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

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

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