From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751930AbdIMSiI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:38:08 -0400
Received: from mail-pf0-f178.google.com ([209.85.192.178]:45789 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751148AbdIMSiF (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:38:05 -0400
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb4aXxkHwmfN3L2uztRpSJPa1inw22diSfrZ95jGjh18WnYGDhKeuQ4kwATlgqWFcE4G8Ljx1Q==
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 11:38:02 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Tom Gall <tom.gall@linaro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com>,
        patches@kernelci.org, Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk>,
        linux- stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review
Message-ID: <20170913183802.GA16037@roeck-us.net>
References: <20170912165253.709627159@linuxfoundation.org>
 <DE15C2BC-7EAB-48AD-8170-942E2C957451@linaro.org>
 <20170913034915.GA21161@kroah.com>
 <CAOfXc9HX7T_nYzFPmRT8yr2bsB6FL+xwScMotnnd_ptRmshvVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170913152213.GI27765@roeck-us.net>
 <20170913163655.nfdhr5gnl4sn4zsz@sirena.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170913163655.nfdhr5gnl4sn4zsz@sirena.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 09:36:55AM -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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.
> 
I should have been more specific; my comment assumed that the tag
would be reapplied (using git tag -f) to the tip of the rebased branch.
There should be no problem if each branch update is accompanied by
a new tag.

Guenter

> > 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.