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

["Wahlig, Elsie" <elsie.wahlig@xxxxxxx>]

Ian, 

I agree with your thoughts here.  The changes are orthogonal.  
I think you can go straight to 2.6.16-rcX.

Elsie  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ian Pratt
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 5:34 PM
> To: Nakajima, Jun; Anthony Liguori; xen-devel
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] RE: New Release Process
> 
>  
> > I think it would be better if we incorporate them one by one, 
> > not them together on the _same_ day (I doubt you are doing 
> > that, though), because we can debug effectively focusing on 
> > fewer problems. For example, 1. hvm, 2. sanity testing (a day 
> > or two), 3. 2.6.15 or 2.6.16-rcX
> 
> Normally I'd totally agree, but these changes are actually quite
> orthogonal: hvm basically touches just xen, and the linux tree upgrade
> is self contained. Those doing hvm testing could carry on 
> using a 2.6.12
> dom0 kernel from this week, just to keep things isolated.
> 
> Whether we should go straight to 2.6.16-rc1, or whether we 
> should go via
> 2.6.12-subarchxen and 2.6.15 is less clear. 2.6.12-subarch and 2.6.15
> both seem pretty stable on 32b, but x86_64 needs more testing. I'd
> certainly be inclined to check-in each of those trees, even 
> if we didn't
> let them mature at the tip for very long. People could then at least
> roll-back for 'binary chop' purposes.
> 
> views?
> 
> Ian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel