feaure suggestion: sort build queue in dependency order

[Joe Marcus Clarke]

On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 22:27 +0200, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> Any thoughts on this? I can implement it locally but I have the feeling
> code would diverge more and more in time, which is not something I'm
> really found of.

It would probably take you less time since you know what you want.  I'm
not a tinderd or queue user, so this would be better handled by someone
else.  If you do the work, it will certainly be considered for import.

Joe

> 
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:39:47 +0200
> Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu at freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > 
> > Now that we have the ports dependencies stored in the database I'd
> > like to suggest a feature, lets call it sortBuildPortsQueue.
> > 
> > This would reorder the ports in the BuildPortsQueue in dependency
> > order, ie.: if ports A, C and D depend on B, and C depends on D then
> > after running sortBuildPortsQueue the build order will be: B, A, D, C.
> > 
> > This would be useful to reduce the total build time for large build
> > batches (think Gnome or KDE updates) for which the ports are usually
> > queued in alphabetical order and enough of them are unnecessarily
> > build more that once (once as dependency and once because they are
> > queued). And also might reduce some foot-shooting in case of sh libs
> > bumps test-builds, etc.
> > 
> > Potentially this could reduce the number of port builds from as much
> > as 2n-1 to n.
> > 
> > The way I see it implemented would be to have a much fine grained
> > Priority. 
> > Now we have from 1 to 10 possible priorities. The way I'd like
> > it would be to have from 100,000 to 999,999. This allows for having 9
> > priority classes (the first digit) each with enough "space" to hold
> > the whole PT (the last 5 digits); I'd like it this way because I'd
> > like this reordering to be done separately for each priority class,
> > that is reorder the ports with priority from 100,000 to 199,999 in
> > dependency order, then the ports from 200,000 to 299,999, etc.
> > Alternatively of course we could add a new priority_class field in the
> > database and have the priority from 10,000 to 99,999.
> > 
> > I don't suggest that this would be 'on' by default. More, maybe we
> > could have a config / command-line option to define on what priority
> > classes we want it run.
> > When on, I think it should be called from addBuildPortsQueueEntry and
> > reorgBuildPortsQueue and it should be also possible to call it by
> > hand.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tinderbox-list at marcuscom.com mailing list
> http://marcuscom.com/mailman/listinfo/tinderbox-list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "tinderbox-list-unsubscribe at marcuscom.com"
-- 
PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://marcuscom.com/pipermail/tinderbox-list/attachments/20081204/a111f454/attachment.bin>