Re: autopkgtest results influencing migration from unstable to testing

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Paul Gevers writes ("Re: autopkgtest results influencing migration from unstable to testing"):
> On 03-05-18 04:32, Simon Quigley wrote:
> > opinion, passing autopkgtests should be a release migration requirement,
> > and not just with my Ubuntu hat on (because it has a correlation to
> > higher quality packages).
> 
> In my perception, the biggest reason is a social one. The is resistance
> to the fact that issues with autopkgtests out of one's control can block
> one's package (this is quite different than in Ubuntu). There is some
> fear that buggy autopkgtests in reverse dependencies of major packages
> will just mean more work for the maintainers of those packages. We'll
> need to iron those out (the buggy autopktests and the fear) and show
> that we can robustly handle it as a project.

Yes.  I very much want this to be blocking, but this has been a decade
in the making.  We can wait a little longer.  There is absolutely no
need to make a big and disruptive change right away.

One change that will have to come soon is that I think that *flaky*
(rather than merely always-failing) autopkgtests are going to have to
be treated as an RC bug.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.