Re: [PATCH] BB_NO_NETWORK: Fallback to local source for git lsremote

[Olof Johansson <olof.johansson@axis.com>]

On 16-08-08 10:22 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> you are confusing how a tool is specifying its functions with
> process that could emulate a different behavior. OE does not
> have any control over the internal processes of its users and
> it should not have.

No, I don't think I'm confusing anything. Are you confusing OE
and bitbake? We maintain and develop an in-house Poky based
distribution, and unlike OE, we know a lot about our
users/developers.

> > Tags are only a problem in git if people insist on
> > modifying/deleting them.
> 
> Fact is, its allowed rewrite tags in git, how people use it or not
> is irrelevant here.

Nope, Git is a protocol; git the tool can't do nothing about a
server refusing to (re)move a tag. Your view of what a git tags
is yours. Tags are meant to be static, otherwise they wouldn't
have been synced to all clones in such a silly namespace.

While I agreed with Tobias' patch ("if you use tags in your
builds, and use BB_NO_NETWORK, you are ok with falling back to
what you have locally"), RP had a point about this making
BB_NO_NETWORK have non-obvious side-effects, and also making it
harder to catch cases where tags aren't wanted (like in community
maintained layers).

But *we* still want to use human readable tags as the only
version string internally (for our layers), where we know we are
in control. So, introducing a variable that lets us opt-in to
this behavior sounds like something that could be accepted?

-- 
olofjn