[Release-testers] RFC: Upcoming release schedules and creating a formal schedule for future releases

[Sylvestre Ledru via Release-testers]

Hello Tom,

Happy new year!

Le 05/01/2021 à 05:32, Tom Stellard via Release-testers a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I want to give an update on the status of the LLVM 11 and LLVM 12 
> releases.  11.0.1-final is expected to be tagged this week, along with 
> 11.1.0-rc1.  Unfortunately, we had an ABI regression in libclang.so 
> between LLVM 10 and LLVM 11, so we need to do an 11.1.0 release to 
> correct this.  This happened one other time where we had to bump the 
> minor version to correct an ABI breakage.  So, LLVM 11.0.1 libclang 
> will be ABI compatible with LLVM 11, and LLVM 11.1.0 libclang will be 
> ABI compatible  with LLVM != 11.

Do you have the bug number of the ABI issue? I didn't experience it.


>
> For LLVM 12 the proposed branch date is Jan 26.  I'm hoping we will 
> have the 2 LLVM 11.x releases done before that.
>
> In addition to all this, I would like to propose an official 
> week-of-the-year based release schedule that we can use for all future 
> releases.  What I'm proposing is not really any different in terms of 
> dates from what we've been doing for the last several years.  My main 
> goal is just to get this documented so it's clear to the community and 
> the release managers what the expectations are.  Here is the proposed 
> scheduled:
>
> 1.0.0-rc1   4th Tue in January
> 1.0.0-rc2   + 4 Weeks
> 1.0.0-final + 2 Weeks  (10th Tuesday ~mar 9)
> 1.0.1-rc1   + 4 Weeks
> 1.0.1-rc2   + 4 Weeks
> 1.0.1-final + 2 Weeks  (20th Tuesday ~may 18)
>
> 2.0.0-rc1   + 10 Weeks (+26 Weeks From 1.0.0-rc1)
> 2.0.0-rc2   +  4 Weeks
> 2.0.0-final +  2 weeks (36th Tuesday ~sep 7)
> 2.0.1-rc1   +  4 weeks
> 2.0.1-rc2   +  4 weeks
> 2.0.1-final +  2 weeks (46th Tuesday ~nov 16
>
> The release branches will be created on the same day as -rc1.
>
> If there are no objections to this, I will add it to the documentation 
> next week.

I like the approach.
As we have an history of missing the deadlines, what about make it less 
specific? (or making it clear that it is just a guidance).

Cheers,

Sylvestre