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 If anything, the current workaround options (ignoring select out-of-date binaries for an arch) seem more efficient.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