Re: Do not make gratuitous source uploads just to provoke the buildds!
Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> writes:
> Op za, 12-03-2005 te 15:01 -0800, schreef Thomas Bushnell BSG:
>> Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
>>
>> > Remember that the buildd queue is not FIFO at all. The queue has a
>> > completly static order. Any changes to the queue are just packages
>> > hiding because they are not "needs-build". I consider that the biggest
>> > flaw of all in wanna-build.
>>
>> This is news to me.
>>
>> It means that when one is told "just wait, your package will get
>> rebuilt"; it is not necessarily true at all. There is no upper bound
>> at all on time to wait for building, and that's a disaster.
>
> This paragraph assumes nobody ever looks the length of the needs-build
> queue of his architecture, and nobody feels bad when the queue is longer
> than normal. That idea would be hilarious if it wasn't sad.
>
> In reality, the upper bound is determined by motivated porters who try
> hard to avoid the queue ever to grow too long, day after day.
The queue length is bound and easily detected if it grows too long.
But do you notice when the same packages keep showing up at the end of
the queue for weeks? The queue can be as small as 1 package inbetween
and that 1 package could still never get build.
Eventualy someone notices, usualy the maintainer, and a new "why isn't
my package build yet?" flame starts.
>> People
>> should stop repeating the fiction then that "just wait" means "your
>> package will eventually get built".
>
> Why, if it is true?
It usualy is. It might not be. And it can be an awfully long wait.
The last one is the problem. The first two not.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: