Hi David, I think yes. What Brandon was referring to is linking the process we use to refresh the container images and the rebuild of the ABI references, so one triggers the other. What happened with the failure was the container images got rebuilt, and that pulled in updates that change the ABI output (in valid ways), which then "look like" a failure or change from the reference that was previously saved off. We save off older versions of the container images (i.e. things are tagged), so we can always roll back if need to. ABI reference generation should be deterministic on that container image, so we don't save "versions" of those references. Cheers, Lincoln On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 4:02 AM David Marchand wrote: > On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 5:07 PM Brandon Lo wrote: > > To streamline this entire process, we are working on a job or pipeline > > to automate refreshing all of the images and recreate the ABI > > references. > > I understand the motivation, but will we have a clear idea of which > ABI reference has been used and how to reproduce its generation (sha1, > toolchain, libc, libabigail and such packages versions, version of the > script generating the reference) ? > If something breaks later and we don't know clearly how/if a reference > changed, it will be a pain to analyse. > > > -- > David Marchand > > -- *Lincoln Lavoie* Principal Engineer, Broadband Technologies 21 Madbury Rd., Ste. 100, Durham, NH 03824 lylavoie@iol.unh.edu https://www.iol.unh.edu +1-603-674-2755 (m)