Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS
> Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS"):
> The question is whether marking a test non-blocking should involve the
> release team. I think it should not. It should involve the package
> maintainer (unless there is disagreement).
> We want to incentivise people to provide tests. If they cannot
> control what action is taken (by automation) in response to the tests,
> they will remove or disable (or not provide) tests.
The autopkgtests gating testing migration comes with a promise from the
release teams side of reducing the age delay for migrations. I.e.
packages with passing tests that do not cause regressions in reverse
dependencies would be entitled to a shorter migration delay.
Personally, I think autopkgtests gating should eventually replace the
age delay in general. Notably, I remember Bdale saying at DC13 that the
age delay is basically only really useful for finding brown-paper-bag
bugs and I am inclined to agree with that.
Mind you, it will probably be several releases before we are at a
stage where we are ready for completely eliminating age delays for
I would prefer setting it up as we decided 3-4 years ago in a
non-enforcing mode to see how it all works out. Once we have ironed out
the early implementation bugs and have seen how it works in practise, we
can look at enabling the "blocking" feature of this proposal.
* We will introduce it in a non-enforcing mode to see how it works
(and weed out any "early-implementation bugs")
* Passing tests will be grounds for reduced age requirements (once it
has been tested)
* Only regressions will be blockers; if the tests also fail in testing
the migration will not be stalled (but it will be subject to full
 The original mail says "failures" would be blockers but in practise,
Britney has always blocked on "regressions" rather than "failured like
it does in testing".
 It is in one of the video talks from DC13 - I /think/ it was the
release team talk/bits, where we were debating reducing the default age
requirement from 10 to 5 days.