On 09/01/2017 12:11, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 9 January 2017 at 10:41, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> wrote: >> 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. > > 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
