The more I think about this in light of the other discussion about the problem of figuring out whether or not there have been scm changes (because the last-used scm checkout might be anywhere) I'm leaning towards:
1. associate a build environment with a single build agent [1] 2. get parallel builds working on the build agent (CONTINUUM-2045) It's the effect of concurrent builds that I'm attached to, not necessarily selecting an agent at build time. That is, I'd love to see permission- and capability-based selection of agents at some point, but I can live with something less than that for the moment. What do you think? [1] I still need to make sure only an admin controls which projects build on which agents... -- Wendy On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Christian Edward Gruber <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the "magic" can be made visible, in that if it is criteria based, > the server can display those agents which would apply to the current > criteria, so that a user can see the implications of his selection. Since > the display will be the same logic as the criteria selection (it's really > just straight set theory) then the user is not going to be surprised. > > Christian > > On 19-Jan-09, at 02:44 , Brett Porter wrote: > >> +1 >> >> I think selection needs to be a combination of capability, permission and >> availability. I would mostly prefer the user is in full control of selecting >> these rather than having too much magic (automated selection might be a nice >> feature, but the basic starting point should be a fully configured system). ...
