On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Ted Unangst <t...@tedunangst.com> wrote: > I don't see what we gain by killing jobs. If the scheduler dice had > come down differently, maybe those jobs would finish. > > Here's a downside, albeit maybe a stretch. What if the job doesn't > like being killed? You're changing behavior here. Previously, the > only way a job was interrupted was if the operator did it. In that > case, I will pick up the pieces. I think letting the running jobs > finish is actually a better match to the sequential make's behavior.
+1
