Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751477AbdIMVav (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 13 Sep 2017 17:30:51 -0400
Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:45084 "EHLO
        mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751125AbdIMVat (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 13 Sep 2017 17:30:49 -0400
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:30:46 -0700
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
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: <20170913213046.GE9288@kroah.com>
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>
 <20170913191812.GA3478@roeck-us.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170913191812.GA3478@roeck-us.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.0 (2017-09-02)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1410
Lines: 32

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:18:12PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> 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>).

Ah, but then if someone had pulled the old tag, they would have to
delete it locally before they can pull in the new one.  That's the main
reason I'll not do this...

Again, use the make command that we have just for this reason...

thanks,

greg k-h