[Release-testers] RFC: Upcoming release schedules and creating a formal schedule for future releases
Tom Stellard via Release-testers
release-testers at lists.llvm.org
Tue Jan 5 13:23:46 PST 2021
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 :
>> 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
>> 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.
More information about the Release-testers