On 05/05/2014 06:04 PM, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote: > On 15:06 Mon 05 May , Markos Chandras wrote: >> Hi all, > Hi, > >> ... >> This takes quite a bit of time for all stages to be built (by the time >> everything is built, we are one month passed the time the snapshot was >> taken). How about stop building stages for mips1, mips3 and mips4? We >> keep the existing stages on the mirrors but we will no longer update >> them (or maybe we do on per user or per case basis). I understand there >> is hardware for these ISAs but how often do people actually use the new >> stages? >> >> Just to be clear, I am not suggesting for the team to stop supporting >> these ISAs but to stop building new stages and let the users of such >> ISAs, grab an old stage3 and do the update themselves if needed. >> >> This will free up some hardware resources for building different stages >> for the newer ISAs (maybe more non-multilib n32 and n64 variants etc) >> >> What does everyone think? > > I agree. If we don't have the resources to build everything for everyone,
Resources is not a huge problem at the moment. Like I explained on the other email, I am mainly interested in discussing whether doing so is desired or not. lets > just build what is mainstream at the moment. I don't know catalyst's internals > or how painful it would be to update the whole set once per year or a bit > longer, but it could > be nice, because I'm not sure how possible would be to update a stage3 after > > 1-2 years. Reducing the frequency of such stages can also be an option. I didn't quite rule that out yet -- Regards, Markos Chandras
