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

[Tom Stellard via Release-testers]

On 1/5/21 11:34 AM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> 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.
> 

https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46526

> 
>>
>> 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).
> 

I think the -rc1 dates should not change, but I can note that the other 
dates are meant as a guide.

-Tom

> Cheers,
> 
> Sylvestre
> 
> 
>