[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170913163655.nfdhr5gnl4sn4zsz@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 09:36:55 -0700
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Tom Gall <tom.gall@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>, patches@...nelci.org,
Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>,
linux- stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review
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.
> Given that, I think reporting the SHA is better, since it reports clearly
> which version was tested.
This definitely makes sense though (especially in a generalized tool),
defensively if nothing else. I think you ideally want both.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists