On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:30:09 +0100, Julian Edwards <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday 05 August 2010 15:06:35 James Westby wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 11:33:40 +0100, Julian Edwards > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wednesday 04 August 2010 21:16:33 James Westby wrote: > > > > # bugpackageinfestation -> SPR ??? > > > > > > Only main archives have bugs so it should not matter for COPY/PPA > > > archives. > > > > > > Deryck will have to fix this whenever they do PPA bugs :) > > > > Well, I am adding code to delete PRIMARY archives, so I have to consider > > what to do. > > Why's that? It's out of scope I thought - aren't you just deleting COPY/PPA > archives?
Then I misunderstood this: > On Tuesday 03 August 2010 13:34:30 James Westby wrote: > > Just to be clear, you are advocating deleting every trace of an archive > > (except records referenced elsewhere), as soon as the publisher runs > > after you delete an archive, for all archive types? > For all archive types where we support deletion, yes. This is the only way > that people can re-use the same name for PPAs after they delete them, unless > they resurrect the same PPA again and are aware of its upload > history. where in messages earlier in the thread you hadn't corrected me when I said that PARTNER/PRIMARY/DEBUG were all deleteable. > > Should the user be told on +delete that they can't delete as they have > > outstanding builds? I think that would be bad, as they won't care, > > though we could warn them, as they may not know. > > > > I think it would be better for the publisher to leave archives that are > > DELETING in that state if they have outstanding builds and come back to > > them next time. > > Possibly, although I'm worried that will slow down the publisher with the > extra work. Archive deletion will be fairly infrequent, such that there will only be a few archive deletion requests at most outstanding at any one time. For each there will be a query as to whether it has any builds outstanding? Is that query going to take a long time? > > Other references that I missed before: > > > > * packagecopyrequest - already CASCADE > > I guess we need to check to see if there's a job active for the PCR, and > either kill it or prevent deletion. Well, I'd just like to kill packagecopyrequest, but I'm hesitant to make this work depend on that. As for that particular case, there is a race between +delete and the publisher running. Therefore we make the publisher skip and try again next time, and have +delete remove any packagecopyrequest to prevent any starting in the meantime, to reduce the load. I'm not sure how we would kill a running job? > > * archivejob - should CASCADE? > > Yes. This is basically the same issue? Aaron, what happens on Branch.delete() with BranchJobs? Thanks, James _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
