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

Re: Question for all candidates: handle debian-admin more openly

Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 11:47:25AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Why would we need "more total CPU time"?  Not even leisner is
> > overloaded at the moment, and it's probably the slowliest machine.
> > (leisner has a different problem, though).
> > Hence, please explain why we need "more total CPU time" and when a
> > downtime from a couple of days maximum is a problem.
> "Developers accessible machines" are used by human beings which are 
> by nature much less patient and much more subject to real life issues
> than build daemons.
> The faster a port machine is, the less painful it is to debug a 
> problem and so developers are more willing to work on it. Fixing
> the bug sooner given them also more time to work on others bugs
> and reduce the delay caused by the bug.

So you want faster machines and not more machines.
That's a different issue.

While we're at it, we're in need of a fast ARM machine with a
local disk and enough RAM (>=128MB).

> > My question stays: Why?
> > 
> > Of course, we could add all machines that get donated to the Debian
> > project, but why should we?
> If we are donated machines that are significantly faster than the
> developers machines for the same architecture, I think we should provide
> access to them (unless the machines were affected to another usage, of
> course).

Why not replace the older machines then?

Should Debian develop a hardware zoo of old, superseded and hence unused



The only stupid question is the unasked one.

Reply to: