[dpdk-dev] releases scheduling

[Wiles, Keith]

On 12/18/15, 6:01 PM, "dev on behalf of Thomas Monjalon" <dev-bounces at dpdk.org on behalf of thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote:

>2015-12-13 20:22, Thomas Monjalon:
>> We need to define the deadlines for the next releases.
>> During 2015, we were doing a release every 4 months.
>> If we keep the same pace, the next releases would be:
>> 	2.3: end of March
>> 	2.4: end of July
>> 	2.5: end of November
>> 
>> However, things move fast and it may be a bit long to wait 4 months for
>> a feature. That's why I suggest to progressively shorten release terms:
>> 	2.3: end of March
>> 	2.4: mid July
>> 	2.5: end of October
>> and continue with a release every 3 months:
>> 	2.6: end of January
>> 	2.7: end of April
>> 	2.8: end of July
>> This planning would preserve some of the major holiday periods
>> (February, May, August, December).
>> 
>> The first period, for the first submission of a feature, was 2 months long.
>> Then we had 2 other months to discuss, merge and fix.
>> We should shorten only the first period.
>> 
>> Anyway, the next deadlines should be unchanged:
>> 	- January 31: end of first submission phase
>> 	- March 31: release 2.3
>> 
>> Opinions are welcome.
>
>It seems everybody agree with this new scheduling.
>The web site will be updated accordingly:
>http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/web/2015-December/000008.html
>
>There were some discussions to change the numbering scheme
>and rename 2.3 to 16.04. The patch (with arguments) is welcome.
>I won't do the patch myself because I don't care :)
>
>Another discussion was about having a long term support,
>i.e. doing some backport maintenance during a given period for
>some selected releases.

I think we need to decide on the YY.MM.PP format then select
the dates for release now. This way we have it out of the way.

The date of the release is the first day of the month for the release.

March 1st - 15th is 16.03    Patches for 16.03 are from now to Feb 15th
    Try to get the release out as close to the 1st as possible.
    This one is a short release.
June  1st - 15th is 16.06    For 16.06 March 1st to May 15th
Sept  1st - 15th is 16.09    For 16.09 June 1st to Aug 15th
Dec   1st - 15th is 16.12    For 16.12 Sept 1st to Nov 15th.

The 15th just before the release month is the deadline for patches, gives up 2 weeks before the release date and to the 15th of the release month to get the release out, but we should try for the 1st. The deadline is just a suggestion here or example, we can adjust it to something else.

Tag 2.2.0 in the repo also as 15.12 plus I would suggest we tag it as LTS Long Term Support as well.


Here are highlights from the other thread around the patch of version numbers.
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-December/030560.html 

>
>>> >>
>>> >> What about the discussion about the numbering of DPDK versions in
>>> future? The
>>> >> latest suggest which was +1'ed a number of times was to use an
>>> Ubuntu-style
>>> >> YY.MM naming scheme. I don't think there was any objections to such a
>>> scheme
>>> >> so is it not premature to start naming the new release now using the
>>> old scheme?
>>> >
>>> >Before doing any change on master, it is better to change the version
>>> number
>>> >to avoid confusion with the previous release. Example, the generated
>>> doc does
>>> >not show 2.2 anymore.
>>> >
>>> >About changing the numbering, no problem, it can be changed at any time
>>> before
>>> >the RC1. At the moment there was a proposal for YY.MM and a proposal
>>> for 3.0.
>>> >Even the YY.MM needs more discussion as it is not clear if we should
>>> use 15.03
>>> >or 15.04 for the release ending at the end of March. It seems
>>> reasonnable to
>>> >expect a release the next day, i.e. in April.
>>> 
>>> I believe the numbering should be 16.03, 16.06, 16.09 and 16.12. As for
>>> 2.2.0 we should give it a second name 15.12 == 2.2.0 (and add a label in
>>> Git), then we can start with 16.03 as the next release number. All
>>> efforts should be made to meet the months 3, 6, 9 and 12, if one happens
>>> to be into the next month for some reason then we still label and call
>>> it the correct release number.
>>
>>When you say "the correct release number" I think you mean that if a release is planned for March but is actually completed in April, it would still be called 16.03. I believe Ubuntu take the opposite approach, and if a release does slip it gets the number for the month it's actually completed in (16.04 in this example). There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. We'll need to decide which approach is best.
>I just figured keeping the number the release number as expected was the best. I do not remember Ubuntu release numbers not on 4 or 10, but I could wrong. Most likely moving the release date to the first of the month is the right solution anyway. The only problem with 16.04 or April 1st is April fools day, but it really is not a big problem as long as we do not call it April 1st only YY.04.
>>
>>The best way to avoid confusion it to move from planning releases for the end of a month to planning them for the start of a month. So, as Thomas suggested above, we shouldn't plan our next release for the end of March, but for the start of April instead. That way it becomes 16.04, and we have a month of leeway in case there is a slip.

>I guess the release numbers would be 16.04, 16.07, 16.10 and then 17.01, 17.04, 17.07, 17.10 which is fine. I just liked the 3, 6, 9, 12 number scheme multiple of 3. If we stick with 3,6,9,12 and 16.03 release date would be 2016.03.01 for the first of the month. The next release after 15.12 will be a short release cycle and we get to keep the multiple of 3. :-)
>Plus with the end of year stuff it would be best to start a release on Dec 1st then on Jan 1st, right?





Regards,
Keith