Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 00/11] libxl: ocaml: improve the bindings

[George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> George Dunlap writes ("Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] libxl: ocaml: improve the 
> bindings"):
>> Except that that basically calls into question what a "code freeze" is
>> at all.  At some point we just need to say, "No more, this is what we
>> have; from now on we work on bug fixes."
>
> That's indeed what we have a policy for.
>
>> The timeframe in which we did this kind of "cost/benefits" analysis for
>> new features was meant to have passed already -- the "grace period" has
>> already been three weeks; the schedule for the code freeze has been
>> published and hasn't changed in 6 weeks.
>
> Right.
>
>> While I can certainly understand the feeling of "just having missed"
>> when it might have been accepted, given the number of people working on
>> Xen now, I think we are almost always going to be in that situation.  We
>> can either keep slipping the window until we happen to get lucky enough
>> not to have any "really nice" features to add in, or we can set a hard
>> deadline and say, "Sorry, that will have to wait."  Feel free to make a
>> case for the first, but at the moment the second seems like the only way
>> to proceed to me.
>
> I would like to suggest that it was a mistake to provide a releease
> ack for something which wasn't ready for immediate commit.
>
> Perhaps in future a release ack should be implicitly qualified with
> "if committed within the next working day" or some such.

I think the reason I was giving them was to help focus reviewer and
developer energies in particular.  If a series has a chance of getting
in, it's important for reviewers and developers to prioritize it.  If
it's not going to get in, then the review / resubmit cycle can be put
on the back burner until the next development window opens up.

Two weeks ago there was no need to go through the whole exercise of
determining how important this was; given the criteria at the time, it
was a clear "accept".

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel