Hi, On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 7:33 PM NoisyCoil <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bo, > > On 5/27/26 11:41, Bo YU wrote: > > If some failures ultimately proved to stem primarily from hardware > > limitations, insufficient platform maturity, or non reproduced random > > instability, then it may cost the package maintainer some valuable > > time wasted on this. This is a point that certainly requires careful > > balancing. If this happened, please send it [email protected] then > > we will have a look. > > riscv64 systematically costs us valuable time. Since riscv64 tests have > been enabled, my time spent on Rust packaging has often been mostly time > spent waiting for riscv64 to finish doing whatever it is doing. > > In my mind there's no doubt Rust tests must be disabled on riscv64. But > if more performant machines are being deployed, then let's wait and see. >
Yeah, I can fully understand the frustration here :( For us, deploying additional hardware resources with more performant ones is currently the most straightforward way to mitigate the issue. In fact, my colleagues and I already started pushing on this yesterday. Let's see how it goes in the next few weeks. BR, Bo > Best.
