Web lists-archives.com

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




On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:55:38AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman 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:
> > > 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.
> 
> Can you push --force a tag?  I've never tried that, don't want to mess
> up a kernel.org tree by trying it out :)

Yes. I don't recall if it is a direct --force or if you would have to
remove the original tag first (with git push <repo> :refs/tags/<tag>).

Guenter

> 
> Because of that, I haven't been tagging the -rc trees, as I didn't think
> it was really needed.  The linux-stable-rc tree is just a "convenience"
> for people to use for testing, it's not really a "cannonical" tree at
> the moment because of that.
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> Yes, use 'make kernelversion' to get the kernel's view of the release
> number, don't use 'git describe' please, as it does not know about
> changes to the Makefile (nor should it...)
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h