>>> On 02.01.18 at 16:07, wrote:
> I'm not sure if there has been a set time frame as a goal for x.y.z releases
> -
> from my not so close observations, they seem to be somewhat adhoc.
We're trying to get them out on a 4 month cadence, but there's
almost always a reason that causes them to be d
On Tuesday, 2 January 2018 11:54:43 PM AEDT Lars Kurth wrote:
> Hi Juergen:
>
> thank you for raising this. As far as I can tell, the switch to the
> 6-monthly release model has had some consequences, some of which were
> predicted, others were not. So, I think we should probably review the
> deci
On 02/01/18 13:54, Lars Kurth wrote:
> Hi Juergen:
>
> thank you for raising this. As far as I can tell, the switch to the 6-monthly
> release model has had some consequences, some of which were predicted, others
> were not. So, I think we should probably review the decision.
>
> Key concerns
Hi Juergen:
thank you for raising this. As far as I can tell, the switch to the 6-monthly
release model has had some consequences, some of which were predicted, others
were not. So, I think we should probably review the decision.
Key concerns raised:
• Too much work in actively maintaining 4 b
On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 10:44:04 PM AEDT George Dunlap wrote:
> On 12/19/2017 10:42 AM, Steven Haigh wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 7:47:14 PM AEDT Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 19.12.17 at 07:58, wrote:
> >>> My proposal addresses the 4.10 experience. I see the following
> >>> alter
On 12/19/2017 10:42 AM, Steven Haigh wrote:
> On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 7:47:14 PM AEDT Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 19.12.17 at 07:58, wrote:
>>> My proposal addresses the 4.10 experience. I see the following
>>> alternatives (assuming we want to keep the two releases per year
>>> scheme):
>>>
On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 7:47:14 PM AEDT Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 19.12.17 at 07:58, wrote:
> > My proposal addresses the 4.10 experience. I see the following
> > alternatives (assuming we want to keep the two releases per year
> > scheme):
> >
> > 1. Leave everything as is
> >
> >Pro
>>> On 19.12.17 at 07:58, wrote:
> My proposal addresses the 4.10 experience. I see the following
> alternatives (assuming we want to keep the two releases per year
> scheme):
>
> 1. Leave everything as is
>Pro: seems to work for the June release
>Con: release date for the December releas
On 18/12/17 21:27, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
>
> On 18/12/2017 18:32, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 18/12/17 17:38, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> Hi Juergen,
>>>
>>> On 18/12/17 16:10, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 18/12/17 16:57, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi George,
>
> On 18/12/17 14:56, G
Hi Juergen,
On 18/12/2017 18:32, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 18/12/17 17:38, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Juergen,
On 18/12/17 16:10, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 18/12/17 16:57, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi George,
On 18/12/17 14:56, George Dunlap wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 18/12/17 17:38, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
>
> On 18/12/17 16:10, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 18/12/17 16:57, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> Hi George,
>>>
>>> On 18/12/17 14:56, George Dunlap wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 14/12/17 14:13, Juergen Gro
On 12/18/2017 04:10 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 18/12/17 16:57, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi George,
>>
>> On 18/12/17 14:56, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 14/12/17 14:13, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 14/12/17 13:43, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Juergen,
On 18/12/17 16:10, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 18/12/17 16:57, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi George,
On 18/12/17 14:56, George Dunlap wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 14/12/17 14:13, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 14/12/17 13:43, Julien Grall wrote:
On 14/12/17
On 18/12/17 16:57, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi George,
>
> On 18/12/17 14:56, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 14/12/17 14:13, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 14/12/17 13:43, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 14/12/17 11:38, Juergen Gross wrote
Hi George,
On 18/12/17 14:56, George Dunlap wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 14/12/17 14:13, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 14/12/17 13:43, Julien Grall wrote:
On 14/12/17 11:38, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 14/12/17 12:28, Julien Grall wrote:
On 14/12/17 07:56, Juer
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.12.17 at 08:56, wrote:
>> 4. Should we try harder to negotiate embargo dates of security issues to
>>match the (targeted) release dates?
>
> Personally I don't think embargo dates should be made match
> release dates; if anything,
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 14/12/17 14:13, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 14/12/17 13:43, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14/12/17 11:38, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 14/12/17 12:28, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 14/12/17 07:56, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>
On 14/12/17 14:13, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 14/12/17 13:43, Julien Grall wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14/12/17 11:38, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 14/12/17 12:28, Julien Grall wrote:
On 14/12/17 07:56, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Hi all,
Hi Juergen,
I would recommend to CC c
>>> On 14.12.17 at 08:56, wrote:
> 4. Should we try harder to negotiate embargo dates of security issues to
>match the (targeted) release dates?
Personally I don't think embargo dates should be made match
release dates; if anything, the other way around. Holding back
security issues is just b
>>> On 14.12.17 at 12:38, wrote:
> Next try:
>
> 2. Should we have released 4.10 without those late security patches,
>resulting in the need for 4.10.1 at once?
We don't make point releases just for security issues on other
branches - why would we do so right after a .0 release? We
really ha
On 14/12/17 13:43, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 14/12/17 11:38, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 14/12/17 12:28, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14/12/17 07:56, Juergen Gross wrote:
Hi all,
>>>
>>> Hi Juergen,
>>>
>>> I would recommend to CC committers on that thread, so your thread don't
>>> g
On 14/12/17 11:38, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 14/12/17 12:28, Julien Grall wrote:
On 14/12/17 07:56, Juergen Gross wrote:
Hi all,
Hi Juergen,
I would recommend to CC committers on that thread, so your thread don't
get lost in the xen-devel meanders :).
with 4.10 more or less finished it i
On 14/12/17 12:28, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 14/12/17 07:56, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> Hi all,
>
> Hi Juergen,
>
> I would recommend to CC committers on that thread, so your thread don't
> get lost in the xen-devel meanders :).
>
>> with 4.10 more or less finished it is time to plan for the n
On 14/12/17 07:56, Juergen Gross wrote:
Hi all,
Hi Juergen,
I would recommend to CC committers on that thread, so your thread don't
get lost in the xen-devel meanders :).
with 4.10 more or less finished it is time to plan for the next release
4.11. Since 4.7 we are using a 6 month releas
Hi all,
with 4.10 more or less finished it is time to plan for the next release
4.11. Since 4.7 we are using a 6 month release cycle [1] targeting to
release in June and December.
While this worked reasonably well for 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 we had some
difficulties with 4.10: bad luck with security pat
25 matches
Mail list logo
