a release blocker but otherwise it was fine. >> >> >> >> Then what about soft freeze on 2016-02-28? >> > >> > Sounds good to me. Peter? >> >> Are we retaining the "make sure you have your pull requests on the list >> by the softfreeze date" rule this time around? > > I hope so. It helps keep the freeze time bounded. OK. The dates above work ok for me, so I've updated the wiki: http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/2.9 If we're going to standardize on the new softfreeze definition we should update http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/SoftFeatureFreeze I guess. thanks -- PMM
Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for 2.9 release schedule
On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:12:28PM +, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 4 January 2017 at 14:51, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 05:06:13PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> On 03/01/2017 16:53, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > >> > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 03:15:58PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> >> Considering that Easter is on April 16th, we'd probably want to have the > >> >> release before that date even in case of a slip. > >> >> > >> >> On the other hand, the Christmas / New Year break here means that we'll > >> >> have to make the development time 1-2 week shorter in practice. > >> >> > >> >> 2016-02-21 2.9 soft freeze > >> >> 2016-03-07 hard freeze / rc0 > >> >> 2016-03-28 rc3 (+3 weeks) > >> >> 2016-04-04 rc4 or release > >> >> 2016-04-11 release (if rc4) > >> >> > >> >> One possibility is to make soft freeze happen a few days later. > >> >> Peter/Stefan, how did the experiment go with the new rules for soft > >> >> freeze? Is it worth repeating it for 2.9 and would it make sense to > >> >> shorten soft freeze given the new rules? > >> > > >> > I would shorten the soft freeze by 1 week. > >> > > >> > Overall the 2.8 release went smoothly. We got unlucky right at the end > >> > with a release blocker but otherwise it was fine. > >> > >> Then what about soft freeze on 2016-02-28? > > > > Sounds good to me. Peter? > > Are we retaining the "make sure you have your pull requests on the list > by the softfreeze date" rule this time around? I hope so. It helps keep the freeze time bounded. Stefan signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for 2.9 release schedule
On 4 January 2017 at 14:51, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 05:06:13PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> On 03/01/2017 16:53, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >> > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 03:15:58PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> Considering that Easter is on April 16th, we'd probably want to have the >> >> release before that date even in case of a slip. >> >> >> >> On the other hand, the Christmas / New Year break here means that we'll >> >> have to make the development time 1-2 week shorter in practice. >> >> >> >> 2016-02-21 2.9 soft freeze >> >> 2016-03-07 hard freeze / rc0 >> >> 2016-03-28 rc3 (+3 weeks) >> >> 2016-04-04 rc4 or release >> >> 2016-04-11 release (if rc4) >> >> >> >> One possibility is to make soft freeze happen a few days later. >> >> Peter/Stefan, how did the experiment go with the new rules for soft >> >> freeze? Is it worth repeating it for 2.9 and would it make sense to >> >> shorten soft freeze given the new rules? >> > >> > I would shorten the soft freeze by 1 week. >> > >> > Overall the 2.8 release went smoothly. We got unlucky right at the end >> > with a release blocker but otherwise it was fine. >> >> Then what about soft freeze on 2016-02-28? > > Sounds good to me. Peter? Are we retaining the "make sure you have your pull requests on the list by the softfreeze date" rule this time around? thanks -- PMM
Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for 2.9 release schedule
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 05:06:13PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 03/01/2017 16:53, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 03:15:58PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> Considering that Easter is on April 16th, we'd probably want to have the > >> release before that date even in case of a slip. > >> > >> On the other hand, the Christmas / New Year break here means that we'll > >> have to make the development time 1-2 week shorter in practice. > >> > >> 2016-02-21 2.9 soft freeze > >> 2016-03-07 hard freeze / rc0 > >> 2016-03-28 rc3 (+3 weeks) > >> 2016-04-04 rc4 or release > >> 2016-04-11 release (if rc4) > >> > >> One possibility is to make soft freeze happen a few days later. > >> Peter/Stefan, how did the experiment go with the new rules for soft > >> freeze? Is it worth repeating it for 2.9 and would it make sense to > >> shorten soft freeze given the new rules? > > > > I would shorten the soft freeze by 1 week. > > > > Overall the 2.8 release went smoothly. We got unlucky right at the end > > with a release blocker but otherwise it was fine. > > Then what about soft freeze on 2016-02-28? Sounds good to me. Peter? Stefan signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for 2.9 release schedule
On 03/01/2017 16:53, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 03:15:58PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Considering that Easter is on April 16th, we'd probably want to have the >> release before that date even in case of a slip. >> >> On the other hand, the Christmas / New Year break here means that we'll >> have to make the development time 1-2 week shorter in practice. >> >> 2016-02-21 2.9 soft freeze >> 2016-03-07 hard freeze / rc0 >> 2016-03-28 rc3 (+3 weeks) >> 2016-04-04 rc4 or release >> 2016-04-11 release (if rc4) >> >> One possibility is to make soft freeze happen a few days later. >> Peter/Stefan, how did the experiment go with the new rules for soft >> freeze? Is it worth repeating it for 2.9 and would it make sense to >> shorten soft freeze given the new rules? > > I would shorten the soft freeze by 1 week. > > Overall the 2.8 release went smoothly. We got unlucky right at the end > with a release blocker but otherwise it was fine. Then what about soft freeze on 2016-02-28? Thanks, Paolo
Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for 2.9 release schedule
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 03:15:58PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Considering that Easter is on April 16th, we'd probably want to have the > release before that date even in case of a slip. > > On the other hand, the Christmas / New Year break here means that we'll > have to make the development time 1-2 week shorter in practice. > > 2016-02-21 2.9 soft freeze > 2016-03-07 hard freeze / rc0 > 2016-03-28 rc3 (+3 weeks) > 2016-04-04 rc4 or release > 2016-04-11 release (if rc4) > > One possibility is to make soft freeze happen a few days later. > Peter/Stefan, how did the experiment go with the new rules for soft > freeze? Is it worth repeating it for 2.9 and would it make sense to > shorten soft freeze given the new rules? I would shorten the soft freeze by 1 week. Overall the 2.8 release went smoothly. We got unlucky right at the end with a release blocker but otherwise it was fine. Stefan signature.asc Description: PGP signature
