Mattia Rizzolo writes ("Re: autopkgtest results influencing migration from
unstable to testing"):
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 05:50:03PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > On 07-06-18 15:52, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > > Tracker has a 4 hours delay on updating info whereas Brit
On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 05:50:03PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 07-06-18 15:52, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > Tracker has a 4 hours delay on updating info whereas Britney now updates
> > hourly.
>
> Tracker only syncs 4 times a day
sorry, I confused every 4 hours with 4 times a day... :\
T
Hi
On 07-06-18 15:52, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Tracker has a 4 hours delay on updating info whereas Britney now updates
> hourly.
Tracker only syncs 4 times a day (code needs to be reorganized to fix
this properly, patches welcome I guess), so the delay can be 6.5 hours
from the moment britney fig
On 07/06/2018 15:33, Pirate Praveen wrote:
On June 6, 2018 12:45:55 PM GMT+05:30, Pirate Praveen
wrote:
Thanks everyone, I have added breaks now.
But even now it added 10 days delay.
It looks like the test on 2018-06-07 12:22:45 UTC was successful [1].
Maybe give the tracker page a litt
On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 07:03:38PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> On June 6, 2018 12:45:55 PM GMT+05:30, Pirate Praveen
> wrote:
> >Thanks everyone, I have added breaks now.
>
> But even now it added 10 days delay.
Please give it some time. The last test run was done only half an hour
ago, and
On June 6, 2018 12:45:55 PM GMT+05:30, Pirate Praveen
wrote:
>Thanks everyone, I have added breaks now.
But even now it added 10 days delay.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On 05.06.2018 22:54, Paul Gevers wrote:
Hi all,
On 06-06-18 08:52, Simon McVittie wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 at 10:28:53 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
ruby-state-machines and ruby-state-machines-activemodel should go
together and even when autopkgtest for the version is unstable passed,
instead
On Wednesday 06 June 2018 12:22 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 at 10:28:53 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>> ruby-state-machines and ruby-state-machines-activemodel should go
>> together and even when autopkgtest for the version is unstable passed,
>> instead of reducing the age, it
On 6 June 2018 at 06:58, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> I think we need to handle cases like this,
>
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/ruby-state-machines
>
> ruby-state-machines and ruby-state-machines-activemodel should go
> together and even when autopkgtest for the version is unstable passed,
> instea
Hi all,
On 06-06-18 08:52, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 at 10:28:53 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>> ruby-state-machines and ruby-state-machines-activemodel should go
>> together and even when autopkgtest for the version is unstable passed,
>> instead of reducing the age, it is consi
On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 at 10:28:53 +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> ruby-state-machines and ruby-state-machines-activemodel should go
> together and even when autopkgtest for the version is unstable passed,
> instead of reducing the age, it is considered a regression because
> autopkgtest for the versio
On Thursday 03 May 2018 02:39 AM, Paul Gevers wrote:
> It is the intention that in the (far) future regressions will become
> blocking for migration, but until then the added age will probably be
> raised over time as a semi-block.
>
> There is one important note to make here on how to go about re
Hi Steve,
On 12-05-18 18:07, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I think the status quo is that we have a lot of autopkgtests that are
> useless as a CI gate.
I wonder. I estimate about 15% of tests in Debian have never passed.
Obviously they are useless for anything except maybe the careful
maintainer that
On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 11:52:40AM +0200, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:
> On 3 May 2018 at 11:21, Colin Watson wrote:
> > (I echo Simon's thanks for doing this, though!)
> Yeah, thanks for this!
> I would say, yeah, please wait a couple of stable releases before
> going full blocker.
> I (and
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 11:09:46PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> tl;dr: migration from unstable to testing is influenced by the results
> of autopkgtest tests of your own package as well as those of your
> reverse dependencies.
AWESOME
Thank you to everone who worked and works on this!
--
chee
Hi Colin, Ian,
On 03-05-18 14:19, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Colin Watson writes ("Re: autopkgtest results influencing migration from
> unstable to testing"):
>> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 07:14:16AM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
>>> In my perception, the biggest reason is
Colin Watson writes ("Re: autopkgtest results influencing migration from
unstable to testing"):
> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 07:14:16AM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > In my perception, the biggest reason is a social one. The is resistance
> > to the fact that issues with
Paul Gevers writes ("Re: autopkgtest results influencing migration from
unstable to testing"):
> On 03-05-18 04:32, Simon Quigley wrote:
> > opinion, passing autopkgtests should be a release migration requirement,
> > and not just with my Ubuntu hat on (because it has a
Paul Gevers writes ("autopkgtest results influencing migration from unstable to
testing"):
> tl;dr: migration from unstable to testing is influenced by the results
> of autopkgtest tests of your own package as well as those of your
> reverse dependencies.
AWESOME
Thank you to
On 3 May 2018 at 11:21, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> (I echo Simon's thanks for doing this, though!)
>
Yeah, thanks for this!
I would say, yeah, please wait a couple of stable releases before
going full blocker.
I (and others) may not have the time to polish our autopkgtest tests.
If we end with les
On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 07:14:16AM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 03-05-18 04:32, Simon Quigley wrote:
> > What is the reasoning for not making these blocking sooner? In my honest
> > opinion, passing autopkgtests should be a release migration requirement,
> > and not just with my Ubuntu hat on (be
Hi Simon,
On 03-05-18 04:32, Simon Quigley wrote:
> What are the added delays as of today, and is this effective immediately?
3 days subtraction in case of no regressions (so the default age will
drop to 2 days). 10 days delay in case of regressions. Effective as of
the evening of 2 May 2018 UTC.
Hello,
Thanks for the work on this; it will make things on (at minimum) the
Ubuntu side of things much, much better and will hopefully ensure higher
quality Debian packages.
On 05/02/2018 04:09 PM, Paul Gevers wrote:
> For several years already, maintainers can add autopkgtest test cases to
> th
Hello,
On Wed, May 02 2018, Paul Gevers wrote:
> tl;dr: migration from unstable to testing is influenced by the results
> of autopkgtest tests of your own package as well as those of your
> reverse dependencies. Without regression, your package will migrate
> *faster*, with regression it will mig
24 matches
Mail list logo
