Re: vancouver revisited
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 02:48:58AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 11:21:00AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > I'd much rather have seen that point go, but that didn't happen.
> Meaning you would have preferred that there not be a requirement of buildd
> redundancy, or you would have preferred that there not be a limit on the
> number of buildds needed to keep up?
As said, there was a lot of discussion about this very point at our
meeting. While I understand the arguments that were given against having
more build daemons (and cannot say that they were entirely invalid), I
still think this requirement isn't necessary.
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond