From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751424AbdIMRH3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:07:29 -0400 Received: from heliosphere.sirena.org.uk ([172.104.155.198]:44150 "EHLO heliosphere.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751118AbdIMRH2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:07:28 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 09:36:55 -0700 From: Mark Brown To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Tom Gall , Greg Kroah-Hartman , LKML , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Shuah Khan , patches@kernelci.org, Ben Hutchings , linux- stable Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review Message-ID: <20170913163655.nfdhr5gnl4sn4zsz@sirena.org.uk> References: <20170912165253.709627159@linuxfoundation.org> <20170913034915.GA21161@kroah.com> <20170913152213.GI27765@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="prwxb2yvv45vgis7" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170913152213.GI27765@roeck-us.net> X-Cookie: Vote anarchist. User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --prwxb2yvv45vgis7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 08:22:13AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:05:00AM -0500, Tom Gall wrote: > > Does it make sense to create tags for the RC(s) so git describe gets > > it right? Given the right version is in the Makefile kinda feels like > > that'd be a belt and suspenders approach. > Depends. A tag only makes sense if the branch isn't rebased, otherwise > (if the tag can change) it would be misleading (as would be to report > the version number from Makefile). Rebasing shouldn't be an issue for tags (they're not branches), and changes would a disaster no matter what. > Given that, I think reporting the SHA is better, since it reports clearly > which version was tested. This definitely makes sense though (especially in a generalized tool), defensively if nothing else. I think you ideally want both. --prwxb2yvv45vgis7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCAAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAlm5XqYACgkQJNaLcl1U h9D1OAf9GtQK8VJhZWgzxLMjKN3irCC7AjQsNXHcBEWc3KNJvs0JMer9ssyNbblA O9hUgI9UImaVZoLoPNpkBSShAPmoOc34huk7iNkECukKkHrOnOLXx4DkS9bK+RLa qKsz7HpPZrdtIs90/Sd2SYeURTsKYsFNWsRJJwsBVqqIMO8vNJFxpLcpBsnwibao LP6YLYRY2J+2NQwweMr8eXkYKREOgiUd7xpB2P3/b1quJJPCG6BU9wB8d64vg+JN H8eTC1RpUMGi+Tve0vdF5483zpKRY11GmZRLCLkWEfj9/6rW3IkqsmWGKMecsDEE 9G9zfc83Wsqux2sY5vOvIXQTZPQFjQ== =cizo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --prwxb2yvv45vgis7--