On Oct 05, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >I agree that disabling package test suites doesn't improve their quality. >Were these bad tests? Did you report these issues upstream?
Silently passing broken tests was one of a common pattern of issues I found when making Python 3.5 supported in Ubuntu. The tests were broken, and I reported upstream or fixed the ones I found. I was skeptical about this mock change, and it did cause churn, but it was important for longer term increasing the quality of the archive. >Personally, even if the team was the maintainer of the package, I would never >just upload something without giving a ping to anyone who was active as an >uploader. I think it's just polite, even if it goes beyond what the team >strictly requires (note: I did this exact thing over the weekend for pyside, >got a quick ping back and did a team upload - it's not that hard). > >If we can't get the social part of Debian right, the technical part gets very >hard. This is not a side issue. Fully agreed, and I think it's a *good* thing we've been having this discussion. It makes me want to double check the assertions about maintainership in the packages I touch, and it makes me be doubly conscience of other maintainer's preferences here. But let's be sure to capture these norms in Debian Python policy or the team wiki pages. I think Scott, you were going to propose some changes to policy in this area? Cheers, -Barry
