Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> writes:
> Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> writes:
>
>> Well, in an ideal world, these two patch sets would be built separately,
>> so that any failure could be attributed to one or the other. So I would
>> not call two rebuilds "wasted work" in such a context.
>
> Agreed. If our build farm had enough capacity, this would be ideal.
> I should not have said "wasted work".
>
> Unfortunately, our build farm capacity is quite limited, and its master
> machine is currently lacking in RAM and has extraordinarily poor disk
> performance. For these reasons, at present, it requires a great deal of
> hand-holding to keep it from becoming overloaded to the point of being
> unusuable. I do a lot of that work myself, so I'm sensitive to the
> issue.
>
> I'm currently working on building the new hydra.gnu.org which will
> hopefully perform much better, although we will still need to work
> within our build capacity constraints until we have many more build
> slaves.
As you can see, even with the trimming of unnecessary jobs that I have
already done, Hydra has too much to do and is making very slow progress.
I would like to propose that we merge 'wip-glib' into 'core-updates',
remove the 'wip-glib' branch and jobset, and focus Hydra on building all
of 'core-updates'.
What do you think?
Mark
