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

Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 03:29:38PM -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 10:57 AM Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> wrote:
> > (in that sense I would appreciate packages getting automatically tested
> > (and rejected if needed) before they enter *unstable*, and then again,
> > with stricter automatic tests before they enter testing.)
> This sounds to me like what Ubuntu does. Packages need to clear
> autopkgtest testing and library transitions need to complete before
> packages migrate from "-proposed" to the regular development archive.
> I believe this approach has significantly improved the quality and
> usability of Ubuntu's development release since it was implemented a
> few years ago.
> I admit I mostly use Ubuntu. In my Debian environment, I usually run
> Testing (except for building packages) because it avoids a
> considerable amount of the pain that shows up in Unstable. If an
> unstable-proposed system were implemented, I expect I would happily
> upgrade my Debian install to Unstable.

I'm not sure that would make very much sense quite as stated since
Ubuntu's <devel>-proposed → <devel> migration system was explicitly and
consciously [1] a reflection of Debian's unstable → testing system, just
with some more aggressive parameters in terms of time delays and
similar.  The recent changes to reduce delays on testing migration when
autopkgtests pass are IMO moving in the right direction here.

Though if what you mean is something more like single-package tests
before entering unstable (e.g. autopkgtests of the package itself must
pass) and the existing more extensive tests before entering testing, I
can see how that might help.  It would be a fairly significant increase
on cognitive load for maintainers keeping track of everything though.

[1] Citation: I implemented it and that's what I was thinking :-)

Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson@debian.org]

Reply to: