Code review comment for lp:~vila/udd/795321-make-tea

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:59:52 -0000, Vincent Ladeuil <email address hidden> wrote:
> It's a delicate matter and I may change my mind, but the underlying idea
> is that if an import is qualified as failing due to lp, it makes it the
> ideal candidate to check that lp is back online.

I think that's a good point, and as long as the number of failures is
small it should work well.

I wouldn't want to see 2000 low priority jobs done before high priority
ones to test that LP is back and working, but given that this pattern
should limit that number it should work fine.

Thanks,

James