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

[Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

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-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).
> 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

Attachment: OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature