From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: (release) versioning Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 11:21:11 +0100 Message-ID: <1430907671.2660.198.camel@citrix.com> References: <554903B90200007800076CFC@mail.emea.novell.com> <1430902923.2660.164.camel@citrix.com> <554A054402000078000770C6@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YpwS3-00065k-J4 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 06 May 2015 10:21:15 +0000 In-Reply-To: <554A054402000078000770C6@mail.emea.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org 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 to a 5.0 release considered and ruled out? > > It wasn't mentioned in the discussion I think, but ... > > > I suppose > > it looses the benefit of the numeric portion sorting properly. > > ... based on this I had rules it out before that (and hence didn't > even bring it up as a possibility). And using 5.0-rcN to lead to a > 5.1.0 release would become odd/misleading the latest for > subsequent stable release RCs. Right, I had meant 5.0-rc leading to a 5.0(.0) release. (Anyway I'm ok with "5.0.1-rc", so it doesn't matter) Ian.