On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 16:40:39 +0100 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 29/12/16 16:34, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > As of now, the RC bug count page [1] claims > > > > Number concerning the current stable release: 24 > > Number concerning the next release: 25 > > > > which is obviously wrong. [...] > > [1] https://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/ [...] > > I think the problem is grave, as it seems to allow packages to migrate > > to testing with new RC bugs. [...] > > Yes, we noticed that earlier today and decronned britney. Unfortunately that was > too late for last night's (UTC) britney run. I see, thanks a lot for your super-prompt reply! > > We need to implement a check in britney to abort the run if the data from the > BTS is bad. That is not ideal if the BTS gives us a partially broken file... > It'd be better if it gave us nothing at all if something went wrong. I agree that some sort for guard against incorrect data from the BTS would be useful. And I also agree that the BTS should attempt to check the correctness of the data, before sending everything out. Or fail as clearly as possible, when the dataset is not good. In the meanwhile, I see that something changed on the BTS side. But something still appears to be wrong. The RC bug count page [1] claims Number concerning the current stable release: 597 Number concerning the next release: 1190 which does not look right to me (there were about 500 RC bugs concerning the next release a few days ago, or am I recalling incorrectly?!?). Please let me know. Thanks for your time! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpW0yIysal9Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature