On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Milosz Wasilewski milosz.wasilewski@linaro.org wrote:
On 21 June 2017 at 13:44, Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote:
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Nicolas Dechesne nicolas.dechesne@linaro.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Milosz Wasilewski milosz.wasilewski@linaro.org wrote:
Seems there are contradicting requirements. The build sha1 was requested by Arnd IIRC. Would truncating to 12 chars make it better? This was also requested and will happen soon.
sure.. truncating should be enough.
Agreed. In the subject, I'd actually use the output of "git describe", i.e. v4.4.72-568859-g29e1eb2a9604 for this branch.
Subject uses 'version' of the build. Git sha1 is currently used as a version, but I guess we can move to git describe if that is better in your opinion.
Yes, that sounds good, as its both human-readable and machine-readable.
It might still be a little to long to be repeated many times as in the list of failures, but we could find a different method to deal with that, such as grouping failures that started happening together in one section.
Arnd