On Fri, 2015-02-06 at 16:02 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 12:21:23PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Burton, Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 6 February 2015 at 14:10, Otavio Salvador <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> I think they should re-run. Otherwise we can end having errors and QA > > >> issues unnoticed until a full rebuild. > > > > > > > > > That was the state of things until my original patch last week. The patch > > > had the side-effect that changing QA tasks causing *everything* to > > > rebuild. > > > I'm really not sure that's a good solution. > > > > If someone adds a QA tasks it is because it matters. In this case we > > ought to have it in an immediate effect so it does makes sense to > > rerun everything. > > > > I know it is bad from build time point of view but predictability and > > correctness is more important from my point of view. > > Agreed, especially when someone decides to make something fatal it > should highlight all failing recipes before it's enabled in "official" > build instead of sneaking the failures one-by-one as sstate is being > invalidated by other changes.
Thinking about this from the other angle. Should someone having a different set of WARN/ERROR local settings mean they don't reuse sstate? Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
