From: Igor Gnatenko ignatenkobrain@fedoraproject.org
The value was defined 3 years ago, in March 2017 when there were much fewer modules in Fedora. Our Koji has capacity to run many more builds. Currently we have 158 Koji builders in default channel that are able to run RPM builds. Their total capacity is 566. Therefore it should be safe to increase MBS NUM_CONCURRENT_BUILDS to at least 100. Especially since Koji builds submitted by MBS have lower priority than default for non-modular component builds submitted by packagers, so packager-submitted builds will tak precedence over builds submitted by MBS.
Signed-off-by: Igor Gnatenko ignatenkobrain@fedoraproject.org --- roles/mbs/common/templates/config.py | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/roles/mbs/common/templates/config.py b/roles/mbs/common/templates/config.py index 8e5e86c..278c651 100644 --- a/roles/mbs/common/templates/config.py +++ b/roles/mbs/common/templates/config.py @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ class ProdConfiguration(BaseConfiguration): DEFAULT_DIST_TAG_PREFIX = 'module_'
# New name - NUM_CONCURRENT_BUILDS = 20 + NUM_CONCURRENT_BUILDS = 100
# Delete module-* targets one hour after build KOJI_TARGET_DELETE_TIME = 3600
Didnt we do this earlier this week with a different fbr from mizdebsk?
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 14:20 Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
+1
If this ends up causing any issues we can always revert it.
kevin
infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedorapro...
On 3/16/19 12:59 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Didnt we do this earlier this week with a different fbr from mizdebsk?
He just asked to increase it after freeze...
kevin --
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 14:20 Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
+1
If this ends up causing any issues we can always revert it.
kevin
infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedorapro...
infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedorapro...
+1 then.
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 at 20:49, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
On 3/16/19 12:59 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Didnt we do this earlier this week with a different fbr from mizdebsk?
He just asked to increase it after freeze...
kevin
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 14:20 Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
+1
If this ends up causing any issues we can always revert it.
kevin
infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedorapro...
infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedorapro...
infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedorapro...
When this was applied the subject of the commit was lost:
https://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ansible.git/commit/?id=b291b11...
Was it copy/pasted from the message rather than saved as file and applied with git am?
Not the end of the world or anything. I just noticed it and wondered if there was something which could be improved in the way patches are sent and received.
On 3/17/19 9:56 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
When this was applied the subject of the commit was lost:
https://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ansible.git/commit/?id=b291b11...
Was it copy/pasted from the message rather than saved as file and applied with git am?
Not the end of the world or anything. I just noticed it and wondered if there was something which could be improved in the way patches are sent and received.
yes, I did copy it... seemed easier than saving, copying up to batcave, etc.
This will hopefully all be moot once we have ansible repo in pagure and can just merge PR's, but I will try and make sure to save instead of copying until then.
kevin
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org