|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [Hackathon Minutes] Xen 4.4 Planning
On 13/06/13 15:00, Lars Kurth wrote: This took me a while to post, but given that we are not starting 4.4 just yet, this may be appropriate now. I may have misrepresented some stuff as it has been 4 weeks since I wrote these.Cheers Lars = Purpose of Roadmap = * Set a vision for interesting features * Track items * Help consumers of Xen with their planning = Release Models that work well = There was a brief discussion on two different release models * Train leaves the station (Linux) * Release when ready (Debian) == Stefano's Proposal ==We should aim to reduce the release cycle to 4 months (or maybe 6 months as an intermediate step) from the current 9 months. A 4 months relase cycle should help accelerate development and lead to fewer patches being queued up. The implications are that we would have to operate a 2-3 weeks merge window.To do this, we would need to resolve a number of issues* It is likely that code reviews for such a short merge window would become a bottleneck. We are not sure whether this would be a major issue : the review bandwith would depend on the patches submitted (and their complexity) * [I can't remember who raised this] The concern was raised that we would not have enough x86 Xen reviewers got a 2-3 weeks merge window * [Konrad] Stated that in PVOPS for Linux contributions we don't have a review bottleneck, but we should make sure that the Xen and PVOPS/Linux merge window don't overlap (as this would require the same set of people to review patches in two projects) * The rest of the time (approx 3 months) would be used for stabilizing the release Why would we need 3 months to do testing for 2 weeks of merging (or 4 months of development, depending on how you look at it), when 6 weeks has been just about right for 9 months of "merging"? I think it takes that long for Linux because it's such a gigantic project. I would think 3 months development / 1 month stabilization would be OK for Xen. I would rather avoid the "merge window" workflow until it becomes really necessary, as it adds all kinds of other issues (e.g., needing something like linux-next to detect and sort out merge conflicts ahead of the merge window). -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |