[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 21, 2005 at 12:35:28AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:43:48PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > 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,

> I don't think the possibility of something like that being abused is as
> strange as you seem to imply. As proof of that statement, I faintly
> remember someone doing a gratuitous source upload just to provoke the
> buildds...

On the contrary, I do expect there would be a certain amount of abuse of
such a system -- I just can't imagine such abuse reaching a level where it
constitutes a worse failure scenario than the one we currently have. 
*Particularly* if we apply appropriate social pressures against abusers.

> > 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?

> It would be worse in that it would increase the impact of a re-upload.
> Not only would it trigger a rebuild on all architectures, it would now
> suddenly also throw the build ordering around, possibly worsening the
> problem that prompted the gratuitous upload in the first place by not
> building urgent (in build-dependency order) packages first.

But, uploads impact the ordering of Needs-Build all the time; I don't see
why that would generally be any worse than the status quo.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: