Re: Mass bugs filing: autopkgtest should be marked superficial
On 9/17/20 11:12 AM, Ole Streicher wrote:
> "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> writes:
>> On Thu, 2020-09-17 at 09:55 +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>>> Graham Inggs <ginggs@debian.org> writes:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 09:18, Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Please reduce the severity of all the bugs that you opened to
>>>>> "normal" or "minor".
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> It does not violate the Debian Policy,
>>
>> That's not the only possible reason for a bug to have a severity of
>> "serious".
>>
>> These issues do violate the RC Policy for bullseye, which means that
>> each "in the ... release manager's opinion, makes the package
>> unsuitable for release".
>
> While the rationale given ("circumvents the testing migration delay")
> may be relevant furing the freeze time, it is irrelevant for a package
> that is now already in testing since months: even if the test would have
> been flagged as "superficial", it would have been migrated since long.
does this mean, we should file RC issues for each package that circumvents any
autopkg test, e.g. all uploads done as binNMUs? It strikes me that we are
discussing a minor issue, but accept the majority of packages without running
*any* autopkg tests.
Matthias
Reply to: