On 03/07/18 12:07, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 06:03:39PM +0000, Lars Kurth wrote: >> We then had a discussion around why the positive benefits didn't materialize: >> * Andrew and a few other believe that the model isn't broken, but that the >> issue is with how we >> develop. In other words, moving to a 9 months model will *not* fix the >> underlying issues, but >> merely provide an incentive not to fix them. >> * Issues highlighted were: >> * 2-3 months stabilizing period is too long > > I think one of the goals with the 6 month release cycle was to shrink > the stabilizing period, but it didn't turn that way, and the > stabilizing period is quite similar with a 6 or a 9 month release > cycle.
I guess that is to be expected. Its not as if OSSTEST would run only during the stabilizing period. The stabilizing period will be used to catch the bugs introduced since the last successful OSSTEST run (which shouldn't be older than about one month) and to find some rarely triggering bugs, which could easily be present in older releases, too (e.g. the hypercall buffer issue found only now). <sarcasm> This would lead to the conclusion that the stabilizing period can be made shorter only by shortening the development period to less than the average time between OSSTEST pushs. Or IOW: we can maximize the ratio development/stabilizing by making the development period as long as possible. </sarcasm> Juergen _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
