On 5/24/19 5:50 PM, Bill Deegan wrote: > Mats, > > What builders can't you cache? > > -Bill > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:56 PM Mats Wichmann <m...@wichmann.us > <mailto:m...@wichmann.us>> wrote: > > For all you guys, is the current caching - all filesystem based - > useful enough? I've been chewing on a network based extension, for > all those disposable builders that don't really have great ways to cache
I have a specific scenario I'm thinking about, but I'll put it in more general terms: if you have a CI system where each commit push to the review system triggers a cascade of builds, and the system images to do the builds are spun up for the build and then thrown away when done, then an in-filesystem cache doesn't do them much good, right? Because there's no persistent storage at least inside the image. Some systems may have a way to cache some things to avoid re-downloading, but I'm not sure that extends to artifacts created by the build, as the scons cache and sconsign database would be. I the case I've worked on, the system is essentially homegrown and I know the "download cache" is a hack and wouldn't extend to this usage. See here for an example of another project addressing this: https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/remote-caching.html But I asked the question (half-hijacking the thread, sorry) because I'm not sure if my view of the scons use cases matches anoyne else's. _______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list Scons-dev@scons.org https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
