[dpdk-dev] [dpdk-web] [PATCH v2] update stable releases roadmap

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 4/20/2018 4:52 PM, Aaron Conole wrote:
> Kevin Traynor <ktraynor at redhat.com> writes:
> 
>> On 04/18/2018 02:28 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 18/04/2018 14:28, Ferruh Yigit:
>>>> On 4/18/2018 10:14 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>> 18/04/2018 11:05, Ferruh Yigit:
>>>>>> On 4/11/2018 12:28 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>>>> -	<p>Typically a new stable release version follows a mainline release
>>>>>>> -	by 1-2 weeks, depending on the test results.
>>>>>>> +	<p>The first stable release (.1) of a branch should follow
>>>>>>> +	its mainline release (.0) by at least two months,
>>>>>>> +	after the first release candidate (-rc1) of the next branch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Thomas,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What this change suggest? To be able to backport patches from rc1?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it is the proposal we discussed earlier.
>>>>> We can wait one week after RC1 to get some validation confirmation.
>>>>> Do you agree?
>>>>
>>>> This has been discussed in tech-board, what I remember the decision was to wait
>>>> the release to backport patches into stable tree.
>>>
>>
>> Any minutes? I couldn't find them
>>
>>> It was not so clear to me.
>>> I thought post-rc1 was acceptable. The idea is to speed-up stable releases
>>> pace, especially first release of a series.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I think timing of stable releases and bugfix backports to the stable
>> branch are two separate items.
>>
>> I do think that bugfix backports to stable should happen on a regular
>> basis (e.g. every 2 weeks). Otherwise we are back to the situation where
>> if there's a bugfix after a DPDK release, a user like (surprise,
>> surprise) OVS may not be able to use that DPDK version for ~3 months.
>>
>> Someone who wants to get the latest bugfixes can just take the latest on
>> the stable branch and importantly, can have confidence that the
>> community has officially accepted those patches. If someone requires
>> stable to be validated, then they have to wait until the release.
> 
> +1 - this seems to make the most sense to me.  Keep the patches flowing,
> but don't label/tag it until validation.  That serves an additional
> function: developers know their CC's to stable are being processed.

Are stable trees verified?

> 
>> Kevin.