On 2017-07-04 23:18, Joshua Root wrote: > On 2017-7-5 06:00 , Clemens Lang wrote: >> You were right on it when you mentioned the failcache. However, you only >> considered the reading part of the failcache, not the writing part of >> it.
Makes sense, of course we need the full set of selected variants for that. > So really we need two pieces of information: the > canonical_active_variants to use with the fail cache, and the variants > that should be actually be requested. > > How about this? The results from tools/dependencies.tcl with this patch look good from a quick test. (Yes, the empty variants would still a problem as you identified in the other mail.) Rainer
