Re: QA expectations (Was: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH)
- Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 09:28:59 +0100
- From: Simon McVittie <smcv@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: QA expectations (Was: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH)
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:19:47 +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> So maybe instead of creating unstable-proposed, stuff should move from
> buildd-unstable to unstable only after it successfully passed all kinds of
> automatable QA tests?
Prior art: Ubuntu already does this, gating the transition with a version
of Debian's testing migration scripts that has been configured for a 0 day
delay for all urgencies.
The down side of this is that families of packages occasionally get stuck
in their incoming-equivalent because of versioned dependencies, and a
transition is needed to get them into their testing-equivalent. Perhaps
some Ubuntu developers could comment on the extent to which this is a
> It could also have other nice properties that currently only testing has,
> like no Multi-Arch:same version skews because stuff could only move to unstable
> after it has been built on all arches.
Ubuntu is more able to do this than Debian, because Ubuntu's slowest,
least reliable and least-well-supported architectures are faster, more
reliable and better-supported than Debian's. I'm not sure that we really
want to be waiting for important fixes (especially in large packages
like compilers, web browsers and the kernel) to build successfully on
mips(el), or requiring that their build-time tests have few enough race
conditions to be successful even on slower architectures, before they
can reach the part of the archive that developers use in practice?