Re: [PATCH for-4.19] docs/checklist: Fix XEN_EXTRAVERSION inconsistency for release candidates

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Jan,

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.
> > 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.
42sh> git tag | grep rc

3.0.2-rc
3.2.0-rc1
3.2.0-rc2
3.2.0-rc3
3.2.0-rc4
3.2.0-rc5
3.2.0-rc6
3.3.0-rc1
3.3.0-rc2
[...]
4.14.0-rc1
4.14.0-rc2
4.14.0-rc3
4.14.0-rc4
4.14.0-rc5
4.15.0-rc1
4.15.0-rc2
4.15.0-rc3
4.15.0-rc4
4.15.0-rc5
4.16.0-rc1
4.16.0-rc2
4.16.0-rc3
4.16.0-rc4
4.17.0-rc1
4.17.0-rc2
4.17.0-rc3
4.17.0-rc4
4.18.0-rc1
4.18.0-rc2
4.18.0-rc3

> Do I need to go any further? Your 4.5 example also doesn't fully fit because
> at that time we were, in addition, still appending RC numbers (up to and
> including 4.9 as it looks). In 4.10 it then (intermediately) indeed was
> 4.10.0-rc. In 4.11 it became 4.11-rc.
See above.

> That said I wouldn't strictly mind the .0 infix. It's just that imo shorter
> is better, and the .0 doesn't really convey any useful information anymore
> now that we don't do / tag stable release RCs any longer.
So you are arguing for shortening the name. I am arguing for consistency 
across the naming. We can do both, but we would need to tag the tree 
with "4.X-rcY".
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall