On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 09:03, Aleksandar Markovic
wrote:
> I really like "Tuesdays" concept. It worked very well for me as a
> submaintainer. I don't
> know its origin, but it works, bringing some degree of order and
> predictability, and at the
> same seemingly not imposing larger than
16:36 Pet, 29.05.2020. Peter Maydell је
написао/ла:
>
> On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 11:07, Peter Maydell
wrote:
> >
> > Here's a draft schedule for 5.1:
> >
> > 2019-07-06: softfreeze
>
> this should have read 2020-07-07 (Tuesday)...
>
I really like "Tuesdays" concept. It worked very well for me as
On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 11:07, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> Here's a draft schedule for 5.1:
>
> 2019-07-06: softfreeze
this should have read 2020-07-07 (Tuesday)...
> 2019-07-14: hardfreeze, rc0
> 2019-07-21: rc1
> 2019-07-28: rc2
> 2019-08-04: rc3
> 2019-08-11: release, or rc4 if we need it
>
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 11:07 AM Peter Maydell wrote:
> Here's a draft schedule for 5.1:
>
> 2019-07-06: softfreeze
> 2019-07-14: hardfreeze, rc0
> 2019-07-21: rc1
> 2019-07-28: rc2
> 2019-08-04: rc3
> 2019-08-11: release, or rc4 if we need it
> 2019-08-18: release if we needed an rc4
>
> Does
Here's a draft schedule for 5.1:
2019-07-06: softfreeze
2019-07-14: hardfreeze, rc0
2019-07-21: rc1
2019-07-28: rc2
2019-08-04: rc3
2019-08-11: release, or rc4 if we need it
2019-08-18: release if we needed an rc4
Does that work for people? I don't think there's anything we
particularly need to
