Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer writes ("Re: Bits from the Release Team:
ride like the wind, Bullseye!"):
> My personal point of view (and because of this it might be biased)
> is that the maintainers of the packages that ship autopkgtest should
> be the reponsibles for any breackage it might occur on them because:
>
> - They added autopkgtests, so they are showing an intent on
> reviewing them when they fail.
> - They will certainly know their packages better than the library
> maintainer, and thus they have more chances to get the root of the
> issue sooner. Of course that might mean finding a bug in the
> library, but that's just ok.
In the general case the proper investigation of a bug might need
involvement from both people, collaboratively. That involves a kind
of ping pong on a technical level.
> On 19/08/08 09:46, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > I think we should also try to improve the visibility towards reverse
> > dependencies that their autopkgtest is blocking other packages. I would
> > love tracker (and the old pts) to show this on their page. (Working on
> > such a patch is on my TODO list, except not at the top).
I already made grep-excuses print this information. It has been very
helpful to me. Maybe we should make --autopkgtests the default ?
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
