On Thu, 23 May 2024 at 03:01, Simon Richter <s...@debian.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 5/23/24 04:32, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: > > >>> It could be argued that testing migration is a CI process. >> Its a CI > >>> process at a way too late stage. > >> Also, uploading to test a merge request is not the right thing to do. > > > If the archive is a VCS then uploading an untested package to experimental > > to run tools is pushing a commit to run CI. > > *shrug* > > Yes, but unironically: experimental is a side branch, unstable is a MR, > and testing is the main branch. > > It is entirely valid to be dissatisfied with the turnaround time of the > existing CI, but what we're seeing here is the creation of a parallel > structure with as-of-yet unclear scope. > > Can we define the scope as "quick-turnaround unofficial validation", > because that's the niche that is currently underserved?
The main problem is not turnaround (it's terrible ofc), it's that a broken upload to unstable affects _everybody_, while a CI run on Salsa is private and doesn't get in the way of other developers.
