DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Arnon Warshavsky <arnon@qwilt.com>
To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] releases scheduling
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:24:04 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKy9EB24SyrRNx_pUJxO3BOEY6Fm=W8P=aa6y8JFybrwSnUq6w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6747CE41@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>

+1 for Ubuntu version numbering

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 3:37 PM, O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
wrote:

>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon
> > Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 7:23 PM
> > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] releases scheduling
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > 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.
>
> I think moving to quarterly releases is a good idea. Your proposal to do
> this in a gradual way, so that we don't change the 2.3 dates, also makes
> sense.
>
> Should we consider changing the release numbering at the same time? It's
> difficult to keep track of when each 2.x release is due, and we don't have
> any criteria in place for moving to 3.x in future. Many people like the
> Ubuntu numbering scheme of Year.Month. Should we consider adopting that
> convention? If we move in future to a model where we have long-term support
> releases (something that was touched on in Dublin), then we could append an
> LTS designation to the release number.
>
>
> Tim
>



-- 

*Arnon Warshavsky*
*Qwilt | work: +972-72-2221634 | mobile: +972-50-8583058 | arnon@qwilt.com
<arnon@qwilt.com>*

  reply	other threads:[~2015-12-15 14:24 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 [this message]
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
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='CAKy9EB24SyrRNx_pUJxO3BOEY6Fm=W8P=aa6y8JFybrwSnUq6w@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=arnon@qwilt.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=tim.odriscoll@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).