Quoting Holger Levsen (2019-05-14 17:38:15) > > Now one can turn this argument upside down. One can say: unstable is the QA > > area. Britney prevents testing migration on autopkgtest/piuparts/ missing > > binaries. In that case, we should simply stop filing such things in the BTS > > and stop doing manual QA on unstable. It should be ok to break unstable. > > But this is not going to work with transitions. Thus I still think we're > > doing it wrong and unstable isn't the place to do the QA we expect from > > everyone. > > have uploads go to unstable-proposed and then, after basic automatic QA > checks, go to unstable? (and then testing as usual today...) Doesn't a repository where all binary packages go before they are pushed into unstable already exist? deb http://incoming.debian.org/debian-buildd/ buildd-unstable main So maybe instead of creating unstable-proposed, stuff should move from buildd-unstable to unstable only after it successfully passed all kinds of automatable QA tests? Such an intermediate repository (be it unstable-proposed or buildd-unstable) could highly improve the quality of unstable and make sure that whatever lands in unstable will only have those bugs that are usually discovered by humans only. It could also have other nice properties that currently only testing has, like no Multi-Arch:same version skews because stuff could only move to unstable after it has been built on all arches. Thanks! cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature