Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
On 2005-03-15 Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:56:51AM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> > - there should be at least 2N buildd admins for this architecture. A lot
> > of problems with buildds are caused by buildd admins unavailable at the
> > same time for a given arch.
> I don't know that 2N buildd admins is necessary, but I think having >1
> buildd admin for a port is a good idea. I'm not sure it should be
> mandatory -- a lot of recent per-arch delays have actually been tied to
> the availability of *local* admins, for instance, not to buildd admins
> per se. It bears thinking about what the exact problem being solved
> here is that isn't already solved by requiring hot-spare buildds.
In that case you probably should *enforce* that you have got both >2
local admins and >2 buildd admins for each arch.
Afair there have been significant delays due to (overworked, ill,
etc.) buildd admins in the past and if you are starting to enforce
reliable buildds not going all the way seems to be strange.
"See, I told you they'd listen to Reason," [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf,
fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha.
Neal Stephenson in "Snow Crash"