Re: emba.gnu.org overload

[Andrea Corallo]

Mattias Engdegård <mattiase@acm.org> writes:

> 6 dec. 2022 kl. 14.43 skrev Andrea Corallo <akrl@sdf.org>:
>
>> I believe the right fix, instead of dropping configurations, would be to
>> have a decent machine to run on.
>
> We all agree on that but such things take time, and having some useful CI 
> capability right now is better than none at all.
>
> In fact, all experience tells us that a project draws great benefit from 
> stable and reliable CI -- the baseline is green and when build or test errors 
> occur they stand out and are swiftly remedied.
>
> Conversely, as soon as random failures start to pop up, whether by
> overload, unstable tests or bad hardware, people become less inclined
> to look at look at them, and actual errors aren't spotted early or at
> all. This remains true to some extent even when overloading just
> causes delays, not outright failures.
>
> In other words, we are better off keeping the builds reliable, even if
> that means cutting some things we'd rather have. On the bright side,
> it tends to focus minds on making things go faster, and forces some
> healthy prioritisation. Not everything is equally important.

Hi Mattias

thanks this is well understood.

my question was (sorry if it was already discussed) if before letting
down some feature on the bi trot way we asked for a resource upgrade.

Also note that what an "healthy prioritization" is and who decides for
that can be quite a sensitive territory.

BR

  Andrea