[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: buildd administration

Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:

> On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 09:40:11PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
>> > Requeue requests are part of handling logs... You get a failed log, you
>> > analyse it to say "oh, that's a transient error due to other things"
>> > then you requeue it... If that analysis comes from reading a mail,
>> > great.
>> So why was the request ignored for a month?  Why did my email result
>> in no action, twice, not even a response?
> I've told you what I'd need to answer that question already.
>> Perhaps you don't know the answer to these questions.  But then how
>> can you so surely assert that there is no problem?
> 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.
> Although I guess that's different from saying there's "no problem" if
> you're being pedantically literal. I have no interest in that sort of
> discussion though. *shrug*

So i386 never has a problem no matter how screwed up the buildd is?
The stats will always show a very high % for it no matter what.

The only thing the graph shows is the general case, the overall
performance of the arch. Not if a package has fallen through the
cracks and is ignored or forgotten.


Reply to: