Re: [Xen-devel] Which trees are supported (Was: Re: [qemu-upstream-4.2-testing test] 77180: regressions - FAIL)

2016-01-22 Thread Ian Campbell 
On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 11:22 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> So this arose because Stefano was unaware that 4.2 was no longer
> supported.
> Neither am I ever confident about where the cut-off lie, e.g. I
> always have
> to ask if I am doing backports for a security issue.
> 
> We should add rows to 
> http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Release_Features right
> under Initial Release giving first the date until which that tree is
> supported with backports and second the date until which security
> support
> will exist. We might also want to add a third "status" row. e.g.
> "Supported", "Security Support only", "EOL" (we'll deal with extended
> support by a third party when that next arises).
> 
> I'm happy to make the edits, however I don't know what dates I would
> write 
> here. Taking it to be 18 months of Support and a further 18 months of
> security support I would get:

> Xen 4.0 Xen 4.1 Xen 4.2 Xen 
> 4.3 Xen 4.4 Xen 4.5 Xen 4.6
> Initial Release 7 April 201025 March 2011   17 Sept 20129 
> July 2013 10 March 2014   15 Jan 2015 13 Oct 2015 
> Supported until EOL - ???   EOL - ???   EOL - ???   EOL - 
> Jan 2015  EOL - Sept 2015 July 2016   April 2017
> Security support tilEOL - ???   EOL - ???   EOL - ???   July 
> 2016   March 2016  Jan 2017Oct 2018

George pointed out that 4.4 only has 6 months security support here,
which is just me counting wrong I think. It should be March 2017.

Likewise 4.5 followed suite.

Both of them should have been 1 year later. I have updated the wiki.

Ian.


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

[Xen-devel] Which trees are supported (Was: Re: [qemu-upstream-4.2-testing test] 77180: regressions - FAIL)

2016-01-07 Thread Ian Campbell 
So this arose because Stefano was unaware that 4.2 was no longer supported.
Neither am I ever confident about where the cut-off lie, e.g. I always have
to ask if I am doing backports for a security issue.

We should add rows to http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Release_Features right
under Initial Release giving first the date until which that tree is
supported with backports and second the date until which security support
will exist. We might also want to add a third "status" row. e.g.
"Supported", "Security Support only", "EOL" (we'll deal with extended
support by a third party when that next arises).

I'm happy to make the edits, however I don't know what dates I would write 
here. Taking it to be 18 months of Support and a further 18 months of
security support I would get:

    Xen 4.0 Xen 4.1 Xen 4.2 Xen 4.3 
Xen 4.4 Xen 4.5 Xen 4.6
Initial Release 7 April 2010    25 March 2011   17 Sept 2012    9 July 
2013 10 March 2014   15 Jan 2015 13 Oct 2015 
Supported until EOL - ???   EOL - ???   EOL - ???   EOL - 
Jan 2015  EOL - Sept 2015 July 2016   April 2017
Security support tilEOL - ???   EOL - ???   EOL - ???   July 
2016   March 2016  Jan 2017Oct 2018

(maybe those EOLs - ??? could be whatever the respective dates were, I
didn't try and backtrack to try and find out if reality matched the plan)

Ian.

On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 09:56 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-01-06 at 18:28 +, osstest service owner wrote:
> > flight 77180 qemu-upstream-4.2-testing real [real]
> > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/77180/
> > 
> > Regressions :-(
> > 
> > Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
> > including tests which could not be run:
> >  build-i3865 xen-build fail REGR.
> > vs. 62044
> >  build-amd64   5 xen-build fail REGR.
> > vs. 62044
> 
> This is "man/xl.pod.1 around line 854: Expected text after =item, not a
> bullet" exposed by the Jessie upgrade.
> 
> However per Ian in <22154.35021.750846.695...@mariner.uk.xensource.com> [
> 0]
> :
> 
> ...] 4.2 has had no commits since October - in particular, none
> of the recent security fixes - and I would be reluctant to give it a
> veneer of activity.
> 
> So our choices WRT these fixes in qemu-xen.git#staging-4.2, given they
> have
> already been pushed, are:
> 
>    1. Fix xen.git#staging-4.2 to build on Jessie and wait for it to
> propagate.
>    2. Revert the fixes from qemu-xen.git#staging-4.2 and force push the
>   resulting tree (which would be identical to something which
> previously
>   passed).
>    3. Rollback qemu-xen.git#staging-4.2.
>    4. Force push.
>    5. Drop a stop file.
>    6. Shave yakks in osstest to allow per-branch selection of the Debian
> suite
>   and pin xen-4.2 and earlier to Wheezy.
> 
> #1 is contrary to the quote above, which makes a reasonable argument
> IMHO.
> 
> #3, #4 and #5 all seem like bad ideas to me.
> 
> #2 is a bit odd (to have the fixes in the branch but reverted), but seems
> least bad compared with #3..#5.
> 
> #6 is potentially a lot of work, but might be the right long term answer.
> 
> Ian.
> 
> [0] http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-01/msg00112.
> html
> > 
> > Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking:
> >  build-i386-libvirt1 build-
> > check(1)   blocked  n/a
> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64  1 build-
> > check(1)  blocked n/a
> >  test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-intel  1 build-
> > check(1) blocked n/a
> >  test-i386-i386-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3  1 build-
> > check(1)   blocked  n/a
> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-ovmf-amd64  1 build-
> > check(1)  blocked n/a
> >  test-amd64-i386-qemuu-rhel6hvm-amd  1 build-
> > check(1)   blocked n/a
> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3-vcpus1  1 build-
> > check(1) blocked n/a
> >  test-amd64-i386-xend-qemuu-winxpsp3  1 build-
> > check(1)  blocked n/a
> >  test-amd64-i386-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64  1 build-
> > check(1) blocked n/a
> >  build-amd64-libvirt   1 build-
> > check(1)   blocked  n/a
> >  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-debianhvm-amd64  1 build-
> > check(1)blocked n/a
> >  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64  1 build-
> > check(1) blocked n/a
> >  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-winxpsp3  1 build-
> > check(1)   blocked n/a
> >  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-ovmf-amd64  1 build-
> > check(1) blocked n/a
> > 
> > version targeted for testing:
> >  qemuu5081fc1c773d2a83ec7a867f030323b8b6956cd1
> > baseline version:
> >  qemuuc17e602ae64fb24405ebd256679ba9a6f5819086
> > 
> > Last test of basis62044  2015-09-15 15:06:42 Z  113 days
> > Testing same since66542  2015-12-18

[Xen-devel] Which trees are supported (Was: Re: [qemu-upstream-4.2-testing test] 77180: regressions - FAIL)

2016-01-07 Thread Jan Beulich 
>>> On 07.01.16 at 12:22,  wrote:
> So this arose because Stefano was unaware that 4.2 was no longer supported.
> Neither am I ever confident about where the cut-off lie, e.g. I always have
> to ask if I am doing backports for a security issue.
> 
> We should add rows to http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Release_Features right
> under Initial Release giving first the date until which that tree is
> supported with backports and second the date until which security support
> will exist. We might also want to add a third "status" row. e.g.
> "Supported", "Security Support only", "EOL" (we'll deal with extended
> support by a third party when that next arises).
> 
> I'm happy to make the edits, however I don't know what dates I would write 
> here. Taking it to be 18 months of Support and a further 18 months of
> security support I would get:
> 
>   Xen 4.0 Xen 4.1 Xen 4.2 Xen 4.3 
> Xen 4.4 Xen 4.5 Xen 4.6
> Initial Release   7 April 201025 March 2011   17 Sept 20129 July 
> 2013 10 March 
> 2014  15 Jan 2015 13 Oct 2015 
> Supported until   EOL - ???   EOL - ???   EOL - ???   
> EOL - Jan 2015  EOL - Sept 2015 July 
> 2016  April 2017
> Security support til  EOL - ???   EOL - ???   EOL - ???   July 
> 2016   March 2016  Jan 
> 2017  Oct 2018

4.4 is going to have normal support ended with the 4.4.4 release only;
4.4.3 got released a little too early from that perspective.

> (maybe those EOLs - ??? could be whatever the respective dates were, I
> didn't try and backtrack to try and find out if reality matched the plan)

At least for the older ones it's probably not worth to reconstruct. 4.2 had
its security support ended in Sept 2015.

Jan


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

Re: [Xen-devel] Which trees are supported (Was: Re: [qemu-upstream-4.2-testing test] 77180: regressions - FAIL)

2016-01-07 Thread Ian Campbell 
On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 04:45 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 07.01.16 at 12:22,  wrote:
> > So this arose because Stefano was unaware that 4.2 was no longer
> > supported.
> > Neither am I ever confident about where the cut-off lie, e.g. I always
> > have
> > to ask if I am doing backports for a security issue.
> > 
> > We should add rows to http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Release_Features
> > right
> > under Initial Release giving first the date until which that tree is
> > supported with backports and second the date until which security
> > support
> > will exist. We might also want to add a third "status" row. e.g.
> > "Supported", "Security Support only", "EOL" (we'll deal with extended
> > support by a third party when that next arises).
> > 
> > I'm happy to make the edits, however I don't know what dates I would
> > write 
> > here. Taking it to be 18 months of Support and a further 18 months of
> > security support I would get:
> > 
> >     Xen 4.0 Xen 4.1 Xen 4.2 Xen 4.3 
> > Xen 4.4 Xen 4.5 Xen 4.6
> > Initial Release 7 April 2010    25 March 2011   17 Sept 2012    9 July 
> > 2013 10 March 
> > 2014    15 Jan 2015 13 Oct 2015 
> > Supported until EOL - ???   EOL - ???   EOL - ???   
> > EOL - Jan 2015  EOL - Sept 2015 July 
> > 2016April 2017
> > Security support tilEOL - ???   EOL - ???   EOL - ???   
> > July 2016   March 2016  Jan 
> > 2017Oct 2018
> 
> 4.4 is going to have normal support ended with the 4.4.4 release only;
> 4.4.3 got released a little too early from that perspective.

Meaning it will be earlier later than September 2015.

4.4.3 was released in August which was too soon.

I think it is right to err on the side of stopping later than we said.

Did we stop adding backports to staging-4.4 in September, i.e. is 4.4.4
going to be fixes from August-September + security issues until the release
date?

> 
> > (maybe those EOLs - ??? could be whatever the respective dates were, I
> > didn't try and backtrack to try and find out if reality matched the
> > plan)
> 
> At least for the older ones it's probably not worth to reconstruct. 4.2
> had
> its security support ended in Sept 2015.

Thanks.

> 
> Jan
> 
> 
> ___
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

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

Re: [Xen-devel] Which trees are supported (Was: Re: [qemu-upstream-4.2-testing test] 77180: regressions - FAIL)

2016-01-07 Thread Jan Beulich 
>>> On 07.01.16 at 13:00,  wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 04:45 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > > > On 07.01.16 at 12:22,  wrote:
>> > So this arose because Stefano was unaware that 4.2 was no longer
>> > supported.
>> > Neither am I ever confident about where the cut-off lie, e.g. I always
>> > have
>> > to ask if I am doing backports for a security issue.
>> > 
>> > We should add rows to http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Release_Features 
>> > right
>> > under Initial Release giving first the date until which that tree is
>> > supported with backports and second the date until which security
>> > support
>> > will exist. We might also want to add a third "status" row. e.g.
>> > "Supported", "Security Support only", "EOL" (we'll deal with extended
>> > support by a third party when that next arises).
>> > 
>> > I'm happy to make the edits, however I don't know what dates I would
>> > write 
>> > here. Taking it to be 18 months of Support and a further 18 months of
>> > security support I would get:
>> > 
>> >Xen 4.0 Xen 4.1 Xen 4.2 Xen 4.3 
>> > Xen 4.4 Xen 4.5 Xen 4.6
>> > Initial Release7 April 201025 March 2011   17 Sept 20129 July 
>> > 2013 10 
> March 
>> > 2014   15 Jan 2015 13 Oct 2015 
>> > Supported untilEOL - ???   EOL - ???   EOL - ???   
>> > EOL - Jan 2015  EOL - Sept 2015 July 
> 
>> > 2016   April 2017
>> > Security support til   EOL - ???   EOL - ???   EOL - ???   
>> > July 2016   March 2016  Jan 
>> > 2017   Oct 2018
>> 
>> 4.4 is going to have normal support ended with the 4.4.4 release only;
>> 4.4.3 got released a little too early from that perspective.
> 
> Meaning it will be earlier later than September 2015.
> 
> 4.4.3 was released in August which was too soon.
> 
> I think it is right to err on the side of stopping later than we said.
> 
> Did we stop adding backports to staging-4.4 in September, i.e. is 4.4.4
> going to be fixes from August-September + security issues until the release
> date?

No, there was active backporting until December (and I expect to at
least put in Andrew's XSA-156 fixup before 4.4.4 goes out, which -
due to the osstest issues - is going to take a little more time anyway).

Jan


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

Re: [Xen-devel] Which trees are supported (Was: Re: [qemu-upstream-4.2-testing test] 77180: regressions - FAIL)

2016-01-07 Thread Ian Campbell 
On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 12:44 +, Lars Kurth wrote:
> > On 7 Jan 2016, at 11:45, Jan Beulich  wrote:
> > 
> > > > > On 07.01.16 at 12:22,  wrote:
> > > So this arose because Stefano was unaware that 4.2 was no longer
> > > supported.
> > > Neither am I ever confident about where the cut-off lie, e.g. I
> > > always have
> > > to ask if I am doing backports for a security issue.
> > > 
> > > We should add rows to http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Release_Features
> > > right
> > > under Initial Release giving first the date until which that tree is
> > > supported with backports and second the date until which security
> > > support
> > > will exist. We might also want to add a third "status" row. e.g.
> > > "Supported", "Security Support only", "EOL" (we'll deal with extended
> > > support by a third party when that next arises).
> > > 
> > > I'm happy to make the edits, however I don't know what dates I would
> > > write 
> > > here. Taking it to be 18 months of Support and a further 18 months of
> > > security support I would get:
> 
> Ian, that would be great. Can you ping me when done?

Done.

I dropped the "EOL - " prefixes, since it seems that if we forget to add
them as new things are EOL'd then there would be ambiguity between things
marked "EOL - Date" and things marked as just "Date" where Date is in the
past -- i.e. folks might think the EOL didn't occur.

Ian.

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