Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 17:59 +0100, schreef Goswin von Brederlow:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 19:14 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
> >> The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
> >> sorted by:
> >>
> >> - target suite
> > - previous compilation state (already built packages are prioritized
> > above packages never built for the target architecture)
> >> - package priority
> >> - package section
> >> - package name
> >>
> >> I personally believe it would be beneficial to prioritize by upload urgency
> >> as well (probably as a sort criterion between package priority and package
> >> section), but the w-b maintainers disagree.
> >
> > I agree with the w-b maintainers. The queue order is only interesting in
> > the case where there is a backlog; in other cases, packages are usually
> > built rather fast. In the case where there is a backlog, those trying to
> > fix the architecture (usually those that are working on it) should be in
> > charge of deciding what package gets built first, not the maintainer of
> > a random package -- /all/ package builds are urgent if there's a
> > backlog.
>
> Since you think an empty queue is normal why then fight changes to the
> queue order?
You misunderstood. I don't fight generic changes to the order; I just
don't think it would be a good thing that any random developer could
prioritize his pet package.
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
