On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Richard Purdie <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
It should be checked against the different setting. If the price for it is sstate invalidness, so be it. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
