Hi,
On 16/07/2024 08:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.07.2024 09:22, Julien Grall wrote:
On 16/07/2024 07:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.07.2024 18:56, Julien Grall wrote:
On 15/07/2024 16:50, Andrew Cooper wrote:
An earlier part of the checklist states:
* change xen-unstable README. The banner (generated using figlet) should
say:
- "Xen 4.5" in releases and on stable branches
- "Xen 4.5-unstable" on unstable
- "Xen 4.5-rc" for release candidate
Update the notes about XEN_EXTRAVERSION to match.
When this is the purpose of the patch, ...
We have been tagging the tree with 4.5.0-rcX. So I think it would be
better to update the wording so we use a consistent naming.
I find:
4.18-rc
4.17-rc
4.16-rc
4.15-rc
Hmmm... I don't think we are looking at the same thing. I was
specifically looking at the tag and *not* XEN_EXTRAVERSION.
... why would we be looking at tags?
As I wrote, consistency across the naming scheme we use.
The tags (necessarily) have RC numbers,
Right but they also *have* the .0.
so are going to be different from XEN_EXTRAVERSION in any event.
Sure they are not going to be 100% the same. However, they could have
some similarity.
As I pointed out multiple times now, to me it is odd we are tagging the
tree with 4.19.0-rcX, but we use 4.19-rc.
Furthermore, if you look at the history of the document. It is quite
clear that the goal was consistency (the commit mentioned by Andrew
happened after). Yes it wasn't respected but I can't tell exactly why.
So as we try to correct the documentation, I think we should also look
at consistency. If you *really* want to drop the .0, then I think it
should happen for the tag as well (again for consistency).
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
