Holger Levsen wrote:
>> (1) You suggest it should start again with "--max-container-depth 3",
>> but it would surely need some syntax (or another option?) to control
>> that "3" (but for the second time only).
>
> another option, --second-pass-max-container-depth or some such
>
>> (2) In fact, its easy to imagine that one would want to restart with
>> other restrictions as well: not just --max-container-depth. For
>> instance, excluding external commands like readelf and objdump that
>> you know to be slow.
>
> yes, that's a good idea and IMO should be automatically implied for the
> 2nd pass or round or try.
It's definitely a "good idea" in the sense that I can definitely see
someone wanting to achieve that as an end result :)
Yet… upon thinking about it a bit, I don't think it is a good idea at
all for diffoscope to grow a bunch of new options or hardcoded
defaults for a second run. What (1) and (2) show here is that as soon
as a user would like to adjust these second pass options in any way,
then the whole interface becomes very unwieldy. Not only that, but
from the user's point of view it's neither flexible nor transparent as
well, especially when compared to "just" running diffoscope twice with
different options. There's no "magic" there, if you see what I mean.
Can we implement running diffoscope twice on tests.r-b.org manually
first and see how that goes? I'm not 100% against the idea of
implementing this in diffoscope eventually, but it would make a lot of
sense to try out the "manual" version first and gain some real-world
experience first.
Regards,
--
o
⬋ ⬊ Chris Lamb
o o reproducible-builds.org 💠
⬊ ⬋
o
