On 06/26/2013 10:19 AM, Andrew Deason wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 20:40:17 -0400
Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email protected]> wrote:
I guess I don't see an advantage to this. The branches which only get
pullups once in a while get all the cycles, while the branch where the
real work happens gets to be starved?
They could be for master, too; I'd like them to prioritize stable branch
changes over master changes, if that's possible to do. The advantage for
1.6 is that it would speed up rebasing/submitting a lot of 1.6 changes,
which can easily happen; I think speed there is more important, since
delays can easily delay the release process. I don't really see what
master submission delays impede.
I don't think the concern about differing buildbot results would be a
huge problem, though; we should notice it pretty quickly, and builds
breaking for "external" reasons still happen sometimes.
FYI,
Our currently deployed buildbot does support user-defined algorithm for
builder scheduling and choosing the next slave:
http://docs.buildbot.net/0.7.12/#Prioritizing-Builders
See "nextslave" option:
http://docs.buildbot.net/0.7.12/#Defining-Builders
That said, I would have to experiment to do this.
Jason
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
