On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:34:08 -0400 Jason Edgecombe <ja...@rampaginggeek.com> wrote:
> I think that the "identically configured" delaying the other builders > part are the big blockers. I suspected that the suggestion was a > non-starter, but wanted to double-check. While I agree it's better that way and should be goal, I don't think that should block any new slaves outright. We've had, and will continue to have, non-deterministic build failures, and it's not the end of the world. They are problems, but they are problems that can identified and fixed. If a few builds failed solely depending on which slave they were on, it would be even easier to identify. -- Andrew Deason adea...@sinenomine.net _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list OpenAFS-devel@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
