> On Nov 1, 2016, at 2:22 PM, Mojca Miklavec <mo...@macports.org> wrote: > >> On 1 November 2016 at 18:07, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: >> >>> On Nov 1, 2016, at 7:00 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: >>> >>> 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.
I don't think this is accurate. Builds would not yet have been created, but BuildRequests would have been scheduled. But I think you're right, for the wrong reasons. I forgot that the port scheduler has a tree stable timer now; a single BuildSet would be created for all 20,000 Changes. > 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). Just because builds are not actually happening yet does not mean there isn't a memory penalty from the queued requests. In any case, the proposed set of commits is utterly unnecessary and is not worth any of this fuss. vq _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list email@example.com https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev