Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add per-package configuration for release binary job weight #1063

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

cottsay
Copy link
Member

@cottsay cottsay commented Jul 29, 2024

This new configuration parameter will allow us to specify a larger job weight for a manually curated list of binary package jobs.

Example config change:

jenkins_binary_job_weight_overrides:
  openvdb_vendor: 4

Example job diff:

Updating job 'Jbin_uN64__openvdb_vendor__ubuntu_noble_amd64__binary' (dry run)
    <<<
    --- remote config
    +++ new config
    @@ -39 +39 @@
    -      <weight>1</weight>
    +      <weight>4</weight>
    >>>

Open question: should we support a similar thing for:

  • other job types
  • timeout overrides

This new configuration parameter will allow us to specify a larger job
weight for a manually curated list of binary package jobs.
@clalancette
Copy link
Contributor

  • other job types

At the moment, I don't think we have any other types of jobs (at least in ROS) that need essentially more memory. So I don't think we particularly need it at the moment. (That said, I'm not opposed to adding it if we want to for consistency).

  • timeout overrides

I think this one would be valuable to have. Both because we have some binary jobs that take too long, and because we have some doc jobs that take too long.

Copy link
Contributor

@clalancette clalancette left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks completely reasonable to me, but I'd like to get @nuclearsandwich 's take on it before we merge.

Copy link

@claraberendsen claraberendsen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks good to me, and I think the time configuration is a nice to have a long side this but not a blocker by any means.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants