Re: [PATCH] metadata-revs: provide more information

[Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1444 bytes --]

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 05:54:08PM -0400, Trevor Woerner wrote:
> On 03/13/16 16:53, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 16:42:41 Trevor Woerner wrote:
> >> That's the problem I'm trying to solve: how can I easily keep all the
> >> information required to reproduce this build, exactly. The whole "two
> >> meta's" thing was just a speed bump.
> >
> > Right, understood, and it does make sense. I'm convinced there is an
> > underlying problem to fix that this just papers over though.
> 
> Okay, I think I see your point, and I agree. There is a layer clone 
> problem that should be addressed.
> 
> But again, I think this is a speed bump.
> 
> My underlying point is that we're purposefully leaving out information 
> that is vital to reproducible builds.

FWIW: I think this information also useful (even as separate file in
buildhistory).

In most builds it shouldn't change very often (except the revision) so
the diff shouldn't grow significantly.

There are many reasons why people use different forks of some layers,
some of them are valid (like using own fork to verify some change before
submitting it upstream and showing buildhistory diff how you tested it),
some of them are sad, but still needed _to be shown somewhere_ (like
using fork with important fix, when upstream layer is slow or refusing
to accept the fix).

Regards,
-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]