Pkg xen devel - Sep 2015 - [Xen-devel] Notes from Xen BoF at Debconf15

On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 03:47 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 08.09.15 at 11:24, <ian.campbell at citrix.com>
wrote:
> > Release cycle
> > ============> > 
> > Waldi commented that the stable release cycle was too long. Would like
> > to see a release after any large security update.
> > 
> > We asked if the RCs for stable releases were valuable, the answer was
> > "not so much".
> > 
> > Waldi would prefer to avoid cherry-picking security fixes if possible.
> > 
> > We asked if we thought Xen stable releases could be added to Debian
> > point releases. Waldi thought they likely could be, citing the
> > inclusion of Linux stable releases in point releases.
> > 
> > Our stable releases follow a similar set of rules to Linux, we think
> > we implement them more faithfully (less feature or feature-like
> > backports)
> > 
> > ACTION: Talk to Jan about making changes to stable release process.
> 
> That's kind of the opposite of what we quite recently changed to
> (a [hopefully] more predictable four month cycle). Apart from the
> question what "large" is, doing a release after any large
security
> update seems unreasonable to me (not only because of giving up
> the predictability, but also because of the overhead involved,
> which is there even if we ditched the RCs). I have to admit that I
> fail to see why Debian would be different than other distros, all
> cherry picking security fixes until a new stable release becomes
> available. If otoh other major distros voiced similar desires, I
> think we'd have to once again re-think our stable release cadence.
IIRC (hopefully Ian or someone else will correct me if not) the main
proposal to discuss with you was WRT the usefulness of the RCs for stable
releases, since it was felt they didn't provide much benefit to
downstreams.

IOW perhaps it would be just as useful to downstreams and less work for us
(mainly you I suppose) to do 0 or only 1 rc for a point release, based on
whatever is in the branch at the appropriate time. It might also avoid
various delays which the stable release process can currently suffer from
waiting for a push for each rc instead of just once (or maybe twice), which
in turn might help the release timing to be even more predictable.

Ian.

>>> On 08.09.15 at 12:15, <ian.campbell at citrix.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 03:47 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > > > On 08.09.15 at 11:24, <ian.campbell at citrix.com>
wrote:
>> > Release cycle
>> > ============>> > 
>> > Waldi commented that the stable release cycle was too long. Would
like
>> > to see a release after any large security update.
>> > 
>> > We asked if the RCs for stable releases were valuable, the answer
was
>> > "not so much".
>> > 
>> > Waldi would prefer to avoid cherry-picking security fixes if
possible.
>> > 
>> > We asked if we thought Xen stable releases could be added to
Debian
>> > point releases. Waldi thought they likely could be, citing the
>> > inclusion of Linux stable releases in point releases.
>> > 
>> > Our stable releases follow a similar set of rules to Linux, we
think
>> > we implement them more faithfully (less feature or feature-like
>> > backports)
>> > 
>> > ACTION: Talk to Jan about making changes to stable release
process.
>> 
>> That's kind of the opposite of what we quite recently changed to
>> (a [hopefully] more predictable four month cycle). Apart from the
>> question what "large" is, doing a release after any large
security
>> update seems unreasonable to me (not only because of giving up
>> the predictability, but also because of the overhead involved,
>> which is there even if we ditched the RCs). I have to admit that I
>> fail to see why Debian would be different than other distros, all
>> cherry picking security fixes until a new stable release becomes
>> available. If otoh other major distros voiced similar desires, I
>> think we'd have to once again re-think our stable release cadence.
> 
> IIRC (hopefully Ian or someone else will correct me if not) the main
> proposal to discuss with you was WRT the usefulness of the RCs for stable
> releases, since it was felt they didn't provide much benefit to
> downstreams.
> 
> IOW perhaps it would be just as useful to downstreams and less work for us
> (mainly you I suppose) to do 0 or only 1 rc for a point release, based on
> whatever is in the branch at the appropriate time. It might also avoid
> various delays which the stable release process can currently suffer from
> waiting for a push for each rc instead of just once (or maybe twice), which
> in turn might help the release timing to be even more predictable.
Right - 4.4.3 already was released with just one RC, and indeed I
meant to stay with that model considering the little (if any) feedback
we get on these RCs. I personally could live without doing any RCs,
but thought so far that doing at least one kind of publicly indicates
the intention of doing a release soon.

Jan

Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Notes from Xen BoF at
Debconf15"):
> Right - 4.4.3 already was released with just one RC, and indeed I
> meant to stay with that model considering the little (if any) feedback
> we get on these RCs. I personally could live without doing any RCs,
> but [...]
Having had the chance to reflect I am convinced that we should stop
doing RCs for point releases.
> [I] thought so far that doing at least one kind of publicly indicates
> the intention of doing a release soon.
You might hope that it would have that effect, but I don't think it is
working.  Also, if it does work, all it does is generate more patches,
making the `rc' more of a `prod to get your stuff shoveled in'.

Ian.