From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f44.google.com (mail-lf0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A662A11F5 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:24:04 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-lf0-f44.google.com with SMTP id z124so2801832lfa.3 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:24:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qwilt-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=S6YR2nM4GfBb45Qp3Djnf/E7A1s4WUL7F0jbEbhU540=; b=fX7UvYLv5s4jhgkRLVZR9ZyrqTKtjYFqCstcZog1PFn2yJPD/xqdIiQ1oe3HGE7r/z o10QlrHlfY0z044nu3rewVTFUI3pwzA46N98PkxJ9nqukusvx6uBIqNfvfXKTLhPDCAm C+IgHkt+ky3o+/mYrPyep8bqP6XA4Trlh4ITunrvPwv5rpL3SRwhWRKWIUk9QI4HFaT/ AYRYOu3DIu9sMrxpROe8Ls8kywvc5qgSQcUfuheXZZP5lpFv1nJpEVCAm+JfW4T5ue7P CE0KNV569tFxFAZpNszlzXn3Orep8qpHdVfOgkn4sUwuQv7s3IpRpPig2hnyqNhw8L8O iTXg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=S6YR2nM4GfBb45Qp3Djnf/E7A1s4WUL7F0jbEbhU540=; b=GZa1/Zm+to4qoDdXZCi8eYOEjJ6vFmtoE/tGbrCrJJq/dnr4nhCLwUH726kQ38Yglm u7PIUpTc89PWWn3apKo7EJSm//vV1N/rlpkpmPy7wfIcFxmAAQbMwGe2gbCTTlsP+Hw+ E2txhx+LIaLLFGE4eNxKcF3W9X9gHotQ5i98/TsUiLSUgOzagoPNwVnjX6RMAIVIWsEW OGOQwCE82qsTcTOZ7q4FIAhTITyMwV3dP1P/oj+efs6UBnBDZxxBY5gElz4SCFZ+bhA7 qUmyID8n+BUbXJM3KfYs9fA2VKq1NvSBWmYUBLqUwEtRsxtBBs6rwTl0WUpg0CPojERC qgDA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnRLIPia16/us31WMfFd+VHjyLsEAiDomAJDek8U66TqwlbHI+8i8wxuIGk59iZ1470HiAZs5c53BXC/UPfA7h7tCpBDQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.14.209 with SMTP id 200mr16118743lfo.117.1450189444163; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:24:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.25.28.143 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:24:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6747CE41@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1667533.heuKAiE6KB@xps13> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6747CE41@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:24:04 +0200 Message-ID: From: Arnon Warshavsky To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] releases scheduling X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:24:04 -0000 +1 for Ubuntu version numbering On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 3:37 PM, O'Driscoll, Tim 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 *