On 1 November 2016 at 18:07, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>> On Nov 1, 2016, at 7:00 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>> On 1 November 2016 at 01:03, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> On Oct 31, 2016, at 17:17, Dan Ports wrote:
>>>> Any reason not to just bulk-remove them all at once?
>>> That would probably tie up the buildbot for weeks or months. We could 
>>> cancel those builds, but even the act of scheduling 20,000 builds per 
>>> builder is much more than we've ever attempted before and I think it would 
>>> not be happy about it. At the very least, I would want to wait until I've 
>>> switched the buildbot from SQLite to PostgreSQL.
>>> Please, for now, just make this change together with other necessary 
>>> changes.
>> Why not:
>> - wait until all the slaves have something non-trivial to do (make
>> sure the queue is not empty)
>> - do a bulk commit
>> - cancel the job manually
> That won't prevent the buildmaster from receiving 20,000 changes,
> processing ~100,000 build requests, and scheduling ~100,000 builds.

No, that's not true. 100.000(?) build request would only be scheduled
if we fail to cancel the build on the portwatcher. In that case we
would of course have to break all of those thousands of jobs on the
portbuilder "manually". If we cancel the job on the portwatcher before
it gets processed, there will be absolutely zero penalty (except that
the failcache would probably be erased).

macports-dev mailing list

Reply via email to