On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 09:24:37AM +0100, Stefan Eissing wrote: > > Am 04.03.2022 um 08:32 schrieb Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org>: > > On 3/3/22 5:40 PM, Joe Orton wrote: > >> Oh, good question. I'm not sure how the "branch" variable appears in an > >> arbitrary branch but it's possible we'd need to tweak the conditions > >> again, yes. If we used a naming rule of "branches/2.4.x-*" for 2.4.x > >> backports would that be reasonable? This is most common from examples > > > > Sounds reasonable, but given that for candidates we use candidate-2.4.x we > > should change this to 2.4.x-candidate if we set a > > naming convention of branches/2.4.x-*. > > I can change that easily, but the pattern be better: branches/2.4.* > since the candidate carries the to be released version, not 2.4.x (the > name branches/2.4.x-candidate-2.4.54 is silly and I refuse to go there > -.-)
Sounds good to me. I've changed the conditions in r1898671 to treat anything matching "^2.4" like 2.4, matching "^candidate-2.4" is also retained for now. Regards, Joe
