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

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

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:19:15PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 00:10 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
> > Well, my objection is basically the same as Thomas's here -- all package
> > builds are *not* equally urgent, 

> Of course not, that is exactly my point.

> But from the POV of a package's maintainer, all fixes are more or less
> urgent. If some fixes weren't necessary, the upload wouldn't have been
> there in the first place.

I find this line of reasoning fairly incomprehensible; the "more" or "less"
aspect of the urgency is relevant here.  We obviously have a system for
classifying the severity of bugs in packages, and it's possible to relate
these bug severities to the urgency field in uploads; even assuming it does
get abused by maintainers, how would considering urgency for package build
ordering be worse than what we have now given that it should only be an
issue in either case when the buildds are not working the way they should?

> > 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. :)

> I from my side wouldn't mind if someone from the release team would ask
> me to prioritize a build[1] if necessary; but I feel irky at the thought
> of allowing other people to prioritize their packages' builds over
> others, because that *will* make sure that eventually, those people that
> do what is actually the right thing will have to wait for all eternity
> for their packages to be built.

> [1] this is technically possible, but only in a kindof hackish way, by
> manually adding the package to a buildd's REDO file and (also manually)
> setting it to 'building' by that host.

Yes, I don't think it scales very well to either have the release team
asking for this, or for the buildd maintainers to be fielding such manual
requests.  If anything, the current workaround options (ignoring select
out-of-date binaries for an arch) seem more efficient.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: