<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Brian Long <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:briandlong@gmail.com">briandlong@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Brian J. Murrell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brian@interlinx.bc.ca" target="_blank">brian@interlinx.bc.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div> Even with the override and the</div>
schedule 98% good, I am still left with a conflict while there are idle<br>
tuners still available.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>In my humble opinion as an end user, any time there are conflicts and idle tuners which could resolve those conflicts, there is a "bug" in the scheduler. It might be the finite state machine (?) that the scheduler uses has a problem or it might be the devs decided the scheduler was "good enough" and it would be very difficult to make it better.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Or it's operating as intended, giving you the feedback necessary to make the informed decision (conflict resolution) that it couldn't make due to limitations of the design. Complaints like yours come up repeated from time to time. Ultimately the scheduler has been designed to make certain decisions after which it relies on human intervention to resolve certain cases such as this 3 way "tie". What I would suggest is playing around with priorities despite your desire not to. Giving one of those programs a +1 priority may resolve your problem entirely without any negative side effects.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Kevin</div></div>