Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: change to 6 months release cycle

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 08:07:18AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
[...]
> >> > For example, we create an email alias for stable backport requests,
> >> > subscribe every stable tree maintainers to that list. This should make
> >> > it impossible to miss patches. The rest is subject to individual stable
> >> > tree maintainers' discretion if a certain patch goes in or not. This has
> >> > worked and scaled reasonably well for Linux.
> >> 
> >> How many stable backport requests have you seen over the last
> >> couple of years, perhaps excluding ones in reply to stable tree
> >> release preparation polls? Take that number and compare to the
> >> one of backports that actually went into the stable trees...
> >> 
> > 
> > Sorry, I don't quite follow the point you're trying to make. 
> > 
> > Excluding replies to preparation polls, the only way of requesting a
> > backport is to do it in patch, which is very informal nowadays and easy
> > to get lost in huge amount of emails.
> > 
> > If you're saying the only a low number of backport requests make it to
> > stable trees, doesn't that mean we have issues here? Either maintainers
> > are overloaded hence forgetting things, or we don't have a good way of
> > tracking requests even if people are willing to help. Or it could be the
> > combination of both issues. The first issue can be addressed with more
> > maintainers, the second issues can be addressed with a formal way of
> > requesting and keeping track of backports.
> > 
> > If your point is "there isn't that many backport requests", doesn't it
> > make the argument of "having too big burden for maintaining more stable
> > releases" moot?
> 
> My point was that I'm trying to make sure that relevant changes fine
> their way into the stable tree without explicit backport requests. I.e.
> I don't think we have an issue now, but this model imo wouldn't work
> well with multiple stable tree maintainers.
> 

Indeed. That model only works with single stable tree maintainers.  My
point is I believe there are technical solutions and procedural
solutions to the issues introduced by the changed stable releases
procedure.

The more important question is whether you think it's worth trying 6
months cycle and introduce necessary changes to stable release models.

Wei.

> Jan

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