kexec-tools git tree is tagged incorrectly?

kexec-tools git tree is tagged incorrectly?

[Américo Wang]

Hello, Simon,

I am wondering why I get:

% git log --pretty=oneline -n 1
920f4ededd9627add3ca1cdea965d204f2ca43a7 kexec-tools: powerpc: Add
more 64bit relocations

% git describe
v1.101-618-g920f4ed

% git tag -l
v1.101
v2.0.0
v2.0.0-rc1
v2.0.1
v2.0.1-rc1
v2.0.2
v2.0.2-rc1
v2.0.2-rc2
v20061214
v20070319-rc
v20070330
v20071017-rc
v20071030
v20080219-rc
v20080221-rc
v20080226-rc
v20080227
v20080318-rc
v20080324

HEAD should be v2.0.2, isn't it?

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Re: kexec-tools git tree is tagged incorrectly?

[Simon Horman]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 08:51:15PM +0800, Américo Wang wrote:
> Hello, Simon,
> 
> I am wondering why I get:
> 
> % git log --pretty=oneline -n 1
> 920f4ededd9627add3ca1cdea965d204f2ca43a7 kexec-tools: powerpc: Add
> more 64bit relocations
> 
> % git describe
> v1.101-618-g920f4ed
> 
> % git tag -l
> v1.101
> v2.0.0
> v2.0.0-rc1
> v2.0.1
> v2.0.1-rc1
> v2.0.2
> v2.0.2-rc1
> v2.0.2-rc2
> v20061214
> v20070319-rc
> v20070330
> v20071017-rc
> v20071030
> v20080219-rc
> v20080221-rc
> v20080226-rc
> v20080227
> v20080318-rc
> v20080324
> 
> HEAD should be v2.0.2, isn't it?

Hi Américo,

I'm not sure that I understand your question, but
920f4ededd9627add3ca1cdea965d204f2ca43a7 is the HEAD of the master
(development) branch.  And unless I am mistaken, it is a descendent of v2.0.2.


_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Re: kexec-tools git tree is tagged incorrectly?

[Américo Wang]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote:
>
> Hi Américo,
>
> I'm not sure that I understand your question, but
> 920f4ededd9627add3ca1cdea965d204f2ca43a7 is the HEAD of the master
> (development) branch.  And unless I am mistaken, it is a descendent of v2.0.2.
>

Yeah, so `git describe HEAD` should show v2.0.2-BLAHBLAH, not
v1.101-618-g920f4ed, right?

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Re: kexec-tools git tree is tagged incorrectly?

[Simon Horman]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:04:06AM +0800, Américo Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Américo,
> >
> > I'm not sure that I understand your question, but
> > 920f4ededd9627add3ca1cdea965d204f2ca43a7 is the HEAD of the master
> > (development) branch.  And unless I am mistaken, it is a descendent of v2.0.2.
> >
> 
> Yeah, so `git describe HEAD` should show v2.0.2-BLAHBLAH, not
> v1.101-618-g920f4ed, right?

Yes, I think so. I'm rather unsure why it isn't.
However, the following does seem to give a result more in line with
expectations.

$ git describe --tags HEAD
v2.0.2-94-g920f4ed

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Re: kexec-tools git tree is tagged incorrectly?

[Américo Wang]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:04:06AM +0800, Américo Wang wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Américo,
>> >
>> > I'm not sure that I understand your question, but
>> > 920f4ededd9627add3ca1cdea965d204f2ca43a7 is the HEAD of the master
>> > (development) branch.  And unless I am mistaken, it is a descendent of v2.0.2.
>> >
>>
>> Yeah, so `git describe HEAD` should show v2.0.2-BLAHBLAH, not
>> v1.101-618-g920f4ed, right?
>
> Yes, I think so. I'm rather unsure why it isn't.
> However, the following does seem to give a result more in line with
> expectations.
>
> $ git describe --tags HEAD
> v2.0.2-94-g920f4ed
>

For linux kernel, they are the same...

[wangcong@cr0]~/linux-2.6% git describe --tag
v3.2-rc1-306-g7f80850
[wangcong@cr0]~/linux-2.6% git describe
v3.2-rc1-306-g7f80850

I am wondering why it is different for kexec-tools...

Thanks.

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Re: kexec-tools git tree is tagged incorrectly?

[Don Zickus]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:35:03AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:04:06AM +0800, Américo Wang wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Américo,
> > >
> > > I'm not sure that I understand your question, but
> > > 920f4ededd9627add3ca1cdea965d204f2ca43a7 is the HEAD of the master
> > > (development) branch.  And unless I am mistaken, it is a descendent of v2.0.2.
> > >
> > 
> > Yeah, so `git describe HEAD` should show v2.0.2-BLAHBLAH, not
> > v1.101-618-g920f4ed, right?
> 
> Yes, I think so. I'm rather unsure why it isn't.
> However, the following does seem to give a result more in line with
> expectations.

Are you creating annotated tags or lightweight tags?  That might be the
difference.

Cheers,
Don

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Re: kexec-tools git tree is tagged incorrectly?

[Simon Horman]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:51:03AM -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:35:03AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:04:06AM +0800, Américo Wang wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Américo,
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure that I understand your question, but
> > > > 920f4ededd9627add3ca1cdea965d204f2ca43a7 is the HEAD of the master
> > > > (development) branch.  And unless I am mistaken, it is a descendent of v2.0.2.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Yeah, so `git describe HEAD` should show v2.0.2-BLAHBLAH, not
> > > v1.101-618-g920f4ed, right?
> > 
> > Yes, I think so. I'm rather unsure why it isn't.
> > However, the following does seem to give a result more in line with
> > expectations.
> 
> Are you creating annotated tags or lightweight tags?  That might be the
> difference.

I believe I am creating lightweight tags,
I guess that is the cause of the difference.

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec