On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 06:06:56PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: > On 2005-03-15 Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.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. > Hello, > 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. Requiring two local admins for all buildds is going to greatly limit our pool of potential buildd sponsors. Requiring N+1 buildd capacity is a much more efficient and effective way of ensuring reliability. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature