Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751499AbdINW5c (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 14 Sep 2017 18:57:32 -0400
Received: from mail-pg0-f46.google.com ([74.125.83.46]:44942 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751415AbdINW5a (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 14 Sep 2017 18:57:30 -0400
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb4t+GCsc7FHAYp4m+47A59uIlXTN1O+54Cvw3YAjgEr7ZwDyTjVp2lEA3oET+Hnb4WVLIu1Jw==
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>, 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
Organization: BayLibre
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> <20170913213046.GE9288@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 15:57:27 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20170913213046.GE9288@kroah.com> (Greg Kroah-Hartman's message
        of "Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:30:46 -0700")
Message-ID: <7hy3pgdh2g.fsf@baylibre.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1729
Lines: 37

Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes:

> 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...

AFAICT, the make command will not generate a unique value, so, as often
happens, a release is almost ready but one more patch is
added/removed/modified etc.  'git describe' is the only way to get a
unique value, that's also human readable.

Kevin