On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:10:05PM +0800, Blair Noctis wrote: > Control: severity -1 important > > After a few givebacks, official architectures all pass (minus riscv64 the > buildds of which are too slow to not have timeouts, so I skipped tests on it > in -3). This further confirms my suspicion that the failures were indeed due > to concurrency problems.
Well, sorry but I don't think downgrading this bug is ok. Flaky tests are RC since trixie. See my build history, on AWS instances of type c7a.large and m7a.large (both amd64), which incidentally have 2 CPUs, nothing special: Status: successful fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251122T152823.838Z Status: successful fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251122T152828.212Z Status: failed fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251122T152835.065Z Status: successful fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251122T153152.998Z Status: failed fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251122T153156.907Z Status: failed fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251122T153200.267Z Status: failed fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251122T153250.171Z Status: failed fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251122T153256.782Z Status: failed fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251122T153258.062Z Status: failed fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251122T153259.916Z Status: failed fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251122T153300.655Z Status: failed fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251122T153300.063Z Status: successful fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251122T153301.720Z Status: failed fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251122T153302.716Z Status: failed fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251122T153308.287Z Status: failed fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251122T153410.511Z Status: failed fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251122T153447.462Z Status: failed fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251122T153532.887Z Status: failed fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251122T153541.244Z Status: failed fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251122T153607.111Z Status: failed fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251122T153721.453Z Status: failed fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251122T153726.299Z Status: failed fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251123T041940.252Z Status: successful fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251124T041935.168Z Status: failed fish_4.2.1-2_amd64-20251125T041741.873Z In my opinion, a package which fails to build 80% of the time may never be considered suitable for release, and if our current policy says it is ok to downgrade this, maybe it's time to change policy. Question for Paul: What needs to happen so that people stop downgrading bugs in cases like this one? Thanks.
