[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wh-x5kbjAZHK4Xto_Qpf55iMrAvKhAzGpoHT6fDZfkzJg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2025 18:18:50 +0300
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] TTY / Serial driver fix for 6.17-rc1
On Sat, 9 Aug 2025 at 17:57, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> And, as proof I shouldn't send pull requests a few mere hours after
> getting home from a week long vacation, I got the version number wrong
> here, it's 6.17-rc1, but the tag and the text all are correct, this
> affects your tree now.
It's not like I even look at the tag name, so I wouldn't have noticed
if you hadn't mentioned it.
My workflow checks the tag signing for validity, not some kind of
name. Some people just use random dates in the tag names, so the
numbers tend to be meaningless anyway.
So no worries. If the *contents* of the tag have issues, holler.
Or when sending pull requests for the *next* merge window early, then
the subject and tag names might matter, because they might be what
distinguishes a "this is a fix for this release" from "this is what I
want you to pull next week for the merge window".
But even for that case I say "might matter", because most of the time
I go by the contents of the pull request anyway (fixes pulls for the
last week of a release tend to look *completely* different from the
merge window pulls).
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists