> > I think this supports my point about being more interested in patches
> > allowing people to extend/customise buildhistory than just adding X.
> >
> > Whilst we want to have good defaults, there are always going to be
> > niche cases for people wanting to extend it...
>
>
> Agreed. Then we
We’re well aware of the limitations and possibility of failed builds, as I said
we hardcode revisions using SRCREV overrides when necessary. It’s been working
well for us so far. So, respectfully, I think that’s not relevant to the
discussion.
Chris
From: Alexander Kanavin
Sent: Thursday,
On 8/1/19 11:51 AM, chris.laplante--- via bitbake-devel wrote:
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> Most of my team’s closed source recipes use something like the following:
>
>
>
> SRC_URI = "git://git@host/path;protocol=ssh;branch=${BRANCH}"
>
> SRCREV = “${AUTOREV}”
>
> BRANCH ??= “master”
>
>
>
Apologies, but I think you should drop the practice of using AUTOREV. This
completely destroys reproducibility of builds, and makes them susceptible
to global breakage when someone pushes a broken commit into one of the
component repositories.
Yes, bumping SRCREV is annoying, but a) it can be
