>>>>> Andy Doan <[email protected]> writes:
> + Francis and Vincent
> I don't know enough about package building and PPA's to know what the
right
> thing to do is. Given the limitations described by Ursula below, I want to
> confirm whether or not we really need clean PPA's?
Yes, we do need clean PPAs.
At the very least, we want PPAs that can be relied upon for:
- not providing a package that hasn't been built yet for the user needs,
- providing an up-to-date package to the user.
> If we need clean PPA's we might need the PPA-assigner to have 3 states:
> clean-and-available
> dirty-and-available
No doubt.
> locked
Assigned would be less controversial IMHO. It also implies handling
*who* is using the PPA, since when, something else I can't think of
right now ;)
> We could then have some async/background logic that could get a PPA from
> dirty-and-available to clean-and-available. Or some other approach?
That sounds like the best approach to me, especially if we don't control
how long it takes to clean a PPA.
This will require some tuning to ensure we always have enough clean PPAs
available.
This, in turn means we should be ready to handle an empty
pool gracefully. By gracefully I mean two things:
- users of the PPA assigner will in turn fail gracefully,
- the error message should be crystal clear for both the cause and the
possible remedies from the user pov.
Vincent
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~canonical-ci-engineering
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~canonical-ci-engineering
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
