On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:12:28PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 4 January 2017 at 14:51, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> 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
