Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 07 Nov 2018 13:26:46 -0800
Message-ID: <20181107.212646.134137464@genki.is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
From:   Genki Sky <sky@genki.is>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "scripts/setlocalversion: git: Make -dirty check
 more robust"
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>, lists@nerdbynature.de,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=Wcxf7p1DyJdVEqODbc6TdTtbPiLszWCAS1xC6=4kkLbw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1541527838-4585-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net>
        <20181106.192305.406697677@genki.is> <20181107022156.GA254567@google.com>
        <alpine.DEB.2.21.999.1811061845161.5308@trent.utfs.org>
        <CA+ASDXPMMXCBN6PU8qzRm579sC9VBdwnxZdZwRdPY1cBUP8oGQ@mail.gmail.com>
        <20181107184435.GA168339@google.com> <20181107.204358.257636196@genki.is>
        <20181107205514.GB12273@roeck-us.net> <20181107.210731.330601031@genki.is>
        <CAD=FV=Wcxf7p1DyJdVEqODbc6TdTtbPiLszWCAS1xC6=4kkLbw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 13:18:19 -0800, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> From reading the thread it sounds like Guenter was not even super
> happy with that based on the principal that you wouldn't expect a
> kernel build to be doing write operations in your .git directory even
> if $objtree == $srctree

I see, thanks.

> In theory you could wrap it.  If passing git with
> "--no-optional-locks" doesn't work you could fall back to the old
> code?  That would mean only people with newer git would get your new
> feature and everyone else would stick with the pre-existing behavior.
>
> It does seem like any things like this should be done atop Guenter's
> revert.  AKA: revert first to get things working the way that they
> were and then start talking about how to make it better.

Okay, it's trading one regression for another, but I guess it's clear
that yours is much more painful. Sorry to have held up progress here.
I'll back out of the discussion until this is reverted.