[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [Notes for xen summit 2018 design session] Process changes: is the 6 monthly release Cadence too short, Security Process, ...

  • To: Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxx>, Doug Goldstein <cardoe@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Rich Persaud <persaur@xxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "committers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <committers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sander Eikelenboom <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 17:39:24 +0200
  • Autocrypt: addr=jgross@xxxxxxxx; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsBNBFOMcBYBCACgGjqjoGvbEouQZw/ToiBg9W98AlM2QHV+iNHsEs7kxWhKMjrioyspZKOB ycWxw3ie3j9uvg9EOB3aN4xiTv4qbnGiTr3oJhkB1gsb6ToJQZ8uxGq2kaV2KL9650I1SJve dYm8Of8Zd621lSmoKOwlNClALZNew72NjJLEzTalU1OdT7/i1TXkH09XSSI8mEQ/ouNcMvIJ NwQpd369y9bfIhWUiVXEK7MlRgUG6MvIj6Y3Am/BBLUVbDa4+gmzDC9ezlZkTZG2t14zWPvx XP3FAp2pkW0xqG7/377qptDmrk42GlSKN4z76ELnLxussxc7I2hx18NUcbP8+uty4bMxABEB AAHNHkp1ZXJnZW4gR3Jvc3MgPGpncm9zc0BzdXNlLmRlPsLAeQQTAQIAIwUCU4xw6wIbAwcL CQgHAwIBBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJELDendYovxMvi4UH/Ri+OXlObzqMANruTd4N zmVBAZgx1VW6jLc8JZjQuJPSsd/a+bNr3BZeLV6lu4Pf1Yl2Log129EX1KWYiFFvPbIiq5M5 kOXTO8Eas4CaScCvAZ9jCMQCgK3pFqYgirwTgfwnPtxFxO/F3ZcS8jovza5khkSKL9JGq8Nk czDTruQ/oy0WUHdUr9uwEfiD9yPFOGqp4S6cISuzBMvaAiC5YGdUGXuPZKXLpnGSjkZswUzY d9BVSitRL5ldsQCg6GhDoEAeIhUC4SQnT9SOWkoDOSFRXZ+7+WIBGLiWMd+yKDdRG5RyP/8f 3tgGiB6cyuYfPDRGsELGjUaTUq3H2xZgIPfOwE0EU4xwFgEIAMsx+gDjgzAY4H1hPVXgoLK8 B93sTQFN9oC6tsb46VpxyLPfJ3T1A6Z6MVkLoCejKTJ3K9MUsBZhxIJ0hIyvzwI6aYJsnOew cCiCN7FeKJ/oA1RSUemPGUcIJwQuZlTOiY0OcQ5PFkV5YxMUX1F/aTYXROXgTmSaw0aC1Jpo w7Ss1mg4SIP/tR88/d1+HwkJDVW1RSxC1PWzGizwRv8eauImGdpNnseneO2BNWRXTJumAWDD pYxpGSsGHXuZXTPZqOOZpsHtInFyi5KRHSFyk2Xigzvh3b9WqhbgHHHE4PUVw0I5sIQt8hJq 5nH5dPqz4ITtCL9zjiJsExHuHKN3NZsAEQEAAcLAXwQYAQIACQUCU4xwFgIbDAAKCRCw3p3W KL8TL0P4B/9YWver5uD/y/m0KScK2f3Z3mXJhME23vGBbMNlfwbr+meDMrJZ950CuWWnQ+d+ Ahe0w1X7e3wuLVODzjcReQ/v7b4JD3wwHxe+88tgB9byc0NXzlPJWBaWV01yB2/uefVKryAf AHYEd0gCRhx7eESgNBe3+YqWAQawunMlycsqKa09dBDL1PFRosF708ic9346GLHRc6Vj5SRA UTHnQqLetIOXZm3a2eQ1gpQK9MmruO86Vo93p39bS1mqnLLspVrL4rhoyhsOyh0Hd28QCzpJ wKeHTd0MAWAirmewHXWPco8p1Wg+V+5xfZzuQY0f4tQxvOpXpt4gQ1817GQ5/Ed/wsDtBBgB CAAgFiEEhRJncuj2BJSl0Jf3sN6d1ii/Ey8FAlrd8NACGwIAgQkQsN6d1ii/Ey92IAQZFggA HRYhBFMtsHpB9jjzHji4HoBcYbtP2GO+BQJa3fDQAAoJEIBcYbtP2GO+TYsA/30H/0V6cr/W V+J/FCayg6uNtm3MJLo4rE+o4sdpjjsGAQCooqffpgA+luTT13YZNV62hAnCLKXH9n3+ZAgJ RtAyDWk1B/0SMDVs1wxufMkKC3Q/1D3BYIvBlrTVKdBYXPxngcRoqV2J77lscEvkLNUGsu/z W2pf7+P3mWWlrPMJdlbax00vevyBeqtqNKjHstHatgMZ2W0CFC4hJ3YEetuRBURYPiGzuJXU pAd7a7BdsqWC4o+GTm5tnGrCyD+4gfDSpkOT53S/GNO07YkPkm/8J4OBoFfgSaCnQ1izwgJQ jIpcG2fPCI2/hxf2oqXPYbKr1v4Z1wthmoyUgGN0LPTIm+B5vdY82wI5qe9uN6UOGyTH2B3p hRQUWqCwu2sqkI3LLbTdrnyDZaixT2T0f4tyF5Lfs+Ha8xVMhIyzNb1byDI5FKCb
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:39:43 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
  • Openpgp: preference=signencrypt

On 12/07/18 11:24, Lars Kurth wrote:
> On 06/07/2018, 17:42, "Lars Kurth" <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>     Hi all, (I also moved the AB to BCC)
>     I summarized the discussion in 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W7OuISUau-FtPG6tIinD4GXYFb-hKDjaqTj84pogNrA/edit?usp=sharing
>     I may have missed some things or misinterpreted them, but it looks as if 
> consensus is emerging in some areas. I would like to discuss what we do for 
> the 4.12 release at next week's community call. As far as I can see we have a 
> few options:
>     * Go on as we are
>     * Move to 9 months, until we fixed the underlying issues - the problem is 
> that unless we get some sort of commitment 
>     * Skip a release as a one-off: Set ourselves some goals that must be 
> achieved in this cycle around testing - this will need some commitment from 
> vendors
>     Regards
>     Lars
> That discussion took place yesterday, including some people who were not at 
> the design session, but not the complete list of people. Thus, I am copying 
> the notes into here as well (and the google doc), such that everything is in 
> one place.
> Juergen: raises the point that keeping the release cadence at 6 months is 
> very unfair on Jan
> who has raised many times that the workload resulting from having to maintain 
> so many
> release branches would be too high. After running 6 monthly releases for some 
> time, this
> has in fact come true, when at the time Jan’s concerns were dismissed. The 
> overhead
> breaks down into backporting fixes, backporting security fixes and dealing 
> with the release
> mechanics.
> Jan: raised the point that hardly anyone responds to calls for back-ports and 
> if so, only send
> change-sets and Jan do the backporting. Jan also says he suspects that people 
> may not
> respond to backport requests, because that would require them to backport the 
> patches.
> George: points out that unless he remembers at the time he writes or reviews 
> a patch,
> whether it is back-port worthy.
> George and Andrew raised the idea that we could maintain a list of pending 
> backports and
> assign backport tasks to people.
> Jan: maintaining releases as a single person is the most efficient way of 
> doing it. A single
> person doing all trees is most efficient, but then we need to restrict the 
> number of trees. And
> 2 releases per year are too many.
> Andrew: suggests that an even/odd releases model with different support 
> cycles would solve
> this. By doing this, we would retain the discipline of doing releases.
> Juergen: this would however impose the release overhead
> Andrew: agrees that we need to reduce our release overhead regardless, but 
> this issue is
> orthogonal from the release cadence.
> **Staying at 6 months we would either have to find someone who would like to 
> carry the
> maintenance load, or move to a longer cadence. Also we need to make it clear 
> that
> reducing the release overhead is independent from release cadence and 
> process. We
> should be doing this irrespective depending on the cadence.**
> Juergen: We could ** look at 8 months (instead of 9)it is better from a 
> scheduling
> perspective (working around public holidays).** ​ With an 8 month release 
> cycle, the release
> occurs at only 3 different dates during the calendar year, rather than the 4 
> dates with a 9
> month cycle. This makes planning easier for selecting dates that avoid public 
> holidays. 8
> months is also closer to the 6 month cycle for those preferring shorter 
> cadence. An 8 month
> cycle would not increase the number of concurrently supported branches when 
> compared
> with a 9 month cycle.
> **ACTION: George will put together a survey for the committers outlining the 
> issue and
> trade-offs and then go from there** 

Ping? Anything new? I'd like to know the dates for 4.12...


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.