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