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.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
