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

Re: autopkgtest results influencing migration from unstable to testing

Hi Martin,

On 03-05-18 08:59, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hello Paul,
> Paul Gevers [2018-05-02 23:09 +0200]:
>> tl;dr: migration from unstable to testing is influenced by the results
>> of autopkgtest tests of your own package as well as those of your
>> reverse dependencies.
> Many, many, many¹⁰ thanks for working on this and landing it at last! It's so
> great to see reverse dependency CI landing in Debian at last.

And thanks to you for helping me out, especially in the beginning.

>> It is the intention that in the (far) future regressions will become
>> blocking for migration, but until then the added age will probably be
>> raised over time as a semi-block.
> Hopefully not that "far" out :) Once the thing stabilizes, I suppose it would
> be better to not land known regressions automatically, but rather land them
> through overrides. Maybe even discussing how maintainers themselves can do that
> for their own packages, to "reset a previous PASS".

Are you subscribed to debian-devel? I already explained there¹ how
DDs/DMs can reset the baseline. Also, Debian really tries to prevent
regressions in testing. I.e. when a failure has landed somehow (e.g.
hinted or by time passing in the current system), then there will not be
a regression anymore. Unlike Ubuntu that has a
did-it-pass-ever-in-any-release strategy.

What I am considering is how to handle the situations where multiple
triggers are needed. Currently that doesn't work except for one of the
RT (or me) manually scheduling tests with a set of packages from
unstable with the right trigger. And this for each trigger as britney
doesn't handle multiple triggers (= triggers with a space) specially
yet. I wonder if this already works properly if the versions were
properly tracked in the (Test) Depends.


¹ https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/05/msg00061.html point #2

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: