On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 07:27:33PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Fri, 2017-09-22 at 12:58 -0400, John Ferlan wrote: > > By killing it - I was thinking more along the lines of removing it from > > our CI infrastructure and just letting the repo sit silently without > > updates, but that ship sailed today. We could still remove it from the > > CI mix as if something breaks - there's not going to be anyone that > > really wants to fix it. > > Well, there hasn't been a single release since 2013, and any > actual development since 2014... > > Maybe it's really time to move on and free up some cycles for > the CI workers, especially since there are going to be more > jobs running on there pretty soon. Time consumed by the CI job is < 2% of total time required to do a full rebuild when libvirt sees a git change. Almost every other module takes a greater amount of time. This drops still further when you add in the time consumed by changes to non-libvirt core modules which don't trigger the CIM binding. Realisticaly the only thing that will have a measurable improvement on our CI system at this point is obtaining more hardware. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
