From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 52B64E00C0F; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 17:16:54 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, * medium trust * [147.11.146.13 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] Received: from mail1.windriver.com (mail1.windriver.com [147.11.146.13]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA01FE008FB for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 17:16:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from ALA-HCB.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hcb.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.41]) by mail1.windriver.com (8.15.2/8.15.1) with ESMTPS id vBD1GppD018764 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 12 Dec 2017 17:16:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.corp.ad.wrs.com (128.224.162.229) by ALA-HCB.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.361.1; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 17:16:45 -0800 To: Alexander Kanavin , References: <4af82364-f125-e6fd-ab12-8dd3a9f0dcbc@windriver.com> <91939990-5880-aba7-7ec6-7d24809694aa@linux.intel.com> <91a7f9ef-b0c2-68c5-ad8f-07309a3a9585@windriver.com> <9c635c45-b01a-3896-ad89-34b7ded040f6@linux.intel.com> From: Robert Yang Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:16:13 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9c635c45-b01a-3896-ad89-34b7ded040f6@linux.intel.com> Cc: paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/12] upgradehelper.py: clean repo only once when recipes are specified X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 01:16:54 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12/12/2017 08:26 PM, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > On 12/11/2017 08:13 AM, Robert Yang wrote: > >>> I think it's a simpler and easier to understand approach. Yes, this means >>> that an updated recipe that is close to the root of dependency tree can cause >>> a cascade of build failures (e.g. glibc), but the update commits for >>> everything else will still be created, and the maintainer can easily revert >>> the failing updates, and re-run the build. What you think? >> >> Yes, since glibc would causes others failed to build, so I removed the commited >> during upgrading, and then apply it back, I think that this is more helpful than >> leave the failed commit there and causes others failed. > > How about simply issuing 'git revert' after a build has failed? That's easier to > implement than rearranging the order of commits, and the commit message can > include a link to the build failure logs. Sounds reasonable to me, I will update the patch. // Robert > > Alex >