Re: QA expectations (Was: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH)
- Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 18:06:20 +0200
- From: Helmut Grohne <helmut@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: QA expectations (Was: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH)
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 09:28:59AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> 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.
Yes. Colin Watson even had a talk about this in Vaumarcus.
http://penta.debconf.org/dc13_schedule/events/1028.en.html Copying the
strategy to Debian failed to gain traction thus far. I wonder whether we
could do this opt-in (or maybe as some external service that forwards
tested packages to the archive) anyhow. I have little clue about what
would be required to implement it in the archive.
> 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?
Given my experience with Multi-Arch: same skews in unstable, it does not
appear to me that packages get stuck for that long. If they do, that's
due to a FTBFS (which is exactly the thing we want to prevent from
entering unstable). buildd speed is a concern for other reasons, so if
an architecture fails to keep up for a longer time, it should likely be
demoted to ports.