[mythtv] Bug in 0.16 scheduler?

[Thomas Börkel]

HI!

David Engel wrote:

>>But there is no real conflict here. If the scheduler would first try 
>>straight forward, then it would have come to my solution above, because 
>>there is no conflict. There are enough tuner cards available to do the 
>>job. And it should not prefer tuner 1 over tuner 2, when I have not set 
>>tuner priorities.
> 
> If it's so straight forward, then please send a patch.  Please make

I did not say that it's straight forward to code (maybe it is, maybe 
not, maybe it's so easy, that with your insight, you can code it very 
quickly).

I said, the scheduler should first try an easier approach, not taking in 
account any priorities at all.

Bruce explained, that it tried to put the higher priority recordings in 
account first and gave them tuner 1. Then it looked at how it could fit 
in the lower priority ones. That is already a complicated approach.

What I propose is, that it first should ignore all priorities and try to 
schedule all shows sorted by starting time. And only if that causes a 
conflict, it should go the full approach, as it does now (as explained 
by Bruce). OK, maybe the tuner priority must be taken in account, but 
not the show, recording type or channel priorities.

Beside this, it is not entirely clear to me why it wanted to record show 
#3 instead of show #4, regardless of the fact, that show #3 is being 
rerun a few days later. Yes, I know, Bruce said, there is an option to 
be turned on, but I am curious, why reruns are not being taken in 
account "earlier".

> sure the scheduler doesn't get into an infinite loop or take an
> inordinately long time when exhaustively trying every combination of
> program and tuner.

That is not, what I was saying.

> FWIW, when I was reworking the scheduler, I quickly came to the
> realization that there was no "best" way to do it, because everyone
> has their own definition of best.  Consequently, I aimed for an
> approach that was determinstic, did a pretty good job in most cases
> and provided a way to tweak things manually when needed.  I think I
> succeeded.  However, if you have very specific ideas on how to improve
> the current scheduler, I'm all ears.

Please see above. If I am talking nonsense, feel free to say so.

Thomas