DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] releases scheduling
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 21:13:59 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1654115.ZHbKr7JP7m@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <32F0EBBF-BCA8-462A-BB20-A6C4C978C207@intel.com>

2015-12-19 16:21, Wiles, Keith:
> On 12/19/15, 3:47 AM, "Thomas Monjalon" <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> wrote:
> >2015-12-19 02:16, Wiles, Keith:
> >> On 12/18/15, 6:01 PM, "dev on behalf of Thomas Monjalon" wrote:
> >> >2015-12-13 20:22, Thomas Monjalon:
> >> >> We need to define the deadlines for the next releases.
> >> >> During 2015, we were doing a release every 4 months.
> >> >> If we keep the same pace, the next releases would be:
> >> >> 	2.3: end of March
> >> >> 	2.4: end of July
> >> >> 	2.5: end of November
> >> >> 
> >> >> However, things move fast and it may be a bit long to wait 4 months for
> >> >> a feature. That's why I suggest to progressively shorten release terms:
> >> >> 	2.3: end of March
> >> >> 	2.4: mid July
> >> >> 	2.5: end of October
> >> >> and continue with a release every 3 months:
> >> >> 	2.6: end of January
> >> >> 	2.7: end of April
> >> >> 	2.8: end of July
> >> >> This planning would preserve some of the major holiday periods
> >> >> (February, May, August, December).
> >> >> 
> >> >> The first period, for the first submission of a feature, was 2 months long.
> >> >> Then we had 2 other months to discuss, merge and fix.
> >> >> We should shorten only the first period.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Anyway, the next deadlines should be unchanged:
> >> >> 	- January 31: end of first submission phase
> >> >> 	- March 31: release 2.3
> >> >> 
> >> >> Opinions are welcome.
> >> >
> >> >It seems everybody agree with this new scheduling.
> >> >The web site will be updated accordingly:
> >> >http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/web/2015-December/000008.html
> >> >
> >> >There were some discussions to change the numbering scheme
> >> >and rename 2.3 to 16.04. The patch (with arguments) is welcome.
> >> >I won't do the patch myself because I don't care :)
> >> >
> >> >Another discussion was about having a long term support,
> >> >i.e. doing some backport maintenance during a given period for
> >> >some selected releases.
> >> 
> >> I think we need to decide on the YY.MM.PP format then select
> >> the dates for release now. This way we have it out of the way.
> >> 
> >> The date of the release is the first day of the month for the release.
> >> 
> >> March 1st - 15th is 16.03    Patches for 16.03 are from now to Feb 15th
> >>     Try to get the release out as close to the 1st as possible.
> >>     This one is a short release.
> >> June  1st - 15th is 16.06    For 16.06 March 1st to May 15th
> >> Sept  1st - 15th is 16.09    For 16.09 June 1st to Aug 15th
> >> Dec   1st - 15th is 16.12    For 16.12 Sept 1st to Nov 15th.
> >> 
> >> The 15th just before the release month is the deadline for patches, gives up 2 weeks before the release date and to the 15th of the release month to get the release out, but we should try for the 1st. The deadline is just a suggestion here or example, we can adjust it to something else.
> >> 
> >> Tag 2.2.0 in the repo also as 15.12 plus I would suggest we tag it as LTS Long Term Support as well.
> >
> >Hi Keith,
> >I'm confused. Have you read the proposal above and the patch above?
> >I add it here again to make it more visible:
> >	http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/web/2015-December/000008.html
> >And I copy-paste here:
> >	The release cycles are progressively shorten during 2016.
> >	Release 16.04
> >		Proposal deadline: January 31
> >		Integration deadline: March 10
> >		Release: April 7
> >	Release 16.07 
> >		Proposal deadline: May 8
> >		Integration deadline: June 16
> >		Release: July 18
> >	Release 16.11
> >		Proposal deadline: August 28
> >		Integration deadline: September 30
> >		Release: November 2
> >	Release 17.02
> >		Release: February 1
> >	Release 17.05
> >		Release: May 2
> >	Release 17.08
> >		Release: August 1
> >	Release 17.11
> >		Release: November 2
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> The reason I keep stating my dates above is to make the release month the same each year not move them around each year. If we move the release months around it will be difficult to determine when the next release is to be done. I think we are both trying to increase the number of releases per year to reduce the work per release. I am trying to get a fixed release month each year just like Ubuntu has 04 and 10 each year.
> 
> Please consider making the months fixed instead of having them move a bit each year.

Yes that's what I considered. The dates are not the same in 2016 and 2017
because of the progressive change.
But 2017 and 2018 should be identical.
And more importantly, these dates should respect the major holidays.

> I will shut up about the dates now and let you/others decide, I do not want to upset anyone.
> I hope I have been a bit clearer as to what I was trying to accomplish with my comments. 

Yes thank you Keith, it's a lot clearer.
When your comments are argumented, it's a pleasure to discuss :)

  reply	other threads:[~2015-12-19 20:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-12-13 19:22 Thomas Monjalon
2015-12-15 13:37 ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2015-12-15 14:24   ` Arnon Warshavsky
2015-12-15 14:42   ` Wiles, Keith
2015-12-15 15:39     ` Jay Rolette
2015-12-15 19:15   ` Dave Neary
2015-12-15 21:15     ` Wiles, Keith
2015-12-15 21:40       ` Vincent JARDIN
2015-12-19  0:01 ` Thomas Monjalon
2015-12-19  2:16   ` Wiles, Keith
2015-12-19  9:47     ` Thomas Monjalon
2015-12-19 16:21       ` Wiles, Keith
2015-12-19 20:13         ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2015-12-19 22:58           ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2015-12-27 20:04             ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-05-12  9:38 Thomas Monjalon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1654115.ZHbKr7JP7m@xps13 \
    --to=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=keith.wiles@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).