Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS
Simon McVittie <email@example.com> writes:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 at 18:22:53 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Maybe an intermediate position would be to respond to a CI failure by:
>> * Increasing the migration delay for the affecting package
>> * Notifying the affected package maintainers
> I think this makes sense: it gives the maintainer and other interested
> developers some time to assess whether the failure is a showstopper
> (=> upload a fix/revert/workaround, or at worst file a RC bug) or not.
> Or, conversely, blocking migrations but letting the relevant maintainers
> remove that block might work.
What is the reason not to use automated bug reports here? This would
allow to use all the tools the bug system has: severities, reassigning
> Possible autopkgtest extension: "Restrictions: unreliable"?
This is not specific enough. Often you have some tests that are
unreliable, and others that are important. Since one usually takes the
upstream test suite (which may be huge), one has to look manually first
to decide about the further processing.