Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752556AbdIMPWV (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 13 Sep 2017 11:22:21 -0400
Received: from mail-pf0-f193.google.com ([209.85.192.193]:38483 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751976AbdIMPWP (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 13 Sep 2017 11:22:15 -0400
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb5OytqtayAoJ2sRrxLfcFXKgJ/pH6zXIFmUUssi0sJCHIYOgcwqLWeNplB01l21AO/EuEr2Bw==
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 08:22:13 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Tom Gall <tom.gall@linaro.org>
Cc: 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: <20170913152213.GI27765@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAOfXc9HX7T_nYzFPmRT8yr2bsB6FL+xwScMotnnd_ptRmshvVg@mail.gmail.com>
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
Content-Length: 1699
Lines: 43

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:05:00AM -0500, Tom Gall wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 09:27:45PM -0500, Tom Gall wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sep 12, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> <snip>
> >>
> >> Results from testing on Linaro’s small but growing test farm.
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Summary
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> kernel: 4.9.50-rc1
> >> kernel-repo: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
> >> kernel-branch: linux-4.9.y
> >> kernel-commit: edfaa5f69b96ae777b0acd2bfe1da26e21592001
> >> kernel-describe: v4.9.49-15-gedfaa5f69b96
> >
> > Howcome 'git describe' does not show 4.9.50-rc1?
> 
> git describe looks for the most recent tag.
> 
> Since there isn't a 4.9.50-rc1 tag, we get 4.9.49 + 15 patches etc.
> 
> 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).

I usually don't report the SHA, mostly for historic reasons
from times when I had to create the git branch myself. I sometimes
report it if/when I notice that the branch changed after the review
request e-mail.

Given that, I think reporting the SHA is better, since it reports clearly
which version was tested.

Guenter