[mythtv-users] scheduler settling with conflicts where they are resolvable

Ronald Frazier ron at ronfrazier.net
Fri Sep 9 18:07:31 UTC 2011

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Brian J. Murrell <brian at interlinx.bc.ca> wrote:
> How can it be "higher priority" if it was a tie.  Either it's a tie or
> it's not.

Apparently you missed the entire point of my very first post in this
thread, which is crucial to understanding what happened. I'll repeat
Myth doesn't seem to understand equal priorities so well...it will
ALWAYS favor something.

> And that's fair.  What I was trying to do was demonstrate that there is
> a bug in the scheduler, not so much looking for an explanation why the
> bug is there, although I sincerely appreciate your efforts.

Not a bug. It's operating as designed (god, I hate myself right now
for being one of those people and posting that). I certainly
understand that a redesign would be favorable. It may sound easy to
do. Even though I'm a programmer myself, I've found myself before
saying "It wouldn't be that difficult to redesign the scheduler to
do....". But then every time I sit down to actually think it out...all
the possible priorities for rules, rule types, channels, tuner inputs,
HD programs, etc, and all the toggle you have, such as reschedule
around live tv, allow scheduling a higher priority show for a later
showing, avoid back to back recordings, etc. It becomes mind
bogglingly complex, and it's quite amazing to me that the schedule
takes all of these into account and does as good of a job as it does.

Also, rewriting the scheduler and changing how it operates would
likely tick a number of people off, who have gone to great lengths to
tweak priorities so it works just right for them. I think the only
safe way to do a major overhaul of the scheduler would be to make it
like commflagging, where myth has multiple scheduling algorithms and
you choose which scheduling algorithm to use.

Ron Frazier

More information about the mythtv-users mailing list