From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f179.google.com (mail-io0-f179.google.com [209.85.223.179]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70F2D6FF78 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 12:35:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f179.google.com with SMTP id d63so192917659ioj.2 for ; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 04:35:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:content-type:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=s78mKqTzpYzpOhBt9/5iqPTvJ3S/qY2WliVKUTQ12bg=; b=asb+74o4WF1gzk+kGSexjkk11DyMHwRPNciZK1NlJMxoKhRiTrHsqJssEkL4TEKIbz rTwlmA2bJu43ZbcnQpK2zkArTshZquUzxUH/19VxpBy/C0TKxduWHxto2OgNQu7hF5ic IP4N2UOfCcxJ3zk7X1L1GL4LOTwFTLvu6T0IPz6OyvMrp9BJnU96yoSGytzFcxe3V6ga q/byXEpgqBz/EncQkNRlK/DmHhHRvZex5IwUtUNtuFmDhSa/aRD9XUPNZ4kQ8j5nJqTN Tbg6tfGXEfJEAYbOqgCTgPEebAkpXywpswWhsFPdLBuGydRsmjTzKVojzzIU/thRtBNM A+sA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:content-type:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=s78mKqTzpYzpOhBt9/5iqPTvJ3S/qY2WliVKUTQ12bg=; b=Bq8Jep4bJfYOGvyQA25i9es7cbPyMcwoLF2M6QH9/f4zJ9aBy1kzazJj9/Z+BDhUDJ tsG+i0vfHcFfC6HtnRec4N/qLWmnJjoedJrpyQAQhUlPdVYfA/4P9pEXTLk1N2rEai0y DDBX0jaHEf+JM2eagjASzRTJG6v0w6yN40dkcsLi9r3XfpC67rGp286z4qQV3Pu0qeFd I7rtH8ZdNmCSm/MPhFoHkLy8rBzQZ1UsOKXW15384xk9PWugXP3u8m4vwoQ/Rdn/z6Jo U4+R6o2EuE++24oFAwml91uQnIF/AAjq5l4TElfSV1yPB2BiVGzNQx60pPizmYAqXSVu DqBw== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQYrvW2bfyCl1PbOaaALDq9zx8R4qQwNXovZ5l1TIgQ1FkhP7dhQ5bTiWjEJnsC5B/g X-Received: by 10.107.132.214 with SMTP id o83mr28659873ioi.32.1454934924096; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 04:35:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p57A57FB6.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [87.165.127.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w191sm12430492iod.30.2016.02.08.04.35.22 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Feb 2016 04:35:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1454934920.8641.4.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Richard Purdie Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:35:20 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1454921553.16142.42.camel@linuxfoundation.org> References: <1454914617-2042-1-git-send-email-patrick.ohly@intel.com> <1454921553.16142.42.camel@linuxfoundation.org> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: paul.eggleton@intel.com, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] buildhistory.bbclass: remove out-dated information on request X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 12:35:24 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2016-02-08 at 08:52 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Mon, 2016-02-08 at 07:56 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > buildhistory.bbclass by design is incremental: each build adds or > > updates information. Information is never removed. > > > > Sometimes it can be useful to reduce the information only to those > > recipes that were build during a specific bitbake invocation, for > > example when the invocation does a full world build. > > > > This is now possible by invoking bitbake with: > > BB_ENV_EXTRAWHITE=BUILDHISTORY_REMOVE_OLD > > BUILDHISTORY_REMOVE_OLD=1 bitbake > > > > In this mode, buildhistory.bbclass first moves all existing > > information into a temporary directory called "old" inside the build > > history directory. There the information is used for the "version > > going backwards QA check". Then when the build is complete and before > > (potentially) committing to git, the temporary directory gets > > deleted. > > > > Because information that has not changed during the build will be > > reconstructed, a git log will then only show real updates, additions > > and removals. > > > > Signed-off-by: Patrick Ohly > > The implicit assumption here is that you'd only every build large > targets like "world". A "bitbake bash" isn't really going to do what > you'd expect/want. Yes, I know. I think the "reduce the information only to those recipes that were built during a specific bitbake invocation" is a bit clearer about that than the last paragraph, which assumes a full build. > I think we need to make that clearer in the comments and that this is > only useful on automated infrastructure. I wouldn't say that. One could do "BUILDHISTORY_REMOVE_OLD=1 bitbake && bitbake && bitbake ", and that would work fine also when doing manual builds. The drawback in that case is that the version-going-backwards check does not work for and . Perhaps it would be more appropriate to replace BUILDHISTORY_REMOVE_OLD with "BUILDHISTORY_RESET"? -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.