From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D6F7A04FD; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:35:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0D331BFA1; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:35:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0CDB1BF9E for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:35:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCEE35C012E; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:35:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:35:20 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= 11I+cSuhzcwtchw1J29Bv8gSFrBcE6rM1sWXl4fCjcE=; b=etb1pXtcRa9NKYab WCMPRZ2eCyn/HfltbVhSFiVK9e7a9qKkokUDJzOTEx0X7oO4iSNIt3O3VpJnKyzV oYycewRFGJjiTej+KKOOPrRBZv/1kLN3xgk+GG69v97IWRwI2I846ldE46wMPfFl Hl9TwUBXgMA8ZBkABJAiLobrVeHRMsBE62QouLHvWzXEr15uZbjpot6zzH7SnnJV X2mGvbyb0SqP9E+NMUt4vwWPmFY4SWEk8eniZuensvEGXlSQgeqvuD0veH96BCLT NxeAUii6kdmIMeLusPi3JoUJl06a9wPeH7jYF+iu/1Dj1pDBjVX5lp8YV49iPZVT 4NUidA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=11I+cSuhzcwtchw1J29Bv8gSFrBcE6rM1sWXl4fCj cE=; b=zMR6GVUFU+Lf0xlXXMducgCtdf70WH+qHvXQhPcxhsIwiNWzBsHvoqn9l vHF/2QcqbORXW/eplN0fsLlzviQUwAwy+zmPZEDyZLxs6ZOC2bjLmcEiYCSfviTZ C7oooWdQYB4loiHchmAqA3d6VNu1nAI3ZH+adCJ+sODaEbEB+gR39eHKDGJayz9k il/uq79eCXaS0JaO2g4JYPFEvVRox9EYq/D4HyEfPXLuneHxN0/xlCade/+UXrHh a933Qwk+OcQFUNyoGrJXWVc7Toa18AAvhzjqBLtHmqmRnrNQICH4hSss7VunQkK0 Rg6wJSctCWr2mCCMmj85ijootcmGA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudefjedgheekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D96D43061CCB; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:35:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Iremonger, Bernard" , Ferruh Yigit Cc: dpdk-dev Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 16:35:18 +0200 Message-ID: <1653442.0L77payyoi@thomas> In-Reply-To: <093c8be7-0bf7-395b-ea7c-89c607ac0d4e@intel.com> References: <4eac6690-f5e4-8bf5-a282-277eb2dadf44@intel.com> <093c8be7-0bf7-395b-ea7c-89c607ac0d4e@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK Release Status Meeting 28/05/2020 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 02/06/2020 16:23, Ferruh Yigit: > On 6/2/2020 12:39 PM, Iremonger, Bernard wrote: > > From: Ferruh Yigit > >> * v20.08 dates: > >> * Proposal/V1:Friday, 12 June 2020 > > > > Is the merge deadline Friday, 3 July? > > > >> * -rc1:Wednesday, 8 July 2020 > > Hi Bernard, > > I personally find having the distinction for "merge deadline" and '-rc1" is > confusing. I prefer to follow only -rc1. > > The thing to consider is, if -rc1 is 8 July, and you are sending a new version > of the patch on that day, 8 July, I think it is not surprising if the patch > misses the -rc1. > So patch should be at least a few days before the -rc1, to give enough time for > it to be processed. Should we formalize that a few days as "merge deadline" and > explicitly call that day, as said above I don't think so but I don't know what > others think about it. > > Roughly, please send your last version of the patch at least 2 work days before > the -rc1. @Thomas, what do you think, is it a fair measurement? I won't directly reply about the numbers and commitment. Yes we need to be strict on dates. But about when is the last time to have something merged, I would say it depends and it is based on best effort. The sooner is the better :-)