<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Pavel Emelyanov <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:xemul@parallels.com" target="_blank">xemul@parallels.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 12/17/2015 09:18 PM, Saied Kazemi wrote:<br>
> I also agree that having fixed dates for stable releases is good and we<br>
> should continue doing it.<br>
<br>
</span>OK :)<br>
<span class=""><br>
> Regarding faster access to newly implemented features, how about a separate<br>
> "channel" called beta or dev that releases weekly (or at will)? New features<br>
> are introduced in this channel and, after they've been qualified for a few<br>
> weeks, move to the stable channel. This is like what OS distros such as<br>
> CoreOS do (they actually have three channels: alpha, beta, stable; visit<br>
> <a href="https://coreos.com/releases/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://coreos.com/releases/</a>).<br>
<br>
</span>Hm... Do you know whether they do those releases from one repo, or constantly<br>
move only the good stuff from alfa to beta and then to stable?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm pretty sure all releases come from the same repo, but different branches. New features are committed to master and then cherry picked onto alpha, beta, and stable.</div><div><br></div><div>Does a two-branch scheme (dev and stable) work for CRIU?</div><div><br></div><div>--Saied</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>