Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS
Niels Thykier writes ("Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS"):
> In summary:
> * 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
> age delay)
This would be good.
But I do think maintainer control, by way of filing bugs (RC or
otherwise) which they explicitly declare to be the cause of individual
test failures, would be a good addition.
Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.