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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <CA+ASDXN40pvbZKvsO3Cb8256AQJ3fyQh5TWdT+GDk_ncq11nMw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+ASDXN40pvbZKvsO3Cb8256AQJ3fyQh5TWdT+GDk_ncq11nMw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:55:26 +0900
Message-ID: <CAK7LNAR5etb-oJDaxNZbH9-FmC3+hC3A_cwnbuWPQx0maHaDng@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "scripts/setlocalversion: git: Make -dirty check
 more robust"
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Cc:     Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>, Genki Sky <sky@genki.is>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Christian Kujau <lists@nerdbynature.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 12:20 PM Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 1:18 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 1:07 PM Genki Sky <sky@genki.is> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 12:55:14 -0800, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > > > Ubuntu 16.04 ships with git version 2.7.4.
> > >
> > > Okay. I guess --no-optional-locks is a no-go then.
> >
> > 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.
>
> +1, that's what I was going to suggest. Presumably older git would
> give non-zero exit status for unknown flags, and we take that as
> signal to try to the old way?


I also like this idea!

I will pick-up this revert patch soon.


Brian,
Could you please send a patch on top of that?


Thanks!


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada