Re: Release schedule for Core Update 165 and 166

[Adolf Belka <adolf.belka@ipfire.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2092 bytes --]

Hi Peter,

On 14/02/2022 20:27, Peter Müller wrote:
> Hello development folks,
>
> to make it more clear which patch goes into which release, at which point in time
> a Core Update will be closed, and to ideally release stuff ready to go faster, Michael
> and myself just had a phone call over the IPFire 2.x release schedule (see:
> https://wiki.ipfire.org/devel/release-schedule), and we decided to give that another
> try.
>
> Having extended the "merge window" phase to 14 days, this means:
>
> - I will push my personal testing branch for Core Update 165 into "next" shortly,
>    closing the "merge window" (in which I pick up patches from https://patchwork.ipfire.org/)
>    by the end of this week.
>
> - Afterwards, Core Update 165 will go into the bugfixing phase for 20 days, until
>    March 12nd.
>
> - It will then be released for the public testing phase for 10 days, being released
>    as stable at approximately March 22nd. At the same time, I will start working on
>    Core Update 166.
>
>    For personal reasons, I currently lack oversight over my available for the project
>    in March, and will assign Core Update 166 to somebody else if I cannot take properly
>    care of it.
>
> While this sounds a bit rush and complex (to myself as well), I think it is worth
> a try. After all, I consider these dates being rough deadlines, and anything major
> will (have to) be an exception to this schedule. Just let's see how it works this
> time... :-)
>
> As always, feel free to drop me a line in case of any questions/trouble/etc.
>
> Also, it would be great if there could be some more people on this list reviewing patches;
> some of the 203 patches currently tracked in https://patchwork.ipfire.org/project/ipfire/list/
> have not been reviewed yet.
I have had a scan through and reviewed the ones that I feel comfortable that I understand and that my review makes sense. I also think that I shouldn't/can't review my own patches so someone else will have to have a look at those.
> Thanks, and best regards,
> Peter Müller