Re: Are we ready to block on autopkgtest regressions?
> Paul Gevers writes ("Are we ready to block on autopkgtest regressions?"):
>> Three days ago I opened a merge request against brintey2  to
>> enable britney2 to block migrations that cause regressions in
>> autopkgtest results in testing. Niels copied it to the IRC channel,
>> but we saw no reactions so far from other RT members. We were
>> wondering what the opinions in the team are: should we go for it?
>> And if not, what anre the issues that you consider to be in need of
>> fixing first.
> Thanks for pushing this. I do want to see the autopkgtest influence
> on migration increase. But:
> [... rationale ...]
> At the risk of overcomplicating things, I suggest replacing the
> existing fixed delay with a formula which adds one or two days of
> additional migration delay per week of elapsed time, or some such.
Ok, I have drafted a section about this in the gobby for a d-d-a mail
covering this (among other). Please consider reviewing it:
I intend to submit this next week and make 29-30/9 the first weekend to
have the increased delay assuming there is consensus.
> Also thought should be given to what `urgency=high' should do
> Particuarly, given the bugs that mean it is sometimes specified by
At the moment, I have no plans to change the urgency=high exemption as a
part of this change. However, I am happy to review/accept patches for
#831699 now or in the future (which I believe is the issue you are
referring too). Though, the prerequisite(s) for solving that bug lies