From: Ilya Maximets <email@example.com> To: Kevin Traynor <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Thomas Monjalon <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Ian Stokes <firstname.lastname@example.org>, ovs-discuss <email@example.com>, Timothy Redaelli <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Flavio Leitner <email@example.com> Subject: Re: release schedule change proposal Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 16:22:35 +0100 Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <email@example.com> 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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-19 15:22 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-11-15 14:58 Thomas Monjalon 2021-11-15 15:11 ` Luca Boccassi 2021-11-15 15:39 ` Jerin Jacob 2021-11-15 16:06 ` Kevin Traynor 2021-11-19 13:48 ` Flavio Leitner 2021-11-19 15:22 ` Ilya Maximets [this message] 2021-11-15 16:58 ` Stephen Hemminger 2021-11-15 17:15 ` Shepard Siegel 2021-11-18 4:08 ` Ajit Khaparde
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 \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ /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
DPDK usage discussions This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone: git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/users/0 users/git/0.git # If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may # initialize and index your mirror using the following commands: public-inbox-init -V2 users users/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/users \ email@example.com public-inbox-index users Example config snippet for mirrors. Newsgroup available over NNTP: nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.users AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git