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

[Kevin Hilman]

Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:18:12PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> 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>).
>
> Ah, but then if someone had pulled the old tag, they would have to
> delete it locally before they can pull in the new one.  That's the main
> reason I'll not do this...
>
> Again, use the make command that we have just for this reason...

AFAICT, the make command will not generate a unique value, so, as often
happens, a release is almost ready but one more patch is
added/removed/modified etc.  'git describe' is the only way to get a
unique value, that's also human readable.

Kevin