Am Samstag, den 22.02.2020, 21:18 +0100 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys: > This will likely explode the time it takes > > to run it, but I think it's a good thing that patchy does it right now. > > When considering the long time for 'make doc', I wonder if saving on ~4 > > minutes of compile is worth the complexity of ccache? > > The complexity is minimal, and if you are trying to fix a compile > problem for a different platform, getting fast turnaround on a > edit-compile-cycle is huge. > > If CI becomes faster and cheaper, it will be easier to have instant > and automatic feedback on all versions of a patch.
This makes me think that we're actually looking for two distinct use cases: As a developer I don't want to run 'make doc' for all changes. In that case it makes sense to use ccache to have short turnaround times, not doubting that. But a CI should test the changes in every possible way we care about - exactly because "this change cannot possibly break". And here I really mean CI to be integrated into tooling and running without human interaction, just as Patchy is right now. And if somebody needs to build a new image every few days to have an updated ccache, that's something that should be clearly weighted against the benefits IMO. Does that make sense? Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
