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

load balancing bazaar style

The fact that libc has been a bottlenecking-causing hotspot over the last year makes
me think that some better efforts be taken.

I think that a simple protocol could be put in place whereby there is an effort to
make the weekly requirements for glibc is made easier for members of the public to
simply jump right in.

I think there should be a stack type system where a bunch of tasks are popped on by
the  glibc team, and they can be popped off by anyone.

With some publicity, some of the less interesting, but necessary tasks can get done
at times by anyone that is capable of coding in c.

I think it might be good at times for simple stuff, for the glibc team to pseudocode
things, and then the public could knock off stuff.

Some more technical,specific ideas: 
-have an intent to process protocol. whereby a member of the glibc team submits his
estimate for the given task. If a person on the outside decides to submit an ITP and
if he fails to complete within the time of the estimate, then this person is
disallowed from ITP. Also, permission for the ITP, assuming the problem is not 100%
straightforward can be allowed or disallowed by default. Thereby, a discussion on
this list (or a new one for this purpose) between the person and the glibc
maintainer can be used to show the maintainer that the intender is on the right

hmm, thats about all for now.

The precise _fact_ that glibc has held up debian for lots of time suggests that new
or improved processes be put in place. What I suggest will begin a more quantifiable
process and a more public process which should make _facilitate_ in the best way
possible a method of efficiently distributing load. Theres lots of demand but there
doesnt seem to be the appropriate interfaces and processes within the debian machine
to address this. Hopefully this can lead the way.

I'd like to hear other ideas too.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more

Reply to: