Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: Survey on release cycle

2015-10-29 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 12/10/15 18:32, Wei Liu wrote: > Hi all > > > > Please express your preference with -2 (strongly argue against), -1 > (not happy but not against), +1 (happy but won't argue for) and +2 > (happy and argue for). With my XenServer hat on, the precise release doesn't matter too much. For a

Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: Survey on release cycle

2015-10-26 Thread Ian Jackson
Wei Liu writes ("[Xen-devel] RFC: Survey on release cycle"): > Please express your preference with -2 (strongly argue against), -1 > (not happy but not against), +1 (happy but won't argue for) and +2 > (happy and argue for). > > # 6 months release cycle + curr

Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: Survey on release cycle

2015-10-26 Thread Ian Jackson
Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: Survey on release cycle"): > On Mon, 2015-10-12 at 18:32 +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > > The same stable release scheme applies (18 months full support + 18 > > months security fixes). Encourage more people to step up to share t

Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: Survey on release cycle

2015-10-15 Thread Olaf Hering
On Thu, Oct 15, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2015-10-12 at 18:32 +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > > > # 6 months release cycle + current stable release scheme > # 6 months release cycle + extended security support > > +1 to either of these, but +2 for picking one of them. +1, as Ian said. > (not

Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: Survey on release cycle

2015-10-15 Thread Ian Campbell
On Mon, 2015-10-12 at 18:32 +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > # 6 months release cycle + current stable release scheme # 6 months release cycle + extended security support +1 to either of these, but +2 for picking one of them. (not really sure how to express that in a vote, sorry). > # 6 months

Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: Survey on release cycle

2015-10-15 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 12.10.15 at 19:32, wrote: > # 6 months release cycle + current stable release scheme > > The same stable release scheme applies (18 months full support + 18 > months security fixes). Encourage more people to step up to share the > maintenance burden if necessary.

Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: Survey on release cycle

2015-10-15 Thread Juergen Gross
On 10/12/2015 07:32 PM, Wei Liu wrote: Please express your preference with -2 (strongly argue against), -1 (not happy but not against), +1 (happy but won't argue for) and +2 (happy and argue for). # 6 months release cycle + current stable release scheme 0 # 6 months release cycle + LTS

Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: Survey on release cycle

2015-10-14 Thread Ian Campbell
On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 14:08 +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 01:21:11PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > Aside: I'm a bit confused regarding whether our "stable release scheme" is > > defined in terms of number of concurrently supported releases or in terms > > of an absolute time. >

Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: Survey on release cycle

2015-10-14 Thread Dario Faggioli
On Mon, 2015-10-12 at 18:32 +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > Hi all > > Please express your preference with -2 (strongly argue against), -1 > (not happy but not against), +1 (happy but won't argue for) and +2 > (happy and argue for). > > # 6 months release cycle + current stable release scheme > > The

Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: Survey on release cycle

2015-10-14 Thread Stefano Stabellini
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, Wei Liu wrote: > Hi all > > We've had two separate discussions about release cycles, one for > normal release [0], the other for changes in stable release > maintenance and possible long term supported releases [1]. There were > overwhelming support for having a shorter

Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: Survey on release cycle

2015-10-14 Thread Ian Campbell
On Mon, 2015-10-12 at 18:32 +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > [...] > There are several general options on how to proceed that I summarise > from previous discussions. Note that because there are too many moving > parts I pick some of my preferences as a starting point for the > discussion. I take it

Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: Survey on release cycle

2015-10-14 Thread Ian Campbell
On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 06:30 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > On 14.10.15 at 14:21, wrote: > > Aside: I'm a bit confused regarding whether our "stable release scheme" > > is > > defined in terms of number of concurrently supported releases or in > > terms > > of an

Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: Survey on release cycle

2015-10-14 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 14.10.15 at 14:21, wrote: > Aside: I'm a bit confused regarding whether our "stable release scheme" is > defined in terms of number of concurrently supported releases or in terms > of an absolute time. >

Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: Survey on release cycle

2015-10-14 Thread Wei Liu
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 01:21:11PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2015-10-12 at 18:32 +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > > > [...] > > There are several general options on how to proceed that I summarise > > from previous discussions. Note that because there are too many moving > > parts I pick some

[Xen-devel] RFC: Survey on release cycle

2015-10-12 Thread Wei Liu
Hi all We've had two separate discussions about release cycles, one for normal release [0], the other for changes in stable release maintenance and possible long term supported releases [1]. There were overwhelming support for having a shorter release cycle from xen-unstable but we couldn't reach