Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@gnu.org> writes:

> Hey Chris,
>
>> That sounds sensible. On the specific name, given this is just about
>> substitutes, and at least in my opinion has nothing to do with
>> continuous integration, maybe picking just another word would avoid
>> thinking too much, it could be bordeaux, or hippo, or anything
>> really. As you say, stability and not being tied to a particular machine
>> is the important thing.
>
> The substitutes coverage is one indicator to take into account but there
> are many others. For instance, the evaluation speed, the failed
> evaluation count, the average evaluation builds completion time, the
> availability of the connected build machines between other things.

Indeed, and I'm aware that the Guix Data Service, which performs a
similar function to the evaluations in Cuirass, is much slower.

> Deploying a solution that builds substitutes is fine, but as soon as it
> is deployed and accessible to all Guix users, the system administrators
> will have to monitor it and maintain it in the long run.
>
> Having two heterogeneous build infrastructures on two sets of machines,
> providing different metrics will make the update and maintenance of
> those machines harder.
>
> I hear your point about K-out-of-N policy and it also makes sense to
> me. However, we should maybe consider doing it using two similar
> infrastructures.

Indeed. The reality though is that two different approaches have been in
development now for a little over a year, and this is a reflection of
that.