On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:36:39PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 19:14 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek: > > The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are) > > sorted by: > > - target suite > - previous compilation state (already built packages are prioritized > above packages never built for the target architecture) Yep, remembered that one after I sent the message. > > - package priority > > - package section > > - package name > > I personally believe it would be beneficial to prioritize by upload urgency > > as well (probably as a sort criterion between package priority and package > > section), but the w-b maintainers disagree. > I agree with the w-b maintainers. The queue order is only interesting in > the case where there is a backlog; in other cases, packages are usually > built rather fast. In the case where there is a backlog, those trying to > fix the architecture (usually those that are working on it) should be in > charge of deciding what package gets built first, not the maintainer of > a random package -- /all/ package builds are urgent if there's a > backlog. Well, my objection is basically the same as Thomas's here -- all package builds are *not* equally urgent, and in fact, we have an "urgency" field in uploads that expresses this fact quite clearly. Certainly there's some danger of abuse by uploaders, but there are dozens of other things that maintainers *could* abuse right now and are only stopped from doing because they *shouldn't* do them. I wouldn't be bothered by porters choosing how to order builds, if the ordering they chose more closely corresponded to what the release team (and britney) want it to be. :) -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature