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


Groups > linux.kernel > #1731783

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

From Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review
Date 2017-09-13 21:00 +0200
Message-ID <upl3b-2DF-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (1 earlier) <up5B7-1jr-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <up6Qx-20h-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <uphsD-wM-35@gated-at.bofh.it> <uphLZ-DH-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <upjkL-1Jw-41@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


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 :)

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

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