Build Linux: PASSED 5/rtems-arm on x86_64-linux-gnu

[Chris Johns]

On 28/2/20 2:35 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:56 PM Sebastian Huber
> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>> On 27/02/2020 07:38, Chris Johns wrote:
>>> On 27/2/20 5:25 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>>> On 26/02/2020 23:15, Chris Johns wrote:
>>>>> On 27/2/20 12:26 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>>>>> On 26/02/2020 14:21,sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de   wrote:
>>>>>>> RTEMS Source Builder Repository Status
>>>>>>>     Remotes:
>>>>>>>       1: origin:ssh://sebh@dispatch.rtems.org/data/git/rtems-source-builder.git
>>>>>>>       2:
>>>>>>> main:git at main.eb.localhost:eb/101-embedded-brains/oss/rtems-source-builder.git
>>>>>>>       3:esa:git at gitrepos.estec.esa.int:external/rtems-smp-qualification-rsb.git
>>>>>> Why are the remote repositories reported?
>>>>> It provides the git environment being used. The report needs a repo and I am not
>>>>> sure you can tell which is the source of branch programmatically.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we should remove this private and user-dependent information.
>>>>> I have a specific repo I use for these types of publicly posted build ...
>>>>>
>>>>> RTEMS Source Builder Repository Status
>>>>>    Remotes:
>>>>>      1: origin: git://git.rtems.org/rtems-source-builder.git
>>>>>    Status:
>>>>>     Clean
>>>>>    Head:
>>>>>     Commit: 14c5cb77132a3e66afab571afbf67dacad433ec3
>>>> The Status and Head are very important information. Which remote repositories
>>>> you use should be none of the business of the RTEMS Project. It can leak
>>>> business relationships and project names. We should not do this without asking
>>>> the user. I suggest to remove this part of the report.
>>> I think the repo used is important information especially if someone is wanting
>>> to replicate post results.
>>
>> To replicate results all you need is the commit hash and the original
>> report must show a clean status. If the commit hash is not included in
>> the RTEMS repositories you can ask the reporter.
>>
>> I think if a user requests to send a report and the status is not clean,
>> then the RSB should stop with an error.

This is a good idea.

> I agree with Sebastian. We should remove the "Remotes:" part.

What if I change the Remotes to ...

 Remotes:
   [ removed, contact me at there.here for details ]

.. and it is kept for local builds? I believe in an environment that is audited
this valuable information.

Chris