Bug#1067490: tracker.debian.org: Display release-team blocks more prominently

2024-03-22 Thread Raphael Hertzog
Hi,

top-posting and leaving quite some context because the main point of my
message is to actually share your bug report to the release team.
If I remember correctly, tracker.debian.org is not doing any fancy
treatment. We are just turning some YAML into HTML:
https://release.debian.org/britney/excuses.yaml

We copy the lines from "excuses" as-is so if you want to change the order
here, it needs to happen on the britney side.

Feel free to reassign this to release.debian.org or any other suitable
package if you want.

Have a nice day!

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Currently when a package is blocked by a release-team block hint, that
> appears at the end of the "Issues preventing migration" list, which
> can easily be missed if there are also lots of autopkgtest issues,
> (see the current dpkg tracker page).
[...]
> The block seems like the most important information there, because
> even if everything else gets solved that still requires active action
> by the release-team. So I think it would be better to place it as the
> first item, also so that it does not get drown by autopkgtest entries
> that can be many. Also perhaps the autopkgtest entries should be
> nested? As in:
> 
> ,---
> ∙ ∙ Status for autopkgtest:
> ∙ ∙ ∙ ceilometer/blocked-on-ci-infra: i386: Ignored failure
> ∙ ∙ ∙ chrony/4.5-1: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Regression or new test ♻ 
> (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), i386: Pass, 
> ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass
> ∙ ∙ ∙ dash/0.5.12-6: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Regression or new test 
> ♻ (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), i386: Pass, 
> ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass
> ∙ ∙ ∙ dpkg/1.22.6: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Pass, armhf: Pass, i386: 
> Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass
> ∙ ∙ ∙ gsocket/1.4.41-1: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Regression or new 
> test ♻ (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), i386: 
> Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass
> ∙ ∙ ∙ lintian/2.117.0: amd64: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), arm64: 
> Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), armel: Regression or new test ♻ 
> (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), i386: 
> Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), ppc64el: Regression or new test ♻ 
> (reference ♻), s390x: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻)
> `---
> 
> Which would remove repetition and make it visually easier to see?
> 
> (This has come up recently, I think multiple times, as I've got multiple
> private queries, and some public ones, where it looks like people missed
> the main reason for why dpkg is not migrating.)
> 
> (Also as an aside, perhaps autopkgtest entries that are all-pass,
> should appear in the “Additional info” part instead?)
> 
> Thanks,
> Guillem
> 

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀   Raphaël Hertzog 
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/
  ⠈⠳⣄   Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS



Bug#1067490: tracker.debian.org: Display release-team blocks more prominently

2024-03-22 Thread Guillem Jover
Package: tracker.debian.org
Severity: wishlist

Hi!

Currently when a package is blocked by a release-team block hint, that
appears at the end of the "Issues preventing migration" list, which
can easily be missed if there are also lots of autopkgtest issues,
(see the current dpkg tracker page).

,---
Migration status for dpkg (1.22.4 to 1.22.6): BLOCKED: Rejected/violates 
migration policy/introduces a regression
Issues preventing migration:
∙ ∙ Updating dpkg would introduce bugs in testing: #1067427
∙ ∙ autopkgtest for ceilometer/blocked-on-ci-infra: i386: Ignored failure
∙ ∙ autopkgtest for chrony/4.5-1: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Regression 
or new test ♻ (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), 
i386: Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass
∙ ∙ autopkgtest for dash/0.5.12-6: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Regression 
or new test ♻ (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), 
i386: Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass
∙ ∙ autopkgtest for dpkg/1.22.6: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Pass, armhf: 
Pass, i386: Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass
∙ ∙ autopkgtest for gsocket/1.4.41-1: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: 
Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ 
(reference ♻), i386: Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass
∙ ∙ autopkgtest for lintian/2.117.0: amd64: Regression or new test ♻ (reference 
♻), arm64: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), armel: Regression or new 
test ♻ (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), i386: 
Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), ppc64el: Regression or new test ♻ 
(reference ♻), s390x: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻)
∙ ∙ Not touching package due to block request by sramacher (please contact 
debian-release if update is needed)
Additional info:
∙ ∙ Piuparts tested OK - https://piuparts.debian.org/sid/source/d/dpkg.html
∙ ∙ Reproducible on amd64 - info ♻
∙ ∙ Reproducible on arm64 - info ♻
∙ ∙ Waiting for reproducibility test results on armhf - info ♻
∙ ∙ Reproducible on i386 - info ♻
∙ ∙ 11 days old (needed 5 days)
Not considered
`---

The block seems like the most important information there, because
even if everything else gets solved that still requires active action
by the release-team. So I think it would be better to place it as the
first item, also so that it does not get drown by autopkgtest entries
that can be many. Also perhaps the autopkgtest entries should be
nested? As in:

,---
∙ ∙ Status for autopkgtest:
∙ ∙ ∙ ceilometer/blocked-on-ci-infra: i386: Ignored failure
∙ ∙ ∙ chrony/4.5-1: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Regression or new test ♻ 
(reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), i386: Pass, 
ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass
∙ ∙ ∙ dash/0.5.12-6: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Regression or new test ♻ 
(reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), i386: Pass, 
ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass
∙ ∙ ∙ dpkg/1.22.6: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Pass, armhf: Pass, i386: 
Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass
∙ ∙ ∙ gsocket/1.4.41-1: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Regression or new test 
♻ (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), i386: Pass, 
ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass
∙ ∙ ∙ lintian/2.117.0: amd64: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), arm64: 
Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), armel: Regression or new test ♻ 
(reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), i386: Regression 
or new test ♻ (reference ♻), ppc64el: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), 
s390x: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻)
`---

Which would remove repetition and make it visually easier to see?

(This has come up recently, I think multiple times, as I've got multiple
private queries, and some public ones, where it looks like people missed
the main reason for why dpkg is not migrating.)

(Also as an aside, perhaps autopkgtest entries that are all-pass,
should appear in the “Additional info” part instead?)

Thanks,
Guillem