Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752051AbdIMTSR (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:18:17 -0400
Received: from mail-pg0-f66.google.com ([74.125.83.66]:36975 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751112AbdIMTSO (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:18:14 -0400
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb7AneuovJz6HgJh4DJVY73DYnP9GthaLXgbl8hDxInU6j/DabqCmNL+gosmpDCKE5wPBApimA==
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 12:18:12 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Tom Gall <tom.gall@linaro.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: <20170913191812.GA3478@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>
 <20170913185538.GA26390@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170913185538.GA26390@kroah.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: 1793
Lines: 43

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:55:38AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman 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:
> > > 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.
> 
> Can you push --force a tag?  I've never tried that, don't want to mess
> up a kernel.org tree by trying it out :)

Yes. I don't recall if it is a direct --force or if you would have to
remove the original tag first (with git push <repo> :refs/tags/<tag>).

Guenter

> 
> Because of that, I haven't been tagging the -rc trees, as I didn't think
> it was really needed.  The linux-stable-rc tree is just a "convenience"
> for people to use for testing, it's not really a "cannonical" tree at
> the moment because of that.
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> Yes, use 'make kernelversion' to get the kernel's view of the release
> number, don't use 'git describe' please, as it does not know about
> changes to the Makefile (nor should it...)
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h