Hi, everyone. Arch testing's relying on automation a lot these days. Not saying that's bad, if it improves the state of affairs. However, I have some concerns, based on what I've seen lately.
On top of that, it seems that most of it still relies on proprietary software and we have no clue how *exactly* it works, and it's really, really hard to get a straight answer. So, my questions are: 1. Is "runtime testing required" field being respected? Obviously not every package can be (sufficiently) tested via FEATURES=test, so we've added that fields. However, if arch testers just ignore it and push things stable based on pure build testing... 2. How are kernels being tested? Given the speed with which new gentoo- sources stablereqs are handled, I really feel like "arch testing" there means "checking if sources install", and have little to do with working kernels. 3. How does the automation handle packages that aren't trivially installable? I recall that in the past stablereqs were stalled for months without a single comment because automation couldn't figure out how to proceed, and nobody bothered reporting a problem. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
