On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 04:11:43PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 5 September 2016 at 15:47, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Based also on the discussion at QEMU summit, where there was consensus
> > that three weeks between softfreeze and rc0 was too much, IMO we can
> > shorten the period to just two
On 6 September 2016 at 13:40, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Peter Maydell writes:
>
>> On 6 September 2016 at 11:33, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> Am 05.09.2016 um 13:10 hat Peter Maydell geschrieben:
ie if we were stricter about "no commits unless they're fixes for
regressions, fixes for things
Peter Maydell writes:
> On 6 September 2016 at 11:33, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 05.09.2016 um 13:10 hat Peter Maydell geschrieben:
>>> ie if we were stricter about "no commits unless they're fixes for
>>> regressions, fixes for things new in this release or security fixes",
>>> would this reduce t
On 6 September 2016 at 11:33, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 05.09.2016 um 13:10 hat Peter Maydell geschrieben:
>> ie if we were stricter about "no commits unless they're fixes for
>> regressions, fixes for things new in this release or security fixes",
>> would this reduce the number of commits we do pos
Am 05.09.2016 um 13:10 hat Peter Maydell geschrieben:
> On 1 September 2016 at 12:18, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > I know 2.7 isn't quite out the door yet, but I figured we should
> > kick off the discussion of 2.8's schedule. At the QEMU Summit there
> > was some discussion on how we're doing with re
On 06/09/2016 04:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Based also on the discussion at QEMU summit, where there was consensus
> > that three weeks between softfreeze and rc0 was too much, IMO we can
> > shorten the period to just two weeks
>
> Do we intend to strengthen the soft freeze definition th
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 04:47:11PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 01/09/2016 16:08, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > I suggest we do the schedule above with a firm hardfreeze deadline where
> > no more feature pull requests are allowed. This means a 2 week
> > softfreeze and time before -rc0 for
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 11:38:06AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 01.09.2016 um 16:08 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben:
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 12:18:10PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > I know 2.7 isn't quite out the door yet, but I figured we should
> > > kick off the discussion of 2.8's sche
On 05/09/2016 17:11, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > Based also on the discussion at QEMU summit, where there was consensus
> > that three weeks between softfreeze and rc0 was too much, IMO we can
> > shorten the period to just two weeks
> >
> > * softfreeze is a deadline for _maintainers_ to post their
On 5 September 2016 at 15:47, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Based also on the discussion at QEMU summit, where there was consensus
> that three weeks between softfreeze and rc0 was too much, IMO we can
> shorten the period to just two weeks
>
> * softfreeze is a deadline for _maintainers_ to post their l
On 01/09/2016 16:08, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> I suggest we do the schedule above with a firm hardfreeze deadline where
> no more feature pull requests are allowed. This means a 2 week
> softfreeze and time before -rc0 for the maintainer to merge and test
> pull requests:
>
> 2016-10-25 softfree
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 12:18:10PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> I know 2.7 isn't quite out the door yet, but I figured we should
> kick off the discussion of 2.8's schedule. At the QEMU Summit there
> was some discussion on how we're doing with releases, and I think
> the consensus view was that w
Peter Maydell writes:
> On 1 September 2016 at 12:18, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> I know 2.7 isn't quite out the door yet, but I figured we should
>> kick off the discussion of 2.8's schedule. At the QEMU Summit there
>> was some discussion on how we're doing with releases, and I think
>> the consen
On 1 September 2016 at 12:18, Peter Maydell wrote:
> I know 2.7 isn't quite out the door yet, but I figured we should
> kick off the discussion of 2.8's schedule. At the QEMU Summit there
> was some discussion on how we're doing with releases, and I think
> the consensus view was that we should tr
Am 01.09.2016 um 16:08 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 12:18:10PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > I know 2.7 isn't quite out the door yet, but I figured we should
> > kick off the discussion of 2.8's schedule. At the QEMU Summit there
> > was some discussion on how we're
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 12:18:10PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> I know 2.7 isn't quite out the door yet, but I figured we should
> kick off the discussion of 2.8's schedule. At the QEMU Summit there
> was some discussion on how we're doing with releases, and I think
> the consensus view was that w
I know 2.7 isn't quite out the door yet, but I figured we should
kick off the discussion of 2.8's schedule. At the QEMU Summit there
was some discussion on how we're doing with releases, and I think
the consensus view was that we should try to cut down the softfreeze
period and also be stricter abo
17 matches
Mail list logo
