Re: Python3.8 as default final status

[Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@debian.org>]

On Saturday, March 28 2020, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> On March 28, 2020 5:10:42 AM UTC, Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@debian.org> wrote:
>>On Friday, March 27 2020, Håvard Flaget Aasen wrote:
>>
>>> On 27.03.2020 20:09, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
>>>> On Friday, March 27 2020, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The python3-defaults with python3.8 as the default python3 has
>>migrated to 
>>>>> Testing thanks to the release team hammering things around until it
>>went.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for this.
>>>> 
>>>>> Most of the outstanding autipkgtest failures with python3.8 were
>>fixed either 
>>>>> in unstable or in git/BTS.  Here are the remaining issues that
>>someone (who 
>>>>> isn't me) should have a look at:
>>>>>
>>>>> celery/4.2.1-5: #952217 autorm 4/13
>>>> 
>>>> FWIW, I looked at this a little bit, but could not make much
>>progress.
>>>> I'm very interested in fixing this since it impacts pagure.  I'll
>>try to
>>>> investigate more this weekend, but if someone else wants to take a
>>look
>>>> (and let me know), you're more than welcome!
>>>> 
>>>
>>> I believe I already fixed that package, it's waiting for someone to
>>> review and upload it. Did you look at the repository in salsa?
>>
>>I had looked at the repository when I was working with the package.
>>I see you pushed your changes 2 days ago, but the last time I looked at
>>the package was at least 7 days ago.
>>
>>Anyhow, I thank you for letting me know, but I am not sure I am
>>satisfied with the solution.  You basically disabled the test on Python
>>3.8, which obviously works, but doesn't really tell me whether there
>>was
>>indeed a problem with the package/testcase or not.
>
> I completely agree.  It's just papering over the problem.  It's not in the spirit of the Debian Social Contract (#3).
>
>>My approach (failed, so far) was to try and figure out what was
>>happening, and then devise a proper fix for it.  My next step was going
>>to be to involve upstream in this.
>>
>>Would you like to follow up with them and check if they're are aware of
>>the failure?  Maybe they already have a proper solution for it.
>
> Upstream should definitely be involved.

... and the package was uploaded anyway :-/.  I'm Cc'ing Jonathan in
case he hasn't seen these messages.

Anyway, I still think it's necessary to follow up on this and involve
upstream; simply disabling the test that is failing is not the Debian
way.

Thanks,

-- 
Sergio
GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF  31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible
http://sergiodj.net/