From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 09:55:18 +0100 Message-ID: <518A12F6.4090000@eu.citrix.com> References: <20872.56003.44067.402013@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <518927FC02000078000D3F24@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20873.12110.383738.749147@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <518A10FB02000078000D435C@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <518A10FB02000078000D435C@nat28.tlf.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: "Keir (Xen.org)" , "Tim (Xen.org)" , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Ian Jackson , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 08/05/13 07:46, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 07.05.13 at 18:43, Ian Jackson wrote: >> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 17914: tolerable FAIL"): >>> Ian, I see you also tagged the Xen tree, but unfortunately without >>> updating the hypervisor revision to -rc1? Was that intentional? It's >>> not a dramatic problem (and I don't see a need to withdraw and >>> redo the tag), but maybe worth an addition to the checklist. >> You mean XEN_EXTRAVERSION in xen/Makefile ? I wasn't sure >> whether that ought to be changed. It's on the checklist but I don't >> know what the usual practice is for an RC. > Keir updated that in the past for the RCs, but personally I don't > mind it remaining "-unstable" until the branching occurs. I think it would be better to update the EXTRAVERSION, but it's not a terribly big deal I don't think. -George