Control: reassign -1 release.debian.org Control: retitle -1 britney: excuses: Display release-team blocks more prominently Control: user release.debian....@packages.debian.org Control: usertags -1 britney
Hi! On Fri, 2024-03-22 at 16:12:56 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > top-posting and leaving quite some context because the main point of my > message is to actually share your bug report to the release team. > If I remember correctly, tracker.debian.org is not doing any fancy > treatment. We are just turning some YAML into HTML: > https://release.debian.org/britney/excuses.yaml > > We copy the lines from "excuses" as-is so if you want to change the order > here, it needs to happen on the britney side. > > Feel free to reassign this to release.debian.org or any other suitable > package if you want. Ah, ok, reassigning now to the (hopefully) correct package, thanks! On Fri, 2024-03-22 at 12:13:49 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > Package: tracker.debian.org > Severity: wishlist > > Hi! > > Currently when a package is blocked by a release-team block hint, that > appears at the end of the "Issues preventing migration" list, which > can easily be missed if there are also lots of autopkgtest issues, > (see the current dpkg tracker page). > > ,--- > Migration status for dpkg (1.22.4 to 1.22.6): BLOCKED: Rejected/violates > migration policy/introduces a regression > Issues preventing migration: > ∙ ∙ Updating dpkg would introduce bugs in testing: #1067427 > ∙ ∙ autopkgtest for ceilometer/blocked-on-ci-infra: i386: Ignored failure > ∙ ∙ autopkgtest for chrony/4.5-1: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Regression > or new test ♻ (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), > i386: Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass > ∙ ∙ autopkgtest for dash/0.5.12-6: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: > Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ > (reference ♻), i386: Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass > ∙ ∙ autopkgtest for dpkg/1.22.6: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Pass, > armhf: Pass, i386: Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass > ∙ ∙ autopkgtest for gsocket/1.4.41-1: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: > Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ > (reference ♻), i386: Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass > ∙ ∙ autopkgtest for lintian/2.117.0: amd64: Regression or new test ♻ > (reference ♻), arm64: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), armel: > Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ > (reference ♻), i386: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), ppc64el: > Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), s390x: Regression or new test ♻ > (reference ♻) > ∙ ∙ Not touching package due to block request by sramacher (please contact > debian-release if update is needed) > Additional info: > ∙ ∙ Piuparts tested OK - https://piuparts.debian.org/sid/source/d/dpkg.html > ∙ ∙ Reproducible on amd64 - info ♻ > ∙ ∙ Reproducible on arm64 - info ♻ > ∙ ∙ Waiting for reproducibility test results on armhf - info ♻ > ∙ ∙ Reproducible on i386 - info ♻ > ∙ ∙ 11 days old (needed 5 days) > Not considered > `--- > > The block seems like the most important information there, because > even if everything else gets solved that still requires active action > by the release-team. So I think it would be better to place it as the > first item, also so that it does not get drown by autopkgtest entries > that can be many. Also perhaps the autopkgtest entries should be > nested? As in: > > ,--- > ∙ ∙ Status for autopkgtest: > ∙ ∙ ∙ ceilometer/blocked-on-ci-infra: i386: Ignored failure > ∙ ∙ ∙ chrony/4.5-1: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Regression or new test ♻ > (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), i386: Pass, > ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass > ∙ ∙ ∙ dash/0.5.12-6: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Regression or new test > ♻ (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), i386: Pass, > ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass > ∙ ∙ ∙ dpkg/1.22.6: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Pass, armhf: Pass, i386: > Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass > ∙ ∙ ∙ gsocket/1.4.41-1: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Regression or new > test ♻ (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), i386: > Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass > ∙ ∙ ∙ lintian/2.117.0: amd64: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), arm64: > Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), armel: Regression or new test ♻ > (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), i386: > Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), ppc64el: Regression or new test ♻ > (reference ♻), s390x: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻) > `--- > > Which would remove repetition and make it visually easier to see? > > (This has come up recently, I think multiple times, as I've got multiple > private queries, and some public ones, where it looks like people missed > the main reason for why dpkg is not migrating.) > > (Also as an aside, perhaps autopkgtest entries that are all-pass, > should appear in the “Additional info” part instead?) Thanks, Guillem
