Hi Martin, On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 08:11:06AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: > Hello again,
> Steve Langasek [2015-08-10 14:50 -0700]: > > It looks like there is a bug in the current p-m autopkgtest handling for the > > case where the latest source of the package doesn't yet have binaries built. > Fixed now with > http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-release/britney/britney2-ubuntu/revision/463 > This is actually quite an old bug, we've never handled this situation > very well. The above commit is still a compromise, but it now errs on > the side of caution: We now wait for a reverse dependency D to build > and run its tests before we promote a package P. > This might lead to stalling an innocent P if a broken (FTBFS) > reverse dependency D gets uploaded at the same time. > This can/should be handled by overrides if fixing D isn't appropriate > (i. e. it takes too long, and we wnat to unblock P after verifying > that D's FTBFS is not P's fault). Thanks for the quick fix. While it may have been a pre-existing bug it was clearly a pretty bad one, especially while in the midst of a major transition. Failing closed is certainly better than failing open here, so I'm happy to have this change. However, false-positives do cause drag on development. I think the correct policy here should be that, if the new version of the reverse-dependency in wily-proposed has not yet been built, test results from the most recent built version are used instead (whether that's a previously-dispatched test, or a test that needs to be dispatched now because of a new upload of this package). Do you agree? Would that be straightforward to implement? Cheers, -- 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-release mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release
