Web lists-archives.com

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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature