Re: MIPS port backlog, autobuilder machines and some arrogance
Josip Robin wrote:
It's been proven plenty of times that whenever we have task depend on a
single person doing it, the lack of redundancy comes back and bites us in
the ass whenever there's the slightest bit of a problem.
Anthony Towns then wrote:
No. You're saying "Because nobody has done it, it must be hard," which
just isn't the way the world works; it makes so many wrong assumptions
it's not even worth enumerating them.
Why do you think that contributes _anything_ to the discussion? It's not
remotely insightful, rather it's trivially obvious. What that means is
that Martin already knows it and understands it, and doesn't need to
be told. It also means that, if it were easy to add some redundancy,
it would already have happened. Which in turn means that it's hard.
The specific case at hand is actually a counterexample to your
argument. Let me list the facts I've heard on
1) There is a single MIPS buildd admin.
2) He is the point of failure, for whatever reason.
3) Other architectures successfully have multiple buildd admins.
4) People are volunteering to administer MIPS buildds.
5) Yet, there is still a single MIPS buildd admin.
Don't overlook the degree to which people can overlook the "trivially