From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RYFwA-0000VZ-SP for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 07 Dec 2011 12:45:23 +0100 Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Dec 2011 03:38:32 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,352,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="83825751" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.122.2]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Dec 2011 03:38:31 -0800 From: Paul Eggleton To: Koen Kooi Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 11:38:30 +0000 Message-ID: <31509378.yr872GkOIF@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.7.3 (Linux/3.0.0-13-generic-pae; KDE/4.7.3; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <225B79C8-8CC0-429B-B4B8-95360FD4B07E@dominion.thruhere.net> References: <8cc5f124fb791a762bf6aace3a9bf8c1d1c39dd1.1322782677.git.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> <225B79C8-8CC0-429B-B4B8-95360FD4B07E@dominion.thruhere.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] classes/buildhistory: add new output history collection class X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 11:45:23 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Wednesday 07 December 2011 09:50:51 Koen Kooi wrote: > One of the big problems with the old testlab code was that using multiple > buildslaves created a huge mess for the git repo. What do you think about > doing this the following before the 'git add'? > > git pull -q -s recursive -X theirs ${BUILDHISTORY_PULL_REPO} > > I'm not sure what the right incantation is to ensure git updates the current > branch, but the point is mainly about using the 'theirs' strategy. I think you can just have the branch name as part of BUILDHISTORY_PULL_REPO (i.e. "reponame branchname"). I had considered using separate branches for each machine to avoid this problem but if you're already using branches for different versions this will get messy. (As an aside I guess we ought to include the hostname in the commit message as well.) Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre