On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:56:10AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> I would like to see some stats showing on how many days in the last > >> year an arch reached 0 needs-build. I highly doubt that any arch > >> managed to do it every day troughout the last year.
> > You know why goals are important? 0 needs-build is definitly a goal we > > should work to. > I disagree. 0 needs-build once a day is a bad line to draw. Saying > packages must be build a day before they become testing candidates > would be a better line. But that would require a non starving queue to > mean anything but 0 needs-build. > I don't see any great harm with packages getting build 5 days late if > they have to wait 10 days for testing. As long as they do get build on > time. Ah, but packages that are being uploaded with urgency=low are usually not a concern for the release team at all; it's the *high*-urgency uploads that normally demand the release team's attention, and these are precisely the ones that slower build architectures are going to have a harder time building within the purgatory interval (2 days, not 10, for high-urgency packages). To say nothing of the fact that urgency is not currently considered for package build ordering, which means that it's very possible for a high-urgency upload to go for 2 days without being tried at all. > But what do I know, I'm not an RM. So lets thing about the criterion: > Strictly requiring 0 needs-builds every day means the buildd must have > enough power to cope even with huge upload peeks and if one of the > buildds fail at a peak time no arch will cope with that. Obviously > some leaway will have to be given for arch to temporarily not meat the > criterion, say 0 needs-build on 75% of all days and no more than 3 > consecuitve failures wihtout special circumstances or something of > that sort. Right? > Or do you realy want to remove i386 from the release if it fails 0 > needs-build 10 times before etch release? Andreas never said anything about this being the criterion for RC architectures. He said it should be a *goal*. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
