| 1 |
On 05/05/2014 06:04 PM, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 15:06 Mon 05 May , Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Hi all, |
| 4 |
> Hi, |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> ... |
| 7 |
>> This takes quite a bit of time for all stages to be built (by the time |
| 8 |
>> everything is built, we are one month passed the time the snapshot was |
| 9 |
>> taken). How about stop building stages for mips1, mips3 and mips4? We |
| 10 |
>> keep the existing stages on the mirrors but we will no longer update |
| 11 |
>> them (or maybe we do on per user or per case basis). I understand there |
| 12 |
>> is hardware for these ISAs but how often do people actually use the new |
| 13 |
>> stages? |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Just to be clear, I am not suggesting for the team to stop supporting |
| 16 |
>> these ISAs but to stop building new stages and let the users of such |
| 17 |
>> ISAs, grab an old stage3 and do the update themselves if needed. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> This will free up some hardware resources for building different stages |
| 20 |
>> for the newer ISAs (maybe more non-multilib n32 and n64 variants etc) |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> What does everyone think? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I agree. If we don't have the resources to build everything for everyone, |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Resources is not a huge problem at the moment. Like I explained on the |
| 27 |
other email, I am mainly interested in discussing whether doing so is |
| 28 |
desired or not. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
lets |
| 31 |
> just build what is mainstream at the moment. I don't know catalyst's internals |
| 32 |
> or how painful it would be to update the whole set once per year or a bit longer, but it could |
| 33 |
> be nice, because I'm not sure how possible would be to update a stage3 after > |
| 34 |
> 1-2 years. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Reducing the frequency of such stages can also be an option. I didn't |
| 37 |
quite rule that out yet |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Regards, |
| 41 |
Markos Chandras |
Archives