On Oct 05, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:

>I agree that disabling package test suites doesn't improve their quality.  
>Were these bad tests?  Did you report these issues upstream?

Silently passing broken tests was one of a common pattern of issues I found
when making Python 3.5 supported in Ubuntu.  The tests were broken, and I
reported upstream or fixed the ones I found.  I was skeptical about this mock
change, and it did cause churn, but it was important for longer term
increasing the quality of the archive.

>Personally, even if the team was the maintainer of the package, I would never
>just upload something without giving a ping to anyone who was active as an
>uploader.  I think it's just polite, even if it goes beyond what the team
>strictly requires (note: I did this exact thing over the weekend for pyside,
>got a quick ping back and did a team upload - it's not that hard).
>If we can't get the social part of Debian right, the technical part gets very
>hard.  This is not a side issue.

Fully agreed, and I think it's a *good* thing we've been having this
discussion.  It makes me want to double check the assertions about
maintainership in the packages I touch, and it makes me be doubly conscience
of other maintainer's preferences here.

But let's be sure to capture these norms in Debian Python policy or the team
wiki pages.  I think Scott, you were going to propose some changes to policy
in this area?


Reply via email to