[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and arch status

On 11/01/2014 21:32, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> As for #712848, the latest comment sent by Petr suggested that the test might be
>> incorrect when applied to kqueue.
> I guess you are referring to comment #25 here?  Quote:
> """
> This test is guarded by:
> [...]
> The kqueue support might have the same limit.
> I do not know whether is better to use kqueue via gamin
> or kqueue directly in glib2.0.
> Petr
> """
> Seems like no one picked it up from there.  To be honest, I am not sure
> where the ball is on that bug right now - as an outsider it is not clear
> to me if Petr is asking for the GNOME maintainers or the BSD porters to
> follow/second him.  Admittedly, I have very limited knowledge of the
> code in question, so it may be more obvious to you.
>   Perhaps you could follow up on the bug and prod the GNOME maintainers
> for a follow up, if you believe the ball is in their court right now.

Before we get into that, would it be possible to establish the severity of
this bug? Specifically, whether it is Release-Critical or not.

It is currently marked as non-RC, and so far we haven't seen any indication
that it produces actual breakage (outside the testsuite, that is) [1].

However, your comments in this and earlier mails seem to imply that it is
RC, or that you think it could be.

In our experience as porters, we've found that we get lots of testsuite
failures (and not just in GNOME). However, often the tests just fail because
they're overzealous, or because they make wrong (unportable) assumptions
about the underlying APIs.

I believe #628383 would be a good example of what I'm saying. But the problem
is very typical. It's not uncommon for us to submit fixes for testsuite bugs
rather than having to fix the bugs the tests are supposed to find.

Probably Petr and/or Steven can elaborate more on this, since they've been much
more actively involved than me in this kind of work.

[1] If the reason it is RC is that it causes FTBFS (and serious buildd grief),
    I think http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=734290#10 is a
    good solution in that regard.

Robert Millan

Reply to: