Re: Are we ready to block on autopkgtest regressions?
Niels Thykier writes ("Re: Are we ready to block on autopkgtest regressions?"):
> 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
> > mistake.
> 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
> outside Britney.
Mmm. FTR, I'm afraid I won't have time to work on this in the near