Hi helmut, +1
On 20-08-2024 07:28, Helmut Grohne wrote:
* As packages fail to migrate to testing for a long time, a release
team member eventually looks at the package.
I recognize myself here. But to be totally fair, that's *mostly* about testing, and we have processes for that. Once removed from testing, what's in unstable is hardly a matter for the release team. Except we do monitor packages in transitions, as we schedule binNMU's so some of those FTBFS bugs come from us.
* There are many more people doing various forms of QA and sending
patches.
Although I hardly send patches, I do file *loads* of bugs for autopkgtest failures and other QA related checks. Again, mostly for testing, but occasionally for unstable too. For autopkgtest, typically when I need to add packages to our reject_list, which needs maintenance too.
My personal motivation for looking into this actually is the /usr-move work and the cross build support work. Please do consider me biased.
I'm biased too, but I don't think that's bad. You and I are doing quite a bit of this work, so we have a say.
As is quite common, I agree with a lot of what Niels replied too on the topic of automating this. autoremoval from testing currently is mostly handled by udd, which was great to get this bootstrapped, but at this moment makes me uncomfortable as a Release Team member. The tool should be owned and maintained by us. When I first wanted to make changes to it, I couldn't even do it because I wasn't member of the right team, which feels weird. The same is true for the key package set calculation (which is strongly related).
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
