On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: > On 08/12/2011 03:46 PM, Blue Swirl wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Gerd Hoffmann<kra...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>>>> In general the idea is OK. Especially soft freeze could solve problems >>>>> like those qemu-ga inclusion had. >>>>> >>>>> Two weeks for soft freeze would be close to OK but I think a month of >>>>> hard freeze is too long. With the previous releases, the problems in >>>>> stable were ironed out within a week or two. How about 2 + 2? >>>> >>>> I feel like 2 weeks was too short for this release and releases in the >>>> past. >>> >>> Well, one reason for the release process not being that smooth is that a >>> big >>> pile of stuff was merged just before 0.15-rc0. First because there was a >>> noticable backlog due to maintainers vacation, and second because a bunch >>> of >>> people wanted there stuff be merged for 0.15. >>> >>> I think two weeks soft freeze and two weeks hard freeze should work >>> reasonable well. I think shorter release cycles will help too, so the >>> pressure to get stuff in before the freeze is lower as the following >>> release >>> isn't that far away. >>> >>> So how about this: >>> >>> - roughly four weeks development phase. >>> - two weeks soft freeze (aka no big stuff). >>> - two weeks hard freeze (aka bugfixes only). >> >> This 50% duty cycle would mean that for half of the time, people only >> work within their forked trees and then try to merge these forks. I >> think the rate should be something like 80% merging, 20% freeze, which >> (with one month freeze) would be close to current speed of two >> releases per year. >> >> I agree releasing more often is better, but for that to work, I'd go >> for something like: >> - 2 months development >> - two weeks soft freeze >> - fork stable rc0, release after 2 to 4 weeks > > Maybe something more like: > > 2 months development > -rc0 goes out (master enters soft feature freeze)
Why an rc0 at this point? 0.15-rc0 was in a bad shape because it was forked just after heavy development (ga etc). I'd nominate release candidates only after soft freeze, then there would not be any major changes. Though a rc0 could attract testing efforts from outside and for those, the earlier the better. > 2 weeks development in master, stabilization and careful consideration of > new features > -rc1 goes out (master enters hard feature freeze) > 1 week stabilization > -rc2 goes out > 1 week stabilization > -rc3 goes out, -rc3 becomes release So at this point master would be released? What's the difference in time between rc3 and release? Overall this would only give a duty cycle of 67%. For 4 weeks total freeze, the development would need to be 4 months for an 80% duty cycle. But I think this version could work too. > I think a shorter cycle could work better long term. I think it needs to be > done as part of the master branch though and I'd wait until 1.1 to implement > it. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori >
