Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <Y1ULKYsASLRoVb7N@zn.tnic> <Y1UPYnju4qOTsusI@zn.tnic>
In-Reply-To: <Y1UPYnju4qOTsusI@zn.tnic>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Sun, 23 Oct 2022 10:06:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wj0afQB2odHZcfmtymR0q9wJEO8gGQo_Cob+KHgsimG5w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/urgent for 6.1
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Cc:     x86-ml <x86@kernel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 2:54 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> wrote:
>
> Whoops, I mistyped the version in the tag. Lemme know if you need a
> properly renamed tag: x86_urgent_for_v6.1_rc2

Heh, no, it doesn't matter. As long as the pull request is unambiguous
(which is only really an issue at the end of the release window when I
start getting a mix of last-minute fixes, and early pull requests for
the next merge window), it's all good.

Nobody will look at the tag name afterwards, so the tag-name being a
bit odd doesn't really matter. In fact I often edit out the free-form
commentary in the form of "This pull request for version Xyz does.."
from merge commit messages people send me, because it's not relevant
or interesting in the history.

But hey, I appreciate the heads-up about the name mix-up (although,
again, the only time it tends to actually matter is for that
end-or-release time frame where there can be actual confusion).

                       Linus