sandbox targets

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 22:39 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 21:33 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:07 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > > On 11/3/05, seth vidal <skvidal at phy.duke.edu> wrote:
> > > > So what do people think? Should we make it so?
> > > 
> > > I'd certaintly use that option for anything i submitted into the
> > > system from this point just as a sanity check on functionality before
> > > going to publish.
> > 
> > Ditto.  One could even use it for *gasp* putting test packages out there
> > for bug fixes.  I really like this sandbox idea.
> > 
> > > 
> > > One thing to watch out for... if sandbox builds are a very popular
> > > feature...you might consider sandbox builds be given lower priority
> > > instead of fifowith  to-be-published packages. I'd have to see a lot
> > > of sandbox builds que up and clog the buildhosts. But this is
> > > obviously a secondary issue which might never need to be addressed.
> > 
> > I think this is a valid point.  It's better to at least think about it
> > now rather than try to fix it when the buildsys is over-whelmed.  This
> > is a case where being proactive will probably work out better than
> > reactive.
> > 
> 
> I disagree - overthinking it and adding a bunch of scheduler priority
> mechanisms in the queuer will just make more work. Let's go for low
> hanging fruit and see if we actually have a problem at all.

*shrug*

Fair enough.  Without knowing the real mechanics behind it, I assume
that fixing it if needs be wouldn't be too hard?  People always find
creative uses for things...

josh