Re: COUNT(buildd) IN (2,3) (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:54:32AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Sven Luther said:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:03:30PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> > > 
> > > Thus the problem is less in the development and more in the support
> > > of testing requirements (all arches in sync) and stable support
> > > (security response time). Therefore the N<=2 requirement is only
> > > needed for tier-1 arches but not for the tier-2 which will not
> > > officially release a stable.
> > 
> > What is the detailed reasoning for this requirement anyway ? 
> 
> I thought that was fairly clear - a 12 day build of a security fix is
> unacceptable, especially since it hampers getting that fix out the door
> for everyone else.

So what ? If those arches that are slower get security updates a bit later,
its better than getting no security updates at all.

Also, security updates often have a embargo time of a couple of weeks anyway,
so ...

> > And would a ten-way redundant distcc cluster count as one machine ? 
> 
> I would certainly interpret it that way, and hopefully the people behind
> the proposal would as well.

I seriously doubt it. 

Friendly,

Sven Luther