Re: [Xen-devel] RE: New Release Process

[Matt Ayres <matta@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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