[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Do not make gratuitous source uploads just to provoke the buildds!

Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> writes:

> * Goswin von Brederlow (brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de) [050314 15:35]:
>> Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> writes:
>> > * Hamish Moffatt (hamish@debian.org) [050314 01:45]:
>> >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:16:56PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> >> > Our goal is that the queue gets empty from time to time, and so,
>> >> > priority shouldn't prevent a package from being built.
>> >> 
>> >> How often should the queue be emptied, or when will an architecture be
>> >> declarared not-keeping-up?
>> >
>> > In light of
>> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/03/msg00012.html
>> >   the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number
>> >   required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages
>> > at least once per day for etch.
>> That means no more m68k. Given that some packages compile up to 12
>> days there will be plenty of times the queue doesn't empty once per
>> day.
> needs-build can be empty even if packages _are_ currently building.

Not with "N may not be > 2". Say 3 mozilla clones get uploaded. Each
of the N+1 buildds grabs one and ist busy for 5 days. If any other
package gets uploaded in that time the queue will not be empty.

Unless you take packages even while building. But I'm sure a long
"building" queue on the buildds would be cheating and not count.

>> 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

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?

> Cheers,
> Andi
> -- 
>    http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
>    PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C


Reply to: