On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Brendan Conoboy <b...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 03/20/2012 11:16 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: >> >> You are materially impacted. AutoQA won't run until the entire build is >> complete. Updates cannot be prepared until the entire build is complete. >> Buildroots won't be updated with the build results until the entire >> build is complete. You won't know if your build /fails/ on the arch >> until it's done, etc... >> >> Having one arch significantly slower than the others absolutely creates >> material impact upon developers. > > > I haven't run this by anybody yet, so if it's nonsense just say so, but... > > Would it be reasonable to, even amongst primary architectures, allow these > steps to go forward even if one arch fails while another succeeds? Let's > say we have arch-groups in primary- i686 and x86_64 are in a group, armv7hl > and armv5tel are in a group. The results of one group do not inhibit the > progress of another. Feasible with a bit of retooling, or a nightmare > waiting to happen? The discussion so far has focused almost exclusively on > build time. We hear you. Let's talk about what to do about it. And what > concerns there are besides build time.
You mean aside from what you already have as a secondary arch, which allows this explicitly? What would you look to gain by having a half and half arch? All of the PR but none of the requirements for consistency and quality? I can sympathize with trying to be creative on solving a concern, but this probably is not how you want to go about it. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
