Re: [Xen-devel] 4.2 Release Plan / TODO

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 14:30 +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> Hello Ian,
> 
> Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 2:53:31 PM, you wrote:
> 
> > Plan for a 4.2 release:
> > http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-03/msg00793.html
> 
> > The time line is as follows:
> 
> > 19 March        -- TODO list locked down
> > 2 April         -- Feature Freeze
> >                                                 << WE ARE HERE
> > Mid/Late April  -- First release candidate      << SEE BELOW
> > Weekly          -- RCN+1 until it is ready
> 
> > My initial guesstimate for starting RCs appears to have been somewhat
> > optimistic. I think we need to have reduced at least the blockers lists
> > rather significantly before we start thinking of doing RCs.
> 
> Is there any list/overview as to the state of feature parity between xm/xend 
> and xl/libxl ?

Other than what's included in this list, I don't believe there is at the
moment.

> (both in the sense of commands to xl, as of parsing and building a
> domain from the options specified in a domain .cfg)

Extracting those things for xl is pretty trivial -- the hard thing is
figuring out what options xend has/had, or more importantly which ones
of those people actually use (since we clearly aren't intending to
replicate every feature of xend without reference to the utility of or
demand for those features).

If you can provide a list of xend features which you think are essential
(or even just the subset which you are interested in) then I'd be happy
to correlate it with xl and add the disjunction to the list.

> This week i noticed that someone else noticed that cpu_weight &
> co .cfg options where missing support and provided patches, but these
> seem like pretty basic config options.

I'd say there were not "basic" but they certainly aren't "super
advanced" either.

> This raises the question if there are more pretty basic options still
> missing and in what way will they be handled during the RC's ?

I think we will have to handle that on a case by case basis. Some
(many?) of them will be trivial and will likely be no-brainers to
include at least during the early RCs.

> (since there is a good chance more will pop up when more users start
> testing)
> 
> Are patches for not to exotic and/or invasive options still
> acceptable ?
> Or will they have to wait for a 4.2.1 which could follow up pretty
> short then ?

We'd have to balance their exoticness against their invasiveness and
make a judgement call. Obviously a horribly complex patch for a little
used feature will get a different reception to a simple patch for a
feature which everyone uses...

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel