I saw some stories (i.e. job auth context) that looks like a roadmap where everybody can join and help. Something the same.
> On Oct 24, 2016, at 00:02, Stephen Connolly <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I'm waiting for you to provide your usual interjection as to how to get this > on the roadmap. > > More seriously, there is possibly some work coming up for trying to > rearchitect the queue... but I remain skeptical at present! > > On Sunday 23 October 2016, Kanstantsin Shautsou <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Is there any roadmap for it? > > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 7:48:43 PM UTC+3, Jesse Glick wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Surya Gaddipati > <[email protected] <>> wrote: > > neither concerrentmodificationexception nor scheduling > > on zombie node are applicable here . > > If you are bypassing a lock, a CME seems like a risk. > > > a patch to core that adds nodes to jenkins > > without unnecessary queue locking. > > Sounds like the wrong approach to me. For the short term Stephen’s advice was > > > For now, use the queue lock methods, when we remove the need for a lock > > they will become no-ops that the JVM will inline away for plugins compiled > > against current cores > > The real fix would be to bypass `Queue` altogether for these cases and > inline all the launching and remoting into the lifecycle of the build > itself. The main issue is that there are some places in Jenkins core > where it is assumed that a valid `Node`/`Computer` is also in the > global lists, which is not something you want here. You can create a > `FilePath` and `Launcher` not tied to a `Node` or `Computer`, but that > is also poorly supported in various places. So I think a larger > redesign is necessary. Adding a one-off method which is not in general > safe to call would just make a compatible transition harder. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Jenkins Developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to <>jenkinsci-dev+unsubscribe@ > <mailto:[email protected]>googlegroups.com > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/7123adbe-bae2-4a49-aec2-8826b8fc0e0a%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/7123adbe-bae2-4a49-aec2-8826b8fc0e0a%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. > > > -- > Sent from my phone > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google > Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/jenkinsci-dev/Z2hKvdBDHbw/unsubscribe > <https://groups.google.com/d/topic/jenkinsci-dev/Z2hKvdBDHbw/unsubscribe>. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CA%2BnPnMw1rQHbB%3Dr1eFOKM5%2BZXmbOKXaB9J%2B%2Bd0GhurrTpUnV1Q%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CA%2BnPnMw1rQHbB%3Dr1eFOKM5%2BZXmbOKXaB9J%2B%2Bd0GhurrTpUnV1Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/5F8B9191-C695-4377-9B95-D5ED7895FDA7%40gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
