On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 06:41:07PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: I started replying to everything, but then I realized it's probibly not worth me doing so. :) ...snip... > To sum this up, I can see 3 benefits of mass rebuild: > > 1) change of dist tag > > 2) ensuring all packages builds > > 3) ensuring that all changes with global impact are included > > > But > > 1) non of this is technically hard requirement unless we say so > > 2) non of this justifies the current schedule and I think there are less > busy times when we could do mass rebuild for the reasons stated above. ok. Fair enough. > BTW we were doing mass rebuild as long as I remember (over 14 years). But > their history has started prior tools such as Koschei or MPB become > available and where packages built by GCC were majority. The times has > changed. Making mass rebuild less prominent (and in less busy period) would > be next logical step. I'd really love to hear any other folks chiming in here instead of us going back and forth. I think you do make some good points. I like the idea of targeting/mini mass rebuilds if packages can be identified. Perhaps we could move the mass rebuild to another time, but I would need to ponder on that more. Thanks for the discussion! kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
