Web lists-archives.com

Re: autopkgtest results influencing migration from unstable to testing




Hi Simon,

On 03-05-18 04:32, Simon Quigley wrote:
> What are the added delays as of today, and is this effective immediately?

3 days subtraction in case of no regressions (so the default age will
drop to 2 days). 10 days delay in case of regressions. Effective as of
the evening of 2 May 2018 UTC.

>> It is the intention that in the (far) future regressions will become
>> blocking for migration, but until then the added age will probably be
>> raised over time as a semi-block.
> 
> What is the reasoning for not making these blocking sooner? In my honest
> opinion, passing autopkgtests should be a release migration requirement,
> and not just with my Ubuntu hat on (because it has a correlation to
> higher quality packages).

In my perception, the biggest reason is a social one. The is resistance
to the fact that issues with autopkgtests out of one's control can block
one's package (this is quite different than in Ubuntu). There is some
fear that buggy autopkgtests in reverse dependencies of major packages
will just mean more work for the maintainers of those packages. We'll
need to iron those out (the buggy autopktests and the fear) and show
that we can robustly handle it as a project.

On a personal note, my aim has always been the blocking variant. I
decided that to _make_ the current implementation (which can be switch
with one line in the configuration) instead of having nothing.

Paul

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature