Hi, On Thu, 17 Sep 2020, Paul Gevers wrote: > This. I have written it done in response to bug [#969819]: > > Notwithstanding the wording, the Release Team is happy with the bugs > that Sudip is filing. Because of the way that autopkgtests are used in > the Debian infrastructure to influence migration from unstable to > testing [1], it is very important that autopkgtests are recognized for > what they are. If an autopkgtest isn't really testing the installed > binaries (and yes, the boundary is unfortunately not well defined) it's > crucial that the test is marked as superficial, conform our rc_policy > [2]. The Release Team has decided that the examples that Sudip tagged, > i.e. --version, --help, checking for some installed file and the Python > import check, are superficial. That's very nice, but "superficial" has not been there from the start so those situations are not necessarily maintainers trying to cheat with the migration delay, and while I agree with the goal, your release policy also says "Package are encouraged to implement autopkgtests." and here you have package maintainers that followed early your suggestion and that are forced to do busy-work for no gain just to add a superficial flag. This is demotivating. For pkg-security, I got 9 "marked for autoremoval" mails... Somehow we lack a way to mark a bug as "not urgent but must be fixed in next upload". Cheers, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Raphaël Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/ ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature