Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1732631

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

From Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review
Date 2017-09-15 01:00 +0200
Message-ID <upLgZ-2Ak-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (4 earlier) <uphLZ-DH-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <upjkL-1Jw-41@gated-at.bofh.it> <upl3b-2DF-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <uplmy-2Zr-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <upny4-4iM-61@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization BayLibre

Show all headers | View raw


Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes:

> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:18:12PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> 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>).
>
> Ah, but then if someone had pulled the old tag, they would have to
> delete it locally before they can pull in the new one.  That's the main
> reason I'll not do this...
>
> Again, use the make command that we have just for this reason...

AFAICT, the make command will not generate a unique value, so, as often
happens, a release is almost ready but one more patch is
added/removed/modified etc.  'git describe' is the only way to get a
unique value, that's also human readable.

Kevin

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-09-12 19:20 +0200
  [PATCH 4.9 10/14] Bluetooth: Properly check L2CAP config option output buffer length Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-09-12 19:20 +0200
  [PATCH 4.9 02/14] mtd: nand: qcom: fix read failure without complete bootchain Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-09-12 19:20 +0200
  [PATCH 4.9 14/14] NFS: Sync the correct byte range during synchronous writes Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-09-12 19:20 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> - 2017-09-13 02:20 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review Tom Gall <tom.gall@linaro.org> - 2017-09-13 04:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-09-13 05:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review Tom Gall <tom.gall@linaro.org> - 2017-09-13 17:10 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> - 2017-09-13 17:30 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2017-09-13 19:10 +0200
            Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> - 2017-09-13 20:40 +0200
              Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2017-09-13 21:00 +0200
            Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-09-13 21:00 +0200
              Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> - 2017-09-13 21:20 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-09-13 23:40 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2017-09-14 00:10 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> - 2017-09-14 04:20 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> - 2017-09-14 07:40 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> - 2017-09-15 01:00 +0200
              Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2017-09-13 21:20 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> - 2017-09-13 16:40 +0200

csiph-web