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

Re: [stretch] jnr-posix/3.0.12-3 and #860691

Am 30.04.2017 um 09:19 schrieb Niels Thykier:
>> Please note that the tests are not disabled but the results are simply ignored.
>> [...]
>>From my PoV, that is basically the same as disabling them.  We do not
> pre-emptively check log files during rebuild tests/buildd builds, so we
> would not notice the regression. :)

I think there is a subtle but important difference. :) If the tests fail
to build from source they will still cause a build failure but their
results will not. Not every test failure automatically implies broken or
unusable software. Sometimes the tests make wrong assumptions about the
available software versions (since Java is version-centric and Debian is
a bit more flexible in this regard) or have hardware requirements that
cannot be satisfied on the current system but don't indicate that the
program is buggy. Every test failure has to be investigated separately
and the severity can range from minor to grave but due to the current
default behavior every test failure is equivalent to a build failure and
thus release critical. I believe this often creates a wrong picture and
in my opinion it is sensible to make test failures non-fatal in this
situation until we have got feedback from upstream or other proof that
we are dealing with a serious issue.

As a side note: I wonder why QA folk come up with i386 rebuilds for
arch:all packages during a hard freeze and not months before when we are
way more flexible to approach those issues. As much as I appreciate the
goal to make arch:all packages buildable on all release architectures,
it is not a trivial task and reporting 100 bugs is much easier than
fixing them. I think we should better communicate these kind of release
goals at the start of a release cycle and then I would like to see more
people who actually want to work on them. At the moment it appears we
have a two-class society where people come up with new QA ideas every
week but expect from the other side to do all the implementation. I
don't think this will work long term.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: