Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-06-20 Thread Ian Jackson
Niels Thykier writes ("Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]"): > Britney generates a machine-readable format that should be useful for > solving this issue. The data file is updated hourly and available from: > https://release

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-06-19 Thread Niels Thykier
Ian Jackson: > AFAICT we had consensus that by default both the delayer and the > delayee should get mails about test failures. But I don't think that > is implemented yet. > > I recently found out rather late that a test had failed which was > important to me. I want to set up a thing to email

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-06-19 Thread Ian Jackson
AFAICT we had consensus that by default both the delayer and the delayee should get mails about test failures. But I don't think that is implemented yet. I recently found out rather late that a test had failed which was important to me. I want to set up a thing to email me. I think I can do thi

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-05-31 Thread peter green
> In my perception, the biggest reason is a social one. The is resistance > to the fact that issues with autopkgtests out of one's control can block > one's package (this is quite different than in Ubuntu). Can you elaborate on how this is different than in Ubuntu? It sounds pretty similar to me

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-05-25 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi On 25-05-18 12:34, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > DDPO, tracker.d.o, and the testing excuses already show the autopkgtest > information I'm interested in. > > Unlike some maintainers I track the state of my packages daily and closely. I said it before, and I am saying it again: not yet for th

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-05-25 Thread Ian Jackson
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes ("Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]"): > On 25/05/18 12:24, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > But rather than false positive I should have said "things a maintainer > > can usually do ~nothing

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-05-25 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
On 25/05/18 12:24, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:16:20PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 25/05/18 12:09, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: >>> autoremoval mails contains tons of false positive and cases where >>> regular package maintainers can do nothing about but watch. >> >>

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-05-25 Thread Sebastiaan Couwenberg
On 05/25/2018 12:09 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 09:02:04PM +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: >> On 05/24/2018 08:53 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >>> On Thu, 24 May 2018, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: None of the other QA tools mail the maintainer without them asking for

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-05-25 Thread Mattia Rizzolo
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:16:20PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 25/05/18 12:09, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > autoremoval mails contains tons of false positive and cases where > > regular package maintainers can do nothing about but watch. > > Can you give some examples of false positives

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-05-25 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
On 25/05/18 12:09, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > autoremoval mails contains tons of false positive and cases where > regular package maintainers can do nothing about but watch. Can you give some examples of false positives in autoremoval mails? Do you mean the case where you just fixed your package but

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-05-25 Thread Mattia Rizzolo
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 09:02:04PM +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > On 05/24/2018 08:53 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > On Thu, 24 May 2018, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > >> None of the other QA tools mail the maintainer without them asking for > >> it, autopkgtest shouldn't either. > > > > W

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-05-24 Thread Sebastiaan Couwenberg
On 05/24/2018 08:53 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Thu, 24 May 2018, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: >> None of the other QA tools mail the maintainer without them asking for >> it, autopkgtest shouldn't either. > > With the exception of piuparts, none of them affect testing migration. What makes a

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-05-24 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Thu, 24 May 2018, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > None of the other QA tools mail the maintainer without them asking for > it, autopkgtest shouldn't either. With the exception of piuparts, none of them affect testing migration. Conversely, the autoremoval mails and the testing migration mails a

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-05-24 Thread Sebastiaan Couwenberg
On 05/24/2018 08:28 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Wed, 23 May 2018, Paul Gevers wrote: >> I have had a complaint about my e-mail, boiling down to it should be >> opt-in. I am not fully convinced (as I fear too many package maintainers >> will miss the fact their autopkgtest delays a

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-05-24 Thread Raphael Hertzog
Hi Paul, On Wed, 23 May 2018, Paul Gevers wrote: > I have had a complaint about my e-mail, boiling down to it should be > opt-in. I am not fully convinced (as I fear too many package maintainers > will miss the fact their autopkgtest delays another package, but I want > to start sending the e-mail

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-05-23 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello, On Wed, May 23 2018, Paul Gevers wrote: > I have had a complaint about my e-mail, boiling down to it should be > opt-in. I am not fully convinced (as I fear too many package > maintainers will miss the fact their autopkgtest delays another > package, but I want to start sending the e-mails

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-05-23 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi all, On 06-05-18 20:55, Paul Gevers wrote: > On 06-05-18 07:27, Paul Gevers wrote: >>> But, anyway, thanks for your effort, but it obviously doesn't scale to >>> have the central infrastructure team triage things. How easy would it >>> be to have the CI automatically send an email to the maint

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions] [and 2 more messages]

2018-05-08 Thread Chris Lamb
Hi Ian & Paul, > > In the e-mail I also provide a boiler plate for forwarding the e-mail to > > the BTS. You could also have meant that you wanted headers there. I > > guess that is not what you meant. (Indeed) > > X-Debian-CI-Triggers: $trigger > > X-Debian-CI-Broken: $broken > > So, yes, some

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-05-08 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Ian, all, On 08-05-18 14:31, Ian Jackson wrote: > Paul Gevers writes ("RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n > for package regressions]"): >> maintainers of the involved packages as one party has insight in what >> changed and the other party ins

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions] [and 2 more messages]

2018-05-08 Thread Ian Jackson
Paul Gevers writes ("Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]"): > I was wondering if you want headers to the e-mail I will send out. I > guess this is what you want, so, can you do a proposal (I have never > really worked with tho

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-05-08 Thread Ian Jackson
Paul Gevers writes ("RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]"): > Please find a proposed text for such an e-mail below. Comments or > improvements very welcome. Thanks. This looks broadly good but I wonder whether it would be worth making

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-05-08 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Chris, On 08-05-18 08:04, Chris Lamb wrote: >>> Beyond that, I'd love to see some parsable X-Foo: headers. I >>> find these very helpful in the BTS's mails to reliably file things >>> in my email setup. >> >> Can you elaborate, do you mean in the boilerplate or in my e-mail? > > Not sure what

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-05-07 Thread Chris Lamb
Hi Paul, > > Beyond that, I'd love to see some parsable X-Foo: headers. I > > find these very helpful in the BTS's mails to reliably file things > > in my email setup. > > Can you elaborate, do you mean in the boilerplate or in my e-mail? Not sure what you mean by "in my e-mail". As I understand

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-05-07 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Chris, Thanks for the review. On 07-05-18 00:31, Chris Lamb wrote: > Beyond that, I'd love to see some parsable X-Foo: headers. I > find these very helpful in the BTS's mails to reliably file things > in my email setup. Can you elaborate, do you mean in the boilerplate or in my e-mail? X-Deb

Re: RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-05-06 Thread Chris Lamb
Hi Paul, > Please find a proposed text for such an e-mail below. Comments or > improvements very welcome. Just some brief and somewhat-pedantic suggestions for improvements below. Beyond that, I'd love to see some parsable X-Foo: headers. I find these very helpful in the BTS's mails to reliably f

RFR: email about regressions [was: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions]

2018-05-06 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi all, On 06-05-18 07:27, Paul Gevers wrote: >> But, anyway, thanks for your effort, but it obviously doesn't scale to >> have the central infrastructure team triage things. How easy would it >> be to have the CI automatically send an email to the maintainers of >> the rdependency and the depend