Hi Ian,
On 27/04/18 16:34, Ian Jackson wrote:
Julien Grall writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] docs/process/xen-release-management:
Lesson to learn"):
I guess I'm being quite selfish here. I'm usually the release
technician. Doing release preparation at the last minute
On 27/04/2018, 16:29, "Julien Grall" wrote:
On 27/04/18 15:32, Ian Jackson wrote:
> George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]
docs/process/xen-release-management: Lesson to learn"):
>> How would you apply this directive to the particu
Julien Grall writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]
docs/process/xen-release-management: Lesson to learn"):
> While I understand this was not ideal, I still think it was the best
> solution we had at that time. I would be interested to know what you
> would have chosen with t
On 27/04/18 15:32, Ian Jackson wrote:
George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] docs/process/xen-release-management:
Lesson to learn"):
How would you apply this directive to the particular situation we
found ourselves in this time?
As a reminder:
* Around 3 December, we di
On 27/04/18 16:32, Ian Jackson wrote:
> George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]
> docs/process/xen-release-management: Lesson to learn"):
>> How would you apply this directive to the particular situation we
>> found ourselves in this time?
>>
>> As a
George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]
docs/process/xen-release-management: Lesson to learn"):
> How would you apply this directive to the particular situation we
> found ourselves in this time?
>
> As a reminder:
>
> * Around 3 December, we didn't thi
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The 4.10 release preparation was significantly more hairy than ideal.
> (We seem to have a good overall outcome despite, rather than because
> of, our approach.)
>
> This is the second time (at least) that we have come close to failure
> by co
Julien Grall writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]
docs/process/xen-release-management: Lesson to learn"):
> That's why testing with XSAs was requested on the security-ml before
> hand. However, this was mistakenly done on rc7 rather than rc8.
If the proposed release had been c
Hi Ian,
On 13/12/17 12:02, Ian Jackson wrote:
The 4.10 release preparation was significantly more hairy than ideal.
(We seem to have a good overall outcome despite, rather than because
of, our approach.)
This is the second time (at least) that we have come close to failure
by committing to a re
On 13/12/17 12:02, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The 4.10 release preparation was significantly more hairy than ideal.
> (We seem to have a good overall outcome despite, rather than because
> of, our approach.)
>
> This is the second time (at least) that we have come close to failure
> by committing to a re
On 13/12/17 13:02, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The 4.10 release preparation was significantly more hairy than ideal.
> (We seem to have a good overall outcome despite, rather than because
> of, our approach.)
>
> This is the second time (at least) that we have come close to failure
> by committing to a r
The 4.10 release preparation was significantly more hairy than ideal.
(We seem to have a good overall outcome despite, rather than because
of, our approach.)
This is the second time (at least) that we have come close to failure
by committing to a release date before the exact code to be released
i
12 matches
Mail list logo
