From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:38:59 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Your daily results for 2019-08-18 In-Reply-To: <87r25e6dj1.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> References: <20190819054333.566812D8079@tinkie.tkos.co.il> <20190819124959.quvccga35p2ggkrf@sapphire.tkos.co.il> <20190819145514.19722372@windsurf.home> <4a15c906-869d-d069-1e3a-b6cefff69f1f@mind.be> <20190819233256.01c0f4a1@windsurf.home> <87zhk4erxo.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <77298569-2f0f-d650-d396-3ea4be5b09eb@mind.be> <20190821075136.GA12477@scaer> <87v9ur54mx.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20190821091336.GD12477@scaer> <87r25e6dj1.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <20190826093859.1ceee67d@windsurf.home> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 12:03:46 +0200 Peter Korsgaard wrote: > > - one to add the new stable branch and remove the oldest stable branch > > (after -rc1) > > But that doesn't take the weights into consideration, so we would end up > spending most of the autobuilder time on master (E.G. what we now call > next). > > Anyway, I am OK with giving it a try for 2019.11, but I'm not completely > convinced about it. I also don't really see the benefit(s) of this change. To me, it seems a lot easier to just adjust the logic that generates the package statistics to use the next branch when it is available. The rest of our existing workflow can continue to work as-is. It's already confusing for some of our contributors, if in addition to that we keep changing our workflow for gratuitous reasons, it is not going to help. So I'm not really in favor of changing the workflow, unless there is some clear benefit to it. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com