Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752021AbdIMS4F (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:56:05 -0400 Received: from heliosphere.sirena.org.uk ([172.104.155.198]:56074 "EHLO heliosphere.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751810AbdIMS4D (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:56:03 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 11:55:42 -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: <20170913185542.gpw55gfqbcuf5net@sirena.org.uk> References: <20170912165253.709627159@linuxfoundation.org> <20170913034915.GA21161@kroah.com> <20170913152213.GI27765@roeck-us.net> <20170913163655.nfdhr5gnl4sn4zsz@sirena.org.uk> <20170913183802.GA16037@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="s6l53trvibpsktzp" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170913183802.GA16037@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 Content-Length: 1937 Lines: 47 --s6l53trvibpsktzp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:38:02AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > 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: > > > > 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. Right, my assumption here was that if the branch was rebased (eg, to pull a patch) then that'd be a new -rc and hence a new tag name. I think anything that involves redoing tags is a terrible idea and you just shouldn't do it. But including the hash as well is definitely a sensible idea since people are people. --s6l53trvibpsktzp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCAAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAlm5fy0ACgkQJNaLcl1U h9A1pgf/SJR2GqR9Jxvc8aFS8c34o+awRp5ph7TBRNvidJfdzmkf5MLYeWy+ANb3 6nSiq2ZpUhow1a8NSCg2gR5qKPQ8n+iMT+b1THXhaJNaNnkxMHT9/y2ExdwEzjny y1fcH5ZtFdiwslZbpsK31HMQSXC9CJRY9DaKCSSFC6yAdfhI0Ti4brIZzD7Ba1f/ apTAENXnWkqoj2tshyGrlAK/qCSIYjP3UdSDx2Ij1jC2B4lFu+vF8dOTvT24fzdF WU1cFSr/8uiAQIBg57fsZuk/XiNjKXbpxDMr8ms0yLfc+vc689uuufbObx0uZdWY GJVjBNziHE8Rvahag3E1XWRnZnXBsQ== =iB4c -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --s6l53trvibpsktzp--