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

[Sander Eikelenboom <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 4:30:15 PM, you wrote:

> 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.

I don't think besides the cpu_weight, assigning/pinning of vcpu's to domains 
and pci passthrough i'm using any "special" config options.
Mostly using pv-guests though, perhaps there are more options people could be 
missing on HVM domains.
So i think for myself everything is covered, but perhaps something will pop up 
when i start testing the RC's.

>> 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.

That's why i said "pretty basic", but for pv-guests besides setting domainname, 
nr of vcpus, memory, disks and kernel/ramdisk, it would be pretty much the next 
thing someone could want i guess.

>> 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.

Good to know !

>> (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.





-- 
Best regards,
 Sander                            mailto:linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


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