Re: 1.3 and branching

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Jul 21 2023, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 02:24:57PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 12 2023, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 02:24:32PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jul 12 2023, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> > Yes we were supposed to freeze for 1.3. This change can be merged on a
>> >> > main branch after 1.3 forks and is under review.
>> >> 
>> >> Nod, that's what I would prefer to do. Being merged on virtio-next
>> >> should be enough for including device/driver implementations.
>> >
>> > Except I'd prefer a v1.3 branch instead of a next branch - adding things
>> > on the branch should be harder, not easier.
>> 
>> Just to clarify: What I had planned for 1.3 (and what we already did for
>> 1.2) is to fork a -next branch, finish 1.3 on the master branch, and
>> then merge -next back into master after we'd be done with 1.3.
>> 
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "adding things on the branch should be
>> harder, not easier" -- I think it is already a bit harder because it is
>> a branch :)
>> 
>> We can of course do a v1.3 branch instead and continue developing on
>> master, but shouldn't we then create branches (glorified tags) for the
>> older releases as well?
>
> Yea, makes sense.
> I think we are all set WRT what we planned to be in 1.3 - right?

I'll send out a "last call" JFTR, but I think we're good.

> Next step is preparing the changelog and packaging it
> all as WD, then voting to approve it as a CSD/CSPRD and start
> public review.
>
> Have time this week? if not I will get to it next week.

Certainly not this week, but one of us can get started with the
changelog next week. Fortunately, it should be shorter than the one for
1.2 :)