On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:30:51AM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > Matthias Klose [2014-01-26 9:53 +0100]: > > In general I don't like the way how the introduction of autopkg tests forces > > work on maintainers to do for the migration, when you don't have the time to > > spend resources or want to use this time to improve packages in other areas. > > Developer time is limited, and I'm tired being forced to spend time on > > broken > > autopkg tests and to spend time to hunt down people to ignore failing or > > stalling tests on the autopkg test infrastructure. > > Yes, that's a fair point. I believe we should only consider a failed > autopkgtest in britney if it ever succeeded, so that this doesn't > happen.
I was probably too optimistic about implementing this such that they always have to succeed rather than doing a ratchet scheme. I'd be OK with changing this in light of experience. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
