Re: [PATCH] Revert "scripts/setlocalversion: git: Make -dirty check more robust"

From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Cc: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
	Genki Sky <sky@genki.is>, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
	Christian Kujau <lists@nerdbynature.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "scripts/setlocalversion: git: Make -dirty check more robust"
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:55:26 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAK7LNAR5etb-oJDaxNZbH9-FmC3+hC3A_cwnbuWPQx0maHaDng@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+ASDXN40pvbZKvsO3Cb8256AQJ3fyQh5TWdT+GDk_ncq11nMw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 12:20 PM Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 1:18 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 1:07 PM Genki Sky <sky@genki.is> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 12:55:14 -0800, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > > > Ubuntu 16.04 ships with git version 2.7.4.
> > >
> > > Okay. I guess --no-optional-locks is a no-go then.
> >
> > In theory you could wrap it.  If passing git with
> > "--no-optional-locks" doesn't work you could fall back to the old
> > code?  That would mean only people with newer git would get your new
> > feature and everyone else would stick with the pre-existing behavior.
>
> +1, that's what I was going to suggest. Presumably older git would
> give non-zero exit status for unknown flags, and we take that as
> signal to try to the old way?

I also like this idea!

I will pick-up this revert patch soon.

Brian,
Could you please send a patch on top of that?

Thanks!

-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada