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

[Mark Brown]

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.

> 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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature