Hey Steve, Steve Beattie [2016-05-25 1:17 -0700]: > Bah, sorry, I missed that due to some excessive mail filtering, > My apologies.
No worries! > [While I support and appreciate all the efforts that that go into > the adt infrastructure, things seem awfully... brittle. Is there > something the community can do to make them a more reliable indicator > of regressions?] I guess the best thing would be to actually fix tests :-) For most of the broken ones we earn from Debian we actually have overrides, but they tend to be maintained for the devel series only. E. g. a test might get fixed in devel, we drop the "force-badtest" override, but now the test would appear as a failure in stables. Perhaps we need per-series overrides to clean this up. That said, glibc is a particular beast as it triggers pretty much every test that exists. So keeping all of it to green in all stables is a huuge task :/ > Operationally, "you" (archive admins) can go ahead and release them > to the security pocket at your convenience and I'll issue the USNs > afterward. Thanks for confirming. Done now. Martin -- Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- Ubuntu-release mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release
