On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 07:30:18PM +0800, Otto Kekäläinen wrote: > Hi,
Hi Otto, > > When the package is broken then debci already catches it and prevents > > testing migration, adding salsa results to britney brings no benefits. > > Of course there is no direct benefit if you only consider the trees, > but the forest will likely flourish more. It seems I'm not getting my > idea across. All replies focus on individual checks or testing > mechanics.. a flourishing jungle of different CIs running basically the same tests in slightly different environments is not a good idea, for packages with fragile tests it can be outright harmful. The ideal number of CIs is one, more is worse. Trying to push maintainers to use more than one CI is bad, this is often a waste of not only resources but also precious maintainer time. Whatever the maintainer does in salsa is up to the maintainer, if the maintainer considers the Salsa CI useful because it runs at every commit then that's good for the maintainer. unstable is as its name implies. The CI to keep broken packages out of testing is already blocking testing migration. A FTBFS or autopkgtest failure in unstable is not a big deal if the maintainer handles it, and the one CI where maintainers should really check the results is britney. cu Adrian
