Michael Nelson wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Michael Nelson > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Michael Hudson > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > > Julian Edwards wrote: > > There is one nightmare part to this - the implementation of > > IBuilder.findBuildCandidate(). This is currently a very ugly > query that > > decides which job to dispatch next, based on a few criteria > about the jobs. I > > expect it to get to troll-like ugliness by the time we finish > and I'm not sure > > how it will work yet, it depends on how Michael re-factors > IBuilder and sets > > up an interface that other builders must implement. > > Wow, that's a beauty alright. > > > Hmm... as far as I understand it, we aren't going to have > generalised builders that can do both binary-package building and > branch->source package building initially right? Rather, we'll have > different types of builders. So although we'll want to keep the > scoring consistent for both so that when we *do* have such > infrastructure they'll be queued fairly, currently each builder type > will be able to implement its own findBuildCandidate() and only be > looking for builds of the required type... in which case, the > short-term solution for findBuildCandidate() should be pretty > straight forward? > > > Erm - my mistake. We won't yet have generalised builders that can accept > jobs for different archs, but any builder should be able to do branch > jobs (ie. non soyuz-build jobs).
I hope that's the case. I guess it means the other job types need to be script-based, which I think they are at least for the recipe stuff. Translations guys, what about the translations import jobs? _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
