From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Deck Pickard Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hotfix (repeat) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:40:52 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87tx1p3amm.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04428fb4a1cd1005089c9e52 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41586) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xsvl6-0002d5-JY for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:41:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xsvl0-0007lG-Jc for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:41:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87tx1p3amm.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --f46d04428fb4a1cd1005089c9e52 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 23 Nov 2014 21:49, "Ludovic Court=C3=A8s" wrote: > > Deck Pickard skribis: > > > From 8e297904d80b39cd510ba0cced37acdb9b1aeb89 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: nebuli > > Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 19:58:24 +0100 > > Subject: [PATCH 2/4] guix build: Add --max-jobs option (without handlin= g > > code). > > > > * doc/guix.texi: Mention in the docs. > > * guix/scripts/build.scm: Extend (show-build-options-help) and > > (%standard-build-options) functions. > > Actually I had overlooked that this patch does nothing. :-) > > Could you send an updated version that passes the right option to > =E2=80=98set-build-options=E2=80=99? > No. Using '-c 0 -M 0' fails with cryptic message. On a four core system "innocent" (and logically consistent, I mean, from the description of those options, one expects the daemon to do some load balancing) '-c 4 -M 4' ends up with the same annoying N^2 behaviour. As it is now, not using one of the options leads to sub-optimal saturation of the through-output by default. Not very impressive, if you want to attract hackers who are willing to spend their time and resources to actually build locally from source. After all it's the only way to test and find possible bugs on a wide set of possible configurations. If you want it right, either fix it yourself (and please think hard and carefully what to put in '-from-commandline' function if you want to expose both options to the user) or stop with the antics and apply the patch. I can live with constant branch rebasing, but will end users appreciate their machines locking up? I mean every "proper" Linux user is expected to tail their logs... Unimpressed, drp --=20 .sig place holder --f46d04428fb4a1cd1005089c9e52 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 23 Nov 2014 21:49, "Ludovic Court=C3=A8s" <<= a href=3D"mailto:ludo@gnu.org">ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Deck Pickard <deck.r.pi= ckard@gmail.com> skribis:
>
> > From 8e297904d80b39cd510ba0cced37acdb9b1aeb89 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00= 2001
> > From: nebuli <nebu@kipple>
> > Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 19:58:24 +0100
> > Subject: [PATCH 2/4] guix build: Add --max-jobs option (without h= andling
> >=C2=A0 code).
> >
> > * doc/guix.texi: Mention in the docs.
> > * guix/scripts/build.scm: Extend (show-build-options-help) and > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0(%standard-build-options) functions.
>
> Actually I had overlooked that this patch does nothing.=C2=A0 =C2=A0:-= )
>
> Could you send an updated version that passes the right option to
> =E2=80=98set-build-options=E2=80=99?
>

No. Using '-c 0 -M 0' fails with cryptic message. On= a four core system "innocent" (and logically consistent, I mean,= from the description of those options, one expects the daemon to do some l= oad balancing) '-c 4 -M 4' ends up with the same annoying N^2 behav= iour.

As it is now, not using one of the options leads to sub-opti= mal saturation of the through-output by default. Not very impressive, if yo= u want to attract hackers who are willing to spend their time and resources= to actually build locally from source. After all it's the only way to = test and find possible bugs on a wide set of possible configurations.

If you want it right, either fix it yourself (and please thi= nk hard and carefully what to put in '-from-commandline' function i= f you want to expose both options to the user) or stop with the antics and = apply the patch. I can live with constant branch rebasing, but will end use= rs appreciate their machines locking up? I mean every "proper" Li= nux user is expected to tail their logs...

Unimpressed,
drp
--
.sig place holder

--f46d04428fb4a1cd1005089c9e52--