3.0 release planning

John Marino dragonflybsd at marino.st
Sat Jan 21 00:44:32 PST 2012

On 1/21/2012 2:43 AM, Justin Sherrill wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:35 PM, John Marino<dragonflybsd at marino.st>  wrote:
>> For the 2.12 release there was maintained a "must-fix" buglist.  Did we have
>> this for the 3.0 release?
> There isn't a separate one for 3.0, but that's in part because 2.12
> sorta morphed into 3.0, and the 2.12 one was cleared.

A lot of new material was committed since the 2.12 branch.  It's not 
like we were in a freeze.  So 3.0 is not a relabeled 2.12, and a new set 
of bugs could have been created.

Plus I think a formal review of the buglist for each release should be 
part of release planning.  It forces us at least once every 6 months to 
really review it, and give the users/developers a platform to opine on 
what really needs to be fixed and what can wait.

>> I don't think bug 2279 is fixed yet.  I would think that would hold up the
>> release? There might be more.  We should review the bug list before tagging,
>> IMO.
> YONETANI Tomokazu has a fix for it.  I think Matt did some cleanup of
> the build files to make it go faster - this may be related?  I'm
> guessing.
> My goal was to tag so that anyone who wanted to put stuff in could,
> without risk of destabilizing the release, and then bug fixes could be
> applied back to that tag.  That way we have something to work on while
> the packages build.

Applying back to the releas branch is kind of a pain, and at least two 
of us have made "git" mistakes doing it.  Our goal (and I think it's 
Matt goal too) is that the actual release is pretty similar to what's 

And yes, I'm also guessing that Matt's parallel build work is the cause 
of bug 2279.  But that bug report was just one example, there could 
easily be more.


More information about the Kernel mailing list