linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170913185542.gpw55gfqbcuf5net@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 13 Sep 2017 11:55:42 -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 11:38:02AM -0700, Guenter Roeck 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:

> > > > 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.

> I should have been more specific; my comment assumed that the tag
> would be reapplied (using git tag -f) to the tip of the rebased branch.
> There should be no problem if each branch update is accompanied by
> a new tag.

Right, my assumption here was that if the branch was rebased (eg, to
pull a patch) then that'd be a new -rc and hence a new tag name.  I
think anything that involves redoing tags is a terrible idea and you
just shouldn't do it.  But including the hash as well is definitely a
sensible idea since people are people.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)