Release schedule

Fri Jun 8 21:13:41 UTC 2018

On 2018-06-08 03:21 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 15:45:00 -0500
> Derek Foreman <derekf at osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-06-04 07:14 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
>>> Hi Pekka,
>>>
>>> On 4 June 2018 at 12:29, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:  
>>>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 10:52:49 +0100
>>>> Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org> wrote:  
>>>>> On 1 June 2018 at 17:52, Derek Foreman <derekf at osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>>>>> Maybe? There's certainly a ton of change in the tree now, and a few
>>>>> more which look like they could land (IVI/XDG, the last bits of
>>>>> atomic, etc). It'd be a pretty hefty release whenever we released it.
>>>>> I don't have a strong opinion on when we get it out the door, to be
>>>>> honest.  
>>>>
>>>> for a project I'm working on, it would be very nice to get the current
>>>> Weston master released ASAP. OTOH, I'm on vacation from July 12 to
>>>> Aug 1, so I definitely won't be around at that time.  
>>>
>>> I know you didn't mean it like this, but I think it's good to be clear
>>> that this isn't a corporate demand to fix releases at a certain point.
>>> That user is just another one of our downstreams and another datapoint
>>> to take into consideration. (But a good one!)
>>>   
>>>> We have been in the development cycle for two months now. How would you
>>>> feel about trying to get, say, rc1 out around July 10?
>>>>
>>>> That would mean rc1 at five weeks from now. I could be around during the
>>>> alpha and beta time, hoping there wouldn't be much regressions to fix
>>>> after rc1.
>>>>
>>>> Is it too soon? How soon could we do it?  
>>>
>>> When does it mean alpha/beta?  
>>
>> I'm traveling from July 16-20, and will have very poor internet access.
>>
>> This would put as at:
>> Alpha June 12
>> Beta June 26
>> RC1 July 10
>> Final July 24 (normally we're 1 week between RCs but july 17 is
>> problematic for me.)
>>
>> So that's coming up fast.
> 
> Hi Derek,
> 
> very fast. Even too fast.
> 
> I suppose I could be happy with just alpha coming in a month, or at
> most in two months. I don't personally mind being on vacation during
> the freezes, but I though it would be nice for others to be around. I
> would also be ok if your travels were during some freeze period, we
> could extend it respectively.
> 
> Please, suggest a schedule you would be comfortable with.

Hmm, how about we enter alpha in the second week of July?
Alpha - July 10th
Beta - July 24th
RC1 - August 7th
First possible release August 14th.

Which pretty much puts you on holidays for most of the freeze.  I'm not
terrified by this, I think having you around prior is what's most important.

Is that still fast enough?

Thanks,
Derek

>>>> What do we want to have in the 5.0.0 release?  
>>>
>>> I'd want to have the rest of the 'atomic series' (now really about
>>> overlay plane usage & modifiers) in for sure. It's all got positive
>>> review and I have some very clearly and definitively carved-out time
>>> coming in the next week or two to spend on just getting that landed. I
>>> think it's pretty important to land as it does fix some bugs, and full
>>> modifier support is becoming more important: we need it in order to
>>> run on Etnaviv/i.MX at all, it helps RPi, and we don't get composition
>>> bypass / direct scanout for fullscreen windows on Intel anymore, since
>>> we need modifiers to describe the client buffers it generates from
>>> Mesa.  
>>
>> That looks like a fair bit of stuff - can we get there with the proposed
>> timeline or should we push back?
> 
> I think we should push the alpha back some, I'd like to see that stuff
> in too.
> 
>>> I also have some work on weston-debug and IVI shell coming up, but I
>>> don't think those will get finalised in the next couple of weeks, so
>>> I'm comfortable giving those more time.  
>>
>> grumble grumble xdg shell stable grumble.
>>
>>>> How long do we need for the alpha and beta stages?  
>>>
>>> I don't have a good answer to this one. I think we've traditionally
>>> done two weeks for each, right?  
>>
>> That's my recollection, at least for the last release.
> 
> Alright, sounds good to me.
> 
>>>>>> I think we also no longer need to rigidly release wayland and weston at
>>>>>> the same time, as wayland itself is quite mature and may not receive
>>>>>> many significant patches during a weston cycle.  I'm wondering if
>>>>>> libwayland releases should break from timed cycles entirely?  
>>>>>
>>>>> That sounds good to me. libwayland is so quiet that I don't think we
>>>>> need to force it out the door every so often; I think moving it out of
>>>>> forced major releases could get us actually doing patch releases as
>>>>> well, which would be nice.  
>>>>
>>>> Sounds fine to me!  
>>
>> Nod, I think patch releases for libwayland make sense now.
>>
>> So, let's sit on this a little bit to give anyone that thinks this
>> release comes too soon a chance to speak, and if nobody complains by
>> June 11 we can go with the June 12 to July 24 plan.
> 
> I do feel a bit bad suggesting that fast major feature freeze. :-)
> 
>> This is a bit of a surprise, so anyone with any reason feel free to stop
>> me - on or off list if you don't want to make a scene here. ;)
>>
>> Also, there's been some small change in libwayland, so I'll do them both
>> at the same time for this round, but in the future we'll only force them
>> together if there's a compelling reason.
>>
>>>> Even for Weston, not the least because it would be oh so very convenient
>>>> for me right now, maybe it would be nice to let people request an early
>>>> release cycle if there are specific things they would like to have in a
>>>> release. In case nothing such comes up, our release manager could
>>>> decide to do a time-based release so that we get at least two
>>>> releases a year. How would that sound?  
>>
>> I'm fine with this - I'm not against some variability in the schedule.
>>
>> I think we should normally start the discussion a little further in
>> advance though, announcing a week before the alpha is a bit quick. :)
> 
> Definitely.
> 
>>>> Obviously, when requesting an early release, the community needs to
>>>> agree on the schedule so that the feature freeze doesn't come at an
>>>> awkward time.  
>>>
>>> Yeah. I think in general we just need a little more proactive
>>> awareness in both directions: development being geared towards
>>> releases a little more, and releases more actively steering
>>> development. Maybe having a better issue tracker (e.g. being able to
>>> use GItLab milestones or workboards) would help everyone by making
>>> what we're aiming for more visible.  
>>
>> +1
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> pq
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> wayland-devel mailing list
> wayland-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
> 