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

Re: glibc and UNACCEPTs

On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 12:50:38PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 08:14:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The reason I'm pointing this out at length is to emphasise that as we
> > improve the archive software this will become not just awkward to do,
> > but *impossible*.
> Is it really an improvement then? :-)
> I don't know the internals of dak at all, but honestly; this safety net just
> proved itself very useful...

It worked because I was awake at 4:20am localtime, on IRC to notice,
and willing to do something about it... While that's more common than is
probably good, it's not something I like to see the release depend on...

Due to the craptacular nature of the process of doing UNACCEPTs (and the
way it hurts buildds, confuses dak's internal structures, potentially
confuses the BTS -- bugs closed on upload don't get reopened, etc),
it's pretty rare that anyone is willing to do it too.

The other side of the tradeoff is:

     - losing the "accepted" queue entirely -- packages that are accepted
       go straight into the pool, removing one area for bugs to occur

     - removing the need to do in-queue autobuilding -- again removing code
       that has had bugs, but also removing the need to run apt-ftparchive
       twice for every package uploaded, thus reducing the load on ftp-master

     - allowing us to run the pulse more often than daily so that
       packages can be developed and deployed more rapidly, getting bugs
       found and fixed faster. this is particularly relevant for d-i,
       and has been for years now.

So yeah, it's an improvement.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: