Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Sep 2017 09:36:55 -0700 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/14] 4.9.50-stable review |
| |
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. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |