On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 10:37:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > > Easy: the best tools we've got to judge whether buildds are keeping up > > are the buildd graphs which indicate that with the exception of m68k > > and arm (hrm, and possibly hppa), all our ports are doing extremely well. > This is the only metric? How about long delays on particular > packages? The average amount built is not the only consideration. No, not the only, the best. It is mostly the responsibility of the maintainer to resolve package specific issues though; which usually amount to three things: FTBFS bugs, problems with toolchains and build-depends that only affect one package or a few, and problems with P-a-s not being accurate. Toolchain issues usually, which seem to be your concern, take some time to resolve, and are often fixed by "mass give-backs" once related issues have worked their way through the build system. Sometimes the related problems take a while to resolve, of course. FTBFS issues are the most common though, as well as the easiest to resolve; your point would carry more weight if you took the time to fix yours first. (Looking through -private, I saw someone remark that 1000 bugs was too many -- we have got 1400 _RC_ bugs at the moment...) (Also, those graphs do not indicate the "average" amount by any measure, so your characterisation is again completely wrong. Please take more care) Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature