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
