This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


RE: [Xen-devel] RE: New Release Process

To: "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>, "Anthony Liguori" <aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] RE: New Release Process
From: "Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:34:22 -0000
Delivery-date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:43:20 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcYdSsMHOE5/IVW3RVWzkvnj8ZZ9KAD6pUywAFpT/fAAAyI1IAAJNjNQ
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] RE: New Release Process
> I think it would be better if we incorporate them one by one, 
> not them together on the _same_ day (I doubt you are doing 
> that, though), because we can debug effectively focusing on 
> fewer problems. For example, 1. hvm, 2. sanity testing (a day 
> or two), 3. 2.6.15 or 2.6.16-rcX

Normally I'd totally agree, but these changes are actually quite
orthogonal: hvm basically touches just xen, and the linux tree upgrade
is self contained. Those doing hvm testing could carry on using a 2.6.12
dom0 kernel from this week, just to keep things isolated.

Whether we should go straight to 2.6.16-rc1, or whether we should go via
2.6.12-subarchxen and 2.6.15 is less clear. 2.6.12-subarch and 2.6.15
both seem pretty stable on 32b, but x86_64 needs more testing. I'd
certainly be inclined to check-in each of those trees, even if we didn't
let them mature at the tip for very long. People could then at least
roll-back for 'binary chop' purposes.



Xen-devel mailing list