| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] RE: New Release Process
Ian Pratt wrote:
I was hoping you could clarify what the decisions were for the new
release process that you proposed at the Winter XenSummit.
We decided to try to aim for ~6 week intervals for 3.0.x
releases, stablizing the tree in -unstable then doing the
release and sweeping the code into 3.0-testing. We'll then
try and backport critical fixes from -unstable into
3.0-testing and spin new 3.0.x-y build numbers as required.
Any similarity to the Linux process is purely intentional :)
Here's my thoughts on how we should kick-off with the new release
process:
It's been over 6 weeks since the 3.0.0 release, and the -unstable tree
is actually looking pretty good right now -- two of the bugs I mentioned
yesterday are now fixed.
My current inclination is to call a 3.0.1 release Friday/Saturday and
sweep the tree into -testing. Monday morning we'd then incorporate hvm
and the 2.6.15 tree and work flat out to get that fully tested and
stabilized ASAP, so SuSE can pick it up for SLES10.
Most of the bugs I have encountered have been fixed and -unstable is
running fairly stable. I still experience the bug in bugzilla id # 487
(No space left on device).
What do you think? Should we stick with 2.6.15 or go to 2.6.16-rc1 ?
If my vote counts, I say 2.6.16-rc1 :)
Any reason not to call 3.0.1 now? There are a load of bug fixes and
improvements over 3.0.0.
I'd say 3.0.1 is required as -unstable has essentially become
3.0-testing over the past few weeks. I'd like to see a tree where
-unstable is truly unstable and not the most stable.
Thank you,
Matt Ayres
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home