[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug filing for autopkgtest regressions? [Was: Re: appears to break multiple autopkgtests]


On 28-06-18 20:50, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 06/28/2018 07:50 PM, Paul Gevers wrote:
>> If one (me) can't determine the likely principle package that needs
>> fixing after some effort [1], one bug (per upload of the triggering
>> package) can be filed against the trigging package with the other
>> packages in X-Debbugs-CC and in Affects at normal severity. This bug can
>> contain similar text as we agreed upon earlier [2] (I'll write a
>> proposal if this idea is not rejected).
> Please don't file bugs until the triggering package is a single package.
> Case in point, the upload of gdal (2.3.1+dfsg-1) triggered the
> autopkgtest of r-cran-mi/1.0-6 which failed because r-base-core was also
> updated to 3.5.0-5. The latter is the actual cause of the regression,
> not gdal which triggered the autopkgtest. I would be annoyed if a bug
> was filed against gdal in this case, and having to reassign it.
> How will you deal with cases such as these other packages than the
> trigger are the cause?

This is exactly the response why I haven't done this before. I can't
deal with that (apart from the investment of "some effort"). So there is
exactly this risk. On the other hand, the risk is that a (severe, who
knows?) regression migrates because no bug is filed. I agree with Chris'
response and I think most maintainers would rather want it and reassign,
than not getting it. How to judge if Sebastiaans response is that of the
minority or the majority? (And what does that mean for the outcome anyways?)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: