On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 22:39 -0500, seth vidal wrote: > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 21:33 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:07 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > > On 11/3/05, seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > So what do people think? Should we make it so? > > > > > > I'd certaintly use that option for anything i submitted into the > > > system from this point just as a sanity check on functionality before > > > going to publish. > > > > Ditto. One could even use it for *gasp* putting test packages out there > > for bug fixes. I really like this sandbox idea. > > > > > > > > One thing to watch out for... if sandbox builds are a very popular > > > feature...you might consider sandbox builds be given lower priority > > > instead of fifowith to-be-published packages. I'd have to see a lot > > > of sandbox builds que up and clog the buildhosts. But this is > > > obviously a secondary issue which might never need to be addressed. > > > > I think this is a valid point. It's better to at least think about it > > now rather than try to fix it when the buildsys is over-whelmed. This > > is a case where being proactive will probably work out better than > > reactive. > > > > I disagree - overthinking it and adding a bunch of scheduler priority > mechanisms in the queuer will just make more work. Let's go for low > hanging fruit and see if we actually have a problem at all. *shrug* Fair enough. Without knowing the real mechanics behind it, I assume that fixing it if needs be wouldn't be too hard? People always find creative uses for things... josh
