Hi,
At 16:54 +0100 on 05 May (1430844841), Jan Beulich wrote:
> So comparing current and new schemes things would go
>
> OLD NEW
> 4.6-unstable5.0-unstable (or 5.0.0)
> 4.6.0-rc1 5.0.1 (-rc1)
> ... .
On 06/05/2015 16:44, "Jan Beulich" wrote:
On 06.05.15 at 17:01, wrote:
>> Regarding 5.3.0.1 -- now once again you have a 4th digit where
>> non-zero means "release"; and do we need RCs for this? Do we have
>> 5.3.0.0.1-rc, and then 5,3,0.1 which is stable?
>
>No, in such cases I don't ex
>>> On 06.05.15 at 17:01, wrote:
> Regarding 5.3.0.1 -- now once again you have a 4th digit where
> non-zero means "release"; and do we need RCs for this? Do we have
> 5.3.0.0.1-rc, and then 5,3,0.1 which is stable?
No, in such cases I don't expect any RCs, just another release
(just like was do
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
wrote:
> I am OK with the mechanism as is and not sure why it would need
> changing. I know you are saying that the existing mechanism
> does not convery much information but I think the 'rcX'appended
> to the version tag is enough to tell us w
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 04:54:01PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> All,
>
> on the hackathon we also discussed possibly changing the versioning
> of Xen. The main rationale for the proposal is that (just like in many
> other software projects) version numbers (in particular the major
> one) currently
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> All,
>
> on the hackathon we also discussed possibly changing the versioning
> of Xen. The main rationale for the proposal is that (just like in many
> other software projects) version numbers (in particular the major
> one) currently don't real
On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 12:54 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 06.05.15 at 01:15, wrote:
> > Well, if we decide to keep the -rcX, then the 3rd digit will be:
> > - always .0 for actual releases
> > - always the same as -rc* for RCs
> >
> > so it looks to me that we can just kill it and have:
>
>>> On 06.05.15 at 01:15, wrote:
> Well, if we decide to keep the -rcX, then the 3rd digit will be:
> - always .0 for actual releases
> - always the same as -rc* for RCs
>
> so it looks to me that we can just kill it and have:
>
> 5.0-unstable
>5.1-rc1
>5.1-rc2
>...
>5.1-rcN
>
On 06/05/15 11:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.05.15 at 12:37, wrote:
>> On 06/05/15 08:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 06.05.15 at 09:21, wrote:
One exceptional situation is that we had 4.1.6 and 4.1.6.1. I don't
expect that to happen very often, but we do make mistakes in the relea
>>> On 06.05.15 at 12:37, wrote:
> On 06/05/15 08:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 06.05.15 at 09:21, wrote:
>>> One exceptional situation is that we had 4.1.6 and 4.1.6.1. I don't
>>> expect that to happen very often, but we do make mistakes in the release
>>> process and figure out we need to re
On 06/05/15 08:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.05.15 at 09:21, wrote:
>> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 04:54:01PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> on the hackathon we also discussed possibly changing the versioning
>>> of Xen. The main rationale for the proposal is that (just like in many
>>
On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 11:12 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 06.05.15 at 11:02, wrote:
> > Adding a trailing redundant -rc (with or without the N) might help, and
> > omitting the N (e.g. "5.0.1-rc") would reduce the redundancy to near
> > zero.
>
> Good suggestion.
>
> > Was 5.0-rcN leading t
>>> On 06.05.15 at 11:02, wrote:
> Adding a trailing redundant -rc (with or without the N) might help, and
> omitting the N (e.g. "5.0.1-rc") would reduce the redundancy to near
> zero.
Good suggestion.
> Was 5.0-rcN leading to a 5.0 release considered and ruled out?
It wasn't mentioned in the
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 16:54 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> All,
>
> on the hackathon we also discussed possibly changing the versioning
> of Xen.
Sorry I missed this, I had a clash.
> The main rationale for the proposal is that (just like in many
> other software projects) version numbers (in part
>>> On 06.05.15 at 09:21, wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 04:54:01PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> on the hackathon we also discussed possibly changing the versioning
>> of Xen. The main rationale for the proposal is that (just like in many
>> other software projects) version numbers (
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 04:54:01PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> All,
>
> on the hackathon we also discussed possibly changing the versioning
> of Xen. The main rationale for the proposal is that (just like in many
> other software projects) version numbers (in particular the major
> one) currently
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 18:05 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 05/05/15 16:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > on the hackathon we also discussed possibly changing the versioning
> > of Xen. The main rationale for the proposal is that (just like in many
> > other software projects) version number
On 05/05/15 16:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
> All,
>
> on the hackathon we also discussed possibly changing the versioning
> of Xen. The main rationale for the proposal is that (just like in many
> other software projects) version numbers (in particular the major
> one) currently don't really convey much
18 matches
Mail list logo
