Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > On 1 September 2016 at 12:18, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: >> I know 2.7 isn't quite out the door yet, but I figured we should >> kick off the discussion of 2.8's schedule. At the QEMU Summit there >> was some discussion on how we're doing with releases, and I think >> the consensus view was that we should try to cut down the softfreeze >> period and also be stricter about (a) making sure pull requests get >> in in a timely way before rc0 and (b) we don't take new features >> during softfreeze. > > It occurs to me that if anybody has the patience to do some tedious > data-mining, it would be interesting to know for all the commits > that went in after rc0 whether they were: > * fixing bugs that were already present in our previous release > * fixing regressions (ie bugs introduced after the previous release) > * fixing bugs in features that are new in this release > * new features > * fixing bugs introduced by other post-rc0 commits > * security fixes > > ie if we were stricter about "no commits unless they're fixes for > regressions, fixes for things new in this release or security fixes", > would this reduce the number of commits we do post-freeze much?
Almost 300 commits to classify. I'm afraid that's too tedious even for me. We could require such a classification for acceptance post 2.8-rc0. Spreads the work.
