On 16.07.24 09:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.07.2024 09:33, Julien Grall wrote: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-rcHmmm... 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).I don't see why (but I also wouldn't mind the dropping from the tag). They are going to be different. Whether they're different in one or two aspects is secondary to me. I rather view the consistency goal to be with what we've been doing in the last so many releases.
Another aspect to look at would be version sorting. This will be interesting when e.g. having a Xen rpm package installed and upgrading it with a later version. I don't think we want to regard replacing an -rc version with the .0 version to be a downgrade, so the the version numbers should be sorted by "sort -V" in the correct order. This would mean that we'd need to use: 4.19-rc 4.19.0 4.19.1 Juergen
OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
