On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 02:48:58AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 11:21:00AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > I'd much rather have seen that point go, but that didn't happen. > > Meaning you would have preferred that there not be a requirement of buildd > redundancy, or you would have preferred that there not be a limit on the > number of buildds needed to keep up?
The latter. As said, there was a lot of discussion about this very point at our meeting. While I understand the arguments that were given against having more build daemons (and cannot say that they were entirely invalid), I still think this requirement isn't necessary. But, well. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
