[OE-core] [PATCH] Revert "bitbake.conf: don't remove WARN_QA and ERROR_QA from hashes"

[Otavio Salvador]

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-02-06 at 16:02 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 12:21:23PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> > On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton at intel.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On 6 February 2015 at 14:10, Otavio Salvador <otavio at ossystems.com.br>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> I think they should re-run. Otherwise we can end having errors and QA
>> > >> issues unnoticed until a full rebuild.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > That was the state of things until my original patch last week.  The patch
>> > > had the side-effect that changing QA tasks causing *everything* to rebuild.
>> > > I'm really not sure that's a good solution.
>> >
>> > If someone adds a QA tasks it is because it matters. In this case we
>> > ought to have it in an immediate effect so it does makes sense to
>> > rerun everything.
>> >
>> > I know it is bad from build time point of view but predictability and
>> > correctness is more important from my point of view.
>>
>> Agreed, especially when someone decides to make something fatal it
>> should highlight all failing recipes before it's enabled in "official"
>> build instead of sneaking the failures one-by-one as sstate is being
>> invalidated by other changes.
>
> Thinking about this from the other angle. Should someone having a
> different set of WARN/ERROR local settings mean they don't reuse sstate?

It should be checked against the different setting. If the price for
it is sstate invalidness, so be it.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750