On 03/12/08 at 23:34 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > On Wednesday 03 December 2008 21:01, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Buildds are machines, that only eat power. > > Wrong. > > Some archs have already problems keeping up, adding more load to them hurts > testing-migration (archs have to be in sync), thus this would hurt users.
We have had problems with arches keeping up for years. Rather simple changes in the scheduling[*] of the builds could improve the situation. Also, we have an architecture qualification page, where it's clear that several arches don't provide buildd redundancy. The fact that we are not addressing those problems shows that the problems aren't that severe, since we prefer to deal with them again and again. [*] Possible improvements: - give higher priority to packages that could go to testing if the builds were there - give lower priority on slow arches to packages that haven't been built yet on fast arches. If a fast arch has already built the package, a slow arch is less likely to lose time trying to build a package. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
