Re: v2 [PATCH 0/2] data_smart.py: Track inclusions and assignments

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, 2012-05-21 at 12:54 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Peter Seebach
> <peter.seebach@windriver.com> wrote:
> > This revised patch now uses Python's traceback facility to assign
> > meaningful locations (file and function, rather than line) to operations
> > which weren't specified, and correspondingly does not specify file and
> > line when the file name would have been the python code making the
> > assignment; this makes the patch smaller and the output more meaningful.
> >
> > As before, this is a patch to add tracking showing when and how variables
> > got their values, and which configuration files were included from which
> > other configuration files.
> >
> > The following changes since commit 39adb5741d9eee0879d3181be505400dffc60804:
> >  Andrei Gherzan (1):
> >        bb/fetch2/__init__.py: Don't try to compute checksums for directories
> 
> While these still aren't the prettiest, I think they're a lot cleaner
> than they were, and given the obvious value, I think we should
> consider merging them. Richard, thoughts?

I agree, I'd prefer we could find a neater way to do this but our
current structure doesn't lend itself to this and this is not looking
too bad.

My main concerns would be related to performance and since this defaults
to disabled, it shouldn't be too bad. It also does answer an important
question we do keep getting asked, namely, "how did variable X get set
or Y" or "which files did Bitbake actually look at". These changes allow
us to give people a way to answer those questions.

So I want to take a closer look through the patches but I'm leaning
toward merging them. If we find ways to make things neater, great but
this is probably as good a start as we can hope for.

Cheers,

Richard