On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 09:36:38AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote: > Hello > > On 01/29/2014 02:40 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Just now we were discussing that fedora kexec-tools should rebase to > > upstream kexec-tools every release so that we can test the latest code > > sooner. > > > > Then Dave Young pulled in some data about the kexec-tools release > > duration. > > > > Date: Tue Mar 19 10:46:46 2013 +0900 > > kexec-tools 2.0.4 ~100 commits > > > > Date: Mon Jan 16 09:15:25 2012 +1100 > > kexec-tools 2.0.3 ~100 commits > > > > Date: Thu Jul 29 13:40:00 2010 +0900 > > kexec-tools 2.0.2 ~80 commits > > > > Date: Thu Aug 13 09:28:08 2009 +1000 > > kexec-tools 2.0.1 ~60 commits > > > > Date: Sat Jul 19 10:31:30 2008 +1000 > > kexec-tools 2.0.0 > > > > So that is 5 release in 5.5 years. It is roughly 1 release per year. > > > > I am wondering if there is any interest in more frequent releases of > > kexec-tools. Say every 3 months or every 6 months. > > > > IMHO, it might be better if there are more frequent release of kexec-tools > > (say a release every 6 months) and then every 6 months distributions > > should be able to rebase to that new release. > > > > Thoughts? > > Agreed. Sometimes, important changes in the kernel side will lead to the change > in the kexec-tools, so especially in this case, I think it might be better > to release a new version asap. One example is recent support of kexec on EFI systems. These changes went into 3.13 kernel as well as kexec-tools. Simon what do you think? A kexec-tools release every 4 months or every 6 months. Does it make sense to you? Thanks Vivek
