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.
Guenter > > 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.
