On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 06:49:06PM -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: > On 07/25/2013 05:19 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Hi Martin,
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 01:34:40PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: > >> == foundations == > >> saucy-adt-pandas (regression) > > It looks like Dmitry Shachnev has fixed this up already - thanks, Dmitry! > > Beyond that, this is a package in universe which I don't think Foundations > > should be responsible for fixing the test suite in. I think either this > > should be owned by MOTU, like other aspects of universe are, or we should > > not run / not block on autopkgtests for unseeded packages. > <snip> > I agree that foundations shouldn't be responsible, but I'd rather not > see us get in the mindset that quality in universe is not needed. If we > can automate testing, let's display the failures like any other > failure. If after review it's decided to not block on the failure, so > be it, but let's have this be the exception and not the rule. Sure, that's the first option above, which I think is perfectly fine - I just didn't want to speak for the MOTU team in suggesting that this was the right trade-off. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [email protected] [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
