Re: piuparts PTS integration
On 17/03/09 at 10:14 +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > First, real piuparts failures are usually real RC bugs. If they are only
> > reported to the PTS, they won't be properly tracked by the release team,
> > for example. Are you planning to actively report bugs on piuparts
> > failures in addition to reporting them to the PTS? Have you reported
> > bugs on the piuparts failures you found so far?
>
> This is comparable to build failures; buildd logs are linked from the
> PTS.
Not really. Build failures on the buildds have a direct consequence on
the package in Debian (=> it's not available). Piuparts failures are
more unlikely to have consequences on the package.
Also, many (most?) buildd maintainers are actively filing bugs.
> > Second, since piuparts failures are real bugs, they should be "pushed"
> > to the maintainer. I don't think that adding them to the PTS web page is
> > a "pushy-enough" way to provide that information to maintainers.
> > Instead, the PTS mail interface could be a nice way to inform the
> > maintainer of failures.
> >
> > Third, in my experience, piuparts generates a lot of false positives,
> > that are either:
> > - minor bugs (like corner-cases related to symlinks)
> > - bugs in other packages (packages failing because one of their
> > dependencies is failing)
> > Before information is provided automatically to maintainers, I would
> > like to see numbers about percentage of false positives. Is piuparts
> > really ready for that?
>
> I think the false positive problem is a good reason to avoid sending
> emails and a good reason to link the logs from the PTS to allow
> maintainers to read them if they like to.
Or a good reason to improve piuparts before trying to publish the
results automatically anywhere.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: