release schedule change proposal

release schedule change proposal

[Thomas Monjalon]

For the last 5 years, DPDK was doing 4 releases per year,
in February, May, August and November (the LTS one):
	.02   .05   .08   .11 (LTS)

This schedule has multiple issues:
	- clash with China's Spring Festival
	- too many rushes, impacting maintainers & testers
	- not much buffer, impacting proposal period

I propose to switch to a new schedule with 3 releases per year:
	.03      .07      .11 (LTS)

New LTS branch would start at the same time of the year as before.
There would be one less intermediate release during spring/summer:
.05 and .08 intermediate releases would become a single .07.
I think it has almost no impact for the users.
This change could be done starting next year.

In details, this is how we could extend some milestones:

	ideal schedule so far (in 13 weeks):
		proposal deadline: 4
		rc1 - API freeze: 5
		rc2 - PMD features freeze: 2
		rc3 - app features freeze: 1
		rc4 - last chance to fix: 1
		release: 0

	proposed schedule (in 17 weeks):
		proposal deadline: 4
		rc1 - API freeze: 7
		rc2 - PMD features freeze: 3
		rc3 - app features freeze: 1
		rc4 - more fixes: 1
		rc5 - last chance buffer: 1
		release: 0

Opinions?

Re: release schedule change proposal

[Luca Boccassi]

On Mon, 2021-11-15 at 15:58 +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> For the last 5 years, DPDK was doing 4 releases per year,
> in February, May, August and November (the LTS one):
> 	.02   .05   .08   .11 (LTS)
> 
> This schedule has multiple issues:
> 	- clash with China's Spring Festival
> 	- too many rushes, impacting maintainers & testers
> 	- not much buffer, impacting proposal period
> 
> I propose to switch to a new schedule with 3 releases per year:
> 	.03      .07      .11 (LTS)
> 
> New LTS branch would start at the same time of the year as before.
> There would be one less intermediate release during spring/summer:
> .05 and .08 intermediate releases would become a single .07.
> I think it has almost no impact for the users.
> This change could be done starting next year.
> 
> In details, this is how we could extend some milestones:
> 
> 	ideal schedule so far (in 13 weeks):
> 		proposal deadline: 4
> 		rc1 - API freeze: 5
> 		rc2 - PMD features freeze: 2
> 		rc3 - app features freeze: 1
> 		rc4 - last chance to fix: 1
> 		release: 0
> 
> 	proposed schedule (in 17 weeks):
> 		proposal deadline: 4
> 		rc1 - API freeze: 7
> 		rc2 - PMD features freeze: 3
> 		rc3 - app features freeze: 1
> 		rc4 - more fixes: 1
> 		rc5 - last chance buffer: 1
> 		release: 0
> 
> Opinions?

We upload only LTS releases to Debian/Ubuntu, so as long as those stay
the same as it is proposed here, no problem for us.

-- 
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi

Re: release schedule change proposal

[Jerin Jacob]

On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 8:42 PM Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-11-15 at 15:58 +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > For the last 5 years, DPDK was doing 4 releases per year,
> > in February, May, August and November (the LTS one):
> >       .02   .05   .08   .11 (LTS)
> >
> > This schedule has multiple issues:
> >       - clash with China's Spring Festival
> >       - too many rushes, impacting maintainers & testers
> >       - not much buffer, impacting proposal period
> >
> > I propose to switch to a new schedule with 3 releases per year:
> >       .03      .07      .11 (LTS)


+1


> >
> > New LTS branch would start at the same time of the year as before.
> > There would be one less intermediate release during spring/summer:
> > .05 and .08 intermediate releases would become a single .07.
> > I think it has almost no impact for the users.
> > This change could be done starting next year.
> >
> > In details, this is how we could extend some milestones:
> >
> >       ideal schedule so far (in 13 weeks):
> >               proposal deadline: 4
> >               rc1 - API freeze: 5
> >               rc2 - PMD features freeze: 2
> >               rc3 - app features freeze: 1
> >               rc4 - last chance to fix: 1
> >               release: 0
> >
> >       proposed schedule (in 17 weeks):
> >               proposal deadline: 4
> >               rc1 - API freeze: 7
> >               rc2 - PMD features freeze: 3
> >               rc3 - app features freeze: 1
> >               rc4 - more fixes: 1
> >               rc5 - last chance buffer: 1
> >               release: 0
> >
> > Opinions?
>
> We upload only LTS releases to Debian/Ubuntu, so as long as those stay
> the same as it is proposed here, no problem for us.
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Luca Boccassi

Re: release schedule change proposal

[Kevin Traynor]

On 15/11/2021 14:58, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> For the last 5 years, DPDK was doing 4 releases per year,
> in February, May, August and November (the LTS one):
> 	.02   .05   .08   .11 (LTS)
> 
> This schedule has multiple issues:
> 	- clash with China's Spring Festival
> 	- too many rushes, impacting maintainers & testers
> 	- not much buffer, impacting proposal period
> 
> I propose to switch to a new schedule with 3 releases per year:
> 	.03      .07      .11 (LTS)
> 
> New LTS branch would start at the same time of the year as before.
> There would be one less intermediate release during spring/summer:
> .05 and .08 intermediate releases would become a single .07.
> I think it has almost no impact for the users.
> This change could be done starting next year.
> 
> In details, this is how we could extend some milestones:
> 
> 	ideal schedule so far (in 13 weeks):
> 		proposal deadline: 4
> 		rc1 - API freeze: 5
> 		rc2 - PMD features freeze: 2
> 		rc3 - app features freeze: 1
> 		rc4 - last chance to fix: 1
> 		release: 0
> 
> 	proposed schedule (in 17 weeks):
> 		proposal deadline: 4
> 		rc1 - API freeze: 7
> 		rc2 - PMD features freeze: 3
> 		rc3 - app features freeze: 1
> 		rc4 - more fixes: 1
> 		rc5 - last chance buffer: 1
> 		release: 0
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> 

Someone else might comment if they spot something, but to me looks ok 
for RH distro and OVS project.

RH distro is also using DPDK .11 who's release date is not changing. 
(+cc Timothy/Flavio)

For OVS project, it only integrates DPDK .11 release too and aims to do 
that by EOY to make the next OVS release. DPDK stable releases are 
integrated into older OVS branches when available. I don't think older 
OVS branch releases have a strict release schedule and having the latest 
stable DPDK release is not a blocker anyway. (+cc Ilya/Ian/ovs-discuss)

Re: release schedule change proposal

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 15:58:15 +0100
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:

> For the last 5 years, DPDK was doing 4 releases per year,
> in February, May, August and November (the LTS one):
> 	.02   .05   .08   .11 (LTS)
> 
> This schedule has multiple issues:
> 	- clash with China's Spring Festival
> 	- too many rushes, impacting maintainers & testers
> 	- not much buffer, impacting proposal period
> 
> I propose to switch to a new schedule with 3 releases per year:
> 	.03      .07      .11 (LTS)

This nicely adapts to the natural slowdown due to holidays
in December and August.

Re: release schedule change proposal

[Shepard Siegel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 427 bytes --]

> Opinions?

Atomic Rules has been releasing our Arkville product in lockstep with DPDK
for the past 19 quarters. Our FPGA solution has the added burden of testing
with async releases of FPGA vendor CAD tools. Although we have gotten used
to the quarterly cadence, for the reasons given by Thomas and others,
Atomic Rules supports the move to a three release per year schedule.

Shepard Siegel, CTO and Founder
atomicrules.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 595 bytes --]

Re: release schedule change proposal

[Ajit Khaparde]

On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 6:58 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>
> For the last 5 years, DPDK was doing 4 releases per year,
> in February, May, August and November (the LTS one):
>         .02   .05   .08   .11 (LTS)
>
> This schedule has multiple issues:
>         - clash with China's Spring Festival
>         - too many rushes, impacting maintainers & testers
>         - not much buffer, impacting proposal period
>
> I propose to switch to a new schedule with 3 releases per year:
>         .03      .07      .11 (LTS)
>
> New LTS branch would start at the same time of the year as before.
> There would be one less intermediate release during spring/summer:
> .05 and .08 intermediate releases would become a single .07.
> I think it has almost no impact for the users.
> This change could be done starting next year.
>
> In details, this is how we could extend some milestones:
>
>         ideal schedule so far (in 13 weeks):
>                 proposal deadline: 4
>                 rc1 - API freeze: 5
>                 rc2 - PMD features freeze: 2
>                 rc3 - app features freeze: 1
>                 rc4 - last chance to fix: 1
>                 release: 0
>
>         proposed schedule (in 17 weeks):
>                 proposal deadline: 4
>                 rc1 - API freeze: 7
>                 rc2 - PMD features freeze: 3
>                 rc3 - app features freeze: 1
>                 rc4 - more fixes: 1
>                 rc5 - last chance buffer: 1
>                 release: 0
+1

>
> Opinions?
>
>

Re: release schedule change proposal

[Flavio Leitner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2420 bytes --]

Thanks Kevin for bringing this up.
See below.

On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 1:06 PM Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 15/11/2021 14:58, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > For the last 5 years, DPDK was doing 4 releases per year,
> > in February, May, August and November (the LTS one):
> >       .02   .05   .08   .11 (LTS)
> >
> > This schedule has multiple issues:
> >       - clash with China's Spring Festival
> >       - too many rushes, impacting maintainers & testers
> >       - not much buffer, impacting proposal period
> >
> > I propose to switch to a new schedule with 3 releases per year:
> >       .03      .07      .11 (LTS)
> >
> > New LTS branch would start at the same time of the year as before.
> > There would be one less intermediate release during spring/summer:
> > .05 and .08 intermediate releases would become a single .07.
> > I think it has almost no impact for the users.
> > This change could be done starting next year.
> >
> > In details, this is how we could extend some milestones:
> >
> >       ideal schedule so far (in 13 weeks):
> >               proposal deadline: 4
> >               rc1 - API freeze: 5
> >               rc2 - PMD features freeze: 2
> >               rc3 - app features freeze: 1
> >               rc4 - last chance to fix: 1
> >               release: 0
> >
> >       proposed schedule (in 17 weeks):
> >               proposal deadline: 4
> >               rc1 - API freeze: 7
> >               rc2 - PMD features freeze: 3
> >               rc3 - app features freeze: 1
> >               rc4 - more fixes: 1
> >               rc5 - last chance buffer: 1
> >               release: 0
> >
> > Opinions?
> >
> >
>
> Someone else might comment if they spot something, but to me looks ok
> for RH distro and OVS project.
>

That is my impression as well.


>
> RH distro is also using DPDK .11 who's release date is not changing.
> (+cc Timothy/Flavio)
>

My concern is if patches would get delayed to be merged because of this
change, but I don't think that will be the case.


> For OVS project, it only integrates DPDK .11 release too and aims to do
> that by EOY to make the next OVS release. DPDK stable releases are
> integrated into older OVS branches when available. I don't think older
> OVS branch releases have a strict release schedule and having the latest
> stable DPDK release is not a blocker anyway. (+cc Ilya/Ian/ovs-discuss)
>

I agree.

fbl

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3567 bytes --]

Re: release schedule change proposal

[Ilya Maximets]

On 11/15/21 17:06, Kevin Traynor wrote:
> On 15/11/2021 14:58, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> For the last 5 years, DPDK was doing 4 releases per year,
>> in February, May, August and November (the LTS one):
>>     .02   .05   .08   .11 (LTS)
>>
>> This schedule has multiple issues:
>>     - clash with China's Spring Festival
>>     - too many rushes, impacting maintainers & testers
>>     - not much buffer, impacting proposal period
>>
>> I propose to switch to a new schedule with 3 releases per year:
>>     .03      .07      .11 (LTS)
>>
>> New LTS branch would start at the same time of the year as before.
>> There would be one less intermediate release during spring/summer:
>> .05 and .08 intermediate releases would become a single .07.
>> I think it has almost no impact for the users.
>> This change could be done starting next year.
>>
>> In details, this is how we could extend some milestones:
>>
>>     ideal schedule so far (in 13 weeks):
>>         proposal deadline: 4
>>         rc1 - API freeze: 5
>>         rc2 - PMD features freeze: 2
>>         rc3 - app features freeze: 1
>>         rc4 - last chance to fix: 1
>>         release: 0
>>
>>     proposed schedule (in 17 weeks):
>>         proposal deadline: 4
>>         rc1 - API freeze: 7
>>         rc2 - PMD features freeze: 3
>>         rc3 - app features freeze: 1
>>         rc4 - more fixes: 1
>>         rc5 - last chance buffer: 1
>>         release: 0
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>>
> 
> Someone else might comment if they spot something, but to me looks ok for RH distro and OVS project.
> 
> RH distro is also using DPDK .11 who's release date is not changing. (+cc Timothy/Flavio)
> 
> For OVS project, it only integrates DPDK .11 release too and aims to do that by EOY to make the next OVS release. DPDK stable releases are integrated into older OVS branches when available. I don't think older OVS branch releases have a strict release schedule and having the latest stable DPDK release is not a blocker anyway. (+cc Ilya/Ian/ovs-discuss)
> 

I agree that this schedule change doesn't change much for OVS.

One thing to highlight though: Change of main release schema
seems to directly impact schedule of stable releases.
In this case, interval between DPDK stable releases increases
from 3+ to 4+ months.  This might be a long time to wait for
certain bug fixes, especially if OVS needs to skip one of the
DPDK stable releases due to issues introduced in it.
Anyway, doesn't sound like something critical to me.

Bets regards, Ilya Maximets.