<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Thanks everybody. Changes up for review:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/openbmc/+/48204" class="">https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/openbmc/+/48204</a></div><div class=""><a href="https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/openbmc/+/48205" class="">https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/openbmc/+/48205</a></div><div class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 12, 2021, at 4:45 AM, William Kennington <<a href="mailto:wak@google.com" class="">wak@google.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">Personally I would rather have deterministic builds and don't like<br class="">arbitrary build timestamp injection into images. But we can announce<br class="">the plan to change this behavior and adjust build processes<br class="">accordingly.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Sounds like a plan. To keep the current behavior, I tested that adding a os-release.bbappend with BUILD_ID set to the current git command would build the image with the value as it is today.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 10:34 PM Lei Yu <<a href="mailto:yulei.sh@bytedance.com" class="">yulei.sh@bytedance.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 6:00 AM Adriana Kobylak <<a href="mailto:anoo@linux.ibm.com" class="">anoo@linux.ibm.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">Hi,<br class=""><br class="">There has been some discussion in Discord on how to work around the "Same version" limitation during fw updates, and having a timestamp field that could be used to generate a different version id (commit id plus timestamp field) for every build seemed had positive support in the discussion.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">So the hash will be calculated as the `VERSION_ID` and `BUILD_ID` (as<br class="">timestamp), is it?<br class="">+1 for this proposal.<br class=""></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Right, we’ll add BUILD_ID to the hash calculation.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">--<br class="">BRs,<br class="">Lei YU<br class=""></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>