On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:28:12 -0400 Jason Edgecombe <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's easy to add multiple slaves to a builder, and the slaves will be > used in parallel, but I think that slaves are use in the same order as > the config file and not as a round-robin. Well, the order of which one is used first I didn't think really mattered. But if we have 2 submitted changes, one change will go to one slave, and the other change will go to the other slave, right? You're not talking about one change being submitted to both slaves in parallel, correct? (since that wouldn't be very useful) > My biggest concern about having multiple slaves in a builder is that > the slaves might have slightly different configurations which yield > inconsistent results. If that's fine with the other dev's, then you > can ignore this. If it's a concern, maybe we could use puppet or > something similar to keep things in sync. In my opinion, that's okay for the 1.6 branch. That is, it's an acceptable downside for getting faster builds. This effectively just means that if a build fails, it's harder to see which specific commit broke stuff, but it's still very likely that buildbot will notice if there is a problem (before, say, a release). For master, speed is less of a concern and knowing specifically which commit broke the build is more of a concern, so maybe this could just be for the stable branch builders. -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
