Web lists-archives.com

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

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:
> > 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.
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.


> > 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.