bullseye-backports to run other tests, so it should be good, but I'd
> > love to have wider coverage still. Maybe some CI stuff which qemu has
> > for master, if not only just before actual release.
Hi Michael,
Thank you for offering to help with the stable releases. I think i
On 05/03/2023 11.27, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Hi!
For a few qemu major releases already, we did not have any stable minor
releases.
I'd love to change that, in order to consolidate efforts and to make better
software in the end. But I need some (hopefully minor) help here.
I collected changes
Hi!
For a few qemu major releases already, we did not have any stable minor
releases.
I'd love to change that, in order to consolidate efforts and to make better
software in the end. But I need some (hopefully minor) help here.
I collected changes from qemu/master which apparently should go to
here yet...
>>
>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/128064/
>
> We don't have a clear EOL schedule for stable releases. Historically,
> stable releases only lasted until the next release cycle so in by that
> logic, 0.15 is EOL.
Unfortunately qemu(-kvm) 1.0 came too late fo
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 07:25:39AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 12/09/2011 06:01 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 10:39:37AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>FWIW in libguestfs we have such a policy. Every few weeks I evaluate
> >>_all_ commits along the developme
On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 13:55 +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 05.12.2011 21:08, schrieb Justin M. Forbes:
> > Typically I get a flurry of patches shortly after
> > a release (and they have already started for 1.0). I have tried to get
> > a .1 release out in a timely manner, and then it seems patc
On 12/09/2011 06:01 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 10:39:37AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
FWIW in libguestfs we have such a policy. Every few weeks I evaluate
_all_ commits along the development branch and cherry pick those that
meet this policy back to the stable br
t the usb-ccid CVE alone warrants a 0.15.2 of qemu
and qemu-kvm. I am surprised nothing has happened there yet...
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/128064/
We don't have a clear EOL schedule for stable releases. Historically, stable
releases only lasted until the next release cycle so
Am 05.12.2011 21:08, schrieb Justin M. Forbes:
> Typically I get a flurry of patches shortly after
> a release (and they have already started for 1.0). I have tried to get
> a .1 release out in a timely manner, and then it seems patches for
> stable become few and far between. In the 0.14 and 0.1
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 10:39:37AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> FWIW in libguestfs we have such a policy. Every few weeks I evaluate
> _all_ commits along the development branch and cherry pick those that
> meet this policy back to the stable branch, followed by making a new
> stable release
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 02:08:03PM -0600, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
> The stable tree for 1.0 has now been created and the mailing list
> exists. I am curious as to people's thoughts on how we should proceed.
> There was discussion of setting up a predictable time table for stable
&
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
> The stable tree for 1.0 has now been created and the mailing list
> exists.
Where does the stable 1.0 tree live?
Stefan
The stable tree for 1.0 has now been created and the mailing list
exists. I am curious as to people's thoughts on how we should proceed.
There was discussion of setting up a predictable time table for stable
releases, say monthly or bimonthly, though that seems a bit difficult
from past exper
13 matches
Mail list logo
