Re: emba.gnu.org overload

[Michael Albinus]

Andrea Corallo <akrl@sdf.org> writes:

> Hi all,

Hi Andrea,

> I believe the right fix, instead of dropping configurations, would be to
> have a decent machine to run on.  Can't we ask for more resources?  ATM
> these are extremely limited to the point where even building few Emacs
> instances is a problem.  Now days bootstrap time has been greatly reduced
> even compared to when we added these builds to emba, I'm surprised to
> see we cannot afford it.

Yes, it would be better. But we don't have it, and we also don't have even
somebody who could reinstiate a crashed gitlab runner on our second
machine. That's also part of the current trouble.

> My main worry (almost a certainty) is that once these configurations are
> removed from the test-bed they will never be added again in the future
> following the well known rule of: "Nothing is more permanent than a
> temporary solution".

Yes. You might have seen in my other message, that I have deactivated
build-native-comp-speed1 and build-native-comp-speed2.
build-native-comp-speed0 and test-native-comp-speed0 are still active,
so we still have the basic tests for native compilation.

Do we still need both deactivated jobs? And if yes, in which frequency?
Still 3 times a day? This I doubt.

> Best Regards
>
>   Andrea

Best regards, Michael