On 10/05/2015 11:11 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 05, 2015, at 02:51 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> In other distributions (Red Hat and Ubuntu), everyone is aware of this
>> kind of issue before uploading, and this kinds of things don't happen.
> Ubuntu at least does have a technical solution that helps ameliorate
> archive-wide breakages, and that is -proposed migration.  When you upload
> e.g. to wily, it gets diverted to wily-proposed and to get promoted it has to
> pass a number of tests.  The package and their reverses have to build.  DEP-8
> tests have to pass, etc.  You can get a nice report about which -proposed
> promotions are failing:
> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html

Oh, nice! We do need something like this too.

> The downside is that you should probably be proactively checking this list
> (poll vs ping) and it can sometimes be difficult to figure out why a promotion
> fails or how to fix it.

It's a super nice tool, though in some cases, I do see that we may want
to ignore it. For example, dozens of packages passing, and just a single
leaf one with some issues.

> But this does mean that the archive itself is very rarely broken, and it can
> be a convenient way to stage package updates that may have effects in parts of
> the archive you might not be aware of.

If we need the compute power to do it, I have a few proposal for that.
I'm all for having a CI / CD also for packages.

This IMO is the same topic as having a Gerrit review system (and not
just Git) which could do tests on each change of a package even before
having them committed to our git.


Reply via email to