[Victor Norman] > I personally do not like the idea of putting the --randomize flag in > the hosts file. I say, "let the hosts file be the hosts file". > Instead, I much prefer that all behavior modifications go on the > command-line, or in a "resource configuration" file -- i.e., a > dot-rc file, like .distccrc.
[Daniel Kegel] > The history there is that we wanted to satisfy people who > wanted to have a couple preferred hosts (like localhost) before the > randomized ones. > > Only the hosts after --randomize are randomized, I think. True, but I still second Victor's point of view. The host file contains hosts, and adding options there doesn't sound good at all. Not that I have an immediate idea to implement the "not all hosts are randomized" concept, but at least I can say I don't much like this one. I would also question the interest of such an option. Was there a significant improvement when compared with a fully randomized distribution? I would think that a more simple rule would be not to randomize the first host of the list and start randomizing after that. Wouldn't it be sufficient? Or we could have ~/.distcc/hosts.random for randomized hosts. Just my $0.02 anyway. -- Jean Delvare __ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc