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

JobStatusDisplay: show length of merge-wait queue #1347

Closed

Conversation

Flowdalic
Copy link
Member

Since FEATURES=merge-wait is now the default, the length of the merge-wait queue becomes more relevant. Hence show it as part of portage's job status display.

Since FEATURES=merge-wait is now the default, the length of the
merge-wait queue becomes more relevant. Hence show it as part of
portage's job status display.

Signed-off-by: Florian Schmaus <[email protected]>
@Flowdalic Flowdalic force-pushed the display-merge-wait-queue-status branch from 47185c0 to af0e6b5 Compare June 18, 2024 09:39
@gentoo-bot gentoo-bot closed this in 6d1ee2c Aug 2, 2024
f.add_literal_data(f"{self.merge_wait}")
f.pop_style()
f.add_literal_data(" merge wait")

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I guess we could adjust it somewhere to add a space between merge wait and Load Avg here:

>>> Installing (131 of 259) dev-perl/Crypt-PasswdMD5-1.420.0::gentoo
>>> Jobs: 128 of 259 complete, 5 running            Load avg: 3.06, 2.47, 1.48
>>> Jobs: 128 of 259 complete, 4 running            Load avg: 3.06, 2.47, 1.48
>>> Jobs: 128 of 259 complete, 3 running            Load avg: 3.06, 2.47, 1.48
>>> Installing (133 of 259) dev-perl/Digest-SHA1-2.130.0-r3::gentoo
>>> Jobs: 128 of 259 complete, 3 running, 1 merge waitLoad avg: 3.38, 2.55, 1.51
>>> Jobs: 128 of 259 complete, 2 running, 1 merge waitLoad avg: 3.38, 2.55, 1.51

Copy link
Member Author

@Flowdalic Flowdalic Aug 31, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for pointing this out, but I don't think this is necessary here.

The problem was that #1348 did not work as intended. Fixed in #1377

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants