On 06/09/2016 04:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Based also on the discussion at QEMU summit, where there was consensus > > that three weeks between softfreeze and rc0 was too much, IMO we can > > shorten the period to just two weeks > > Do we intend to strengthen the soft freeze definition then? > One difficulty is that the definition for soft freeze at the moment is > that some code is on list. Some of these get reworked significantly.
Yes, see Peter's answer to me. > I get flooded with patches just before the softfreeze, all conflicting, > all need some work, and it takes a bunch of back and forth to resolve > the conflicts. You are too good! :) Paolo
