Hi, > a flourishing jungle of different CIs running basically the same tests > in slightly different environments is not a good idea, for packages > with fragile tests it can be outright harmful.
This same argument could justify maintainers not running autopkgtest locally on their packages, but instead uploading to unstable and re-uploading until autopkgtest passes on ci.debian.org. I don't think that is really how you would want maintainers to behave. > The ideal number of CIs is one, more is worse. > > Trying to push maintainers to use more than one CI is bad, > this is often a waste of not only resources but also precious > maintainer time. Did you read my proposal 4 days ago with an open mind? Based on replies everyone just jumped to the conclusion they already had. I wrote: > Specifically I'd like to float the idea that IF a project uses Salsa > CI, AND IF the Salsa CI was failing (red) for the git tag > corresponding to the upload (vcswatcher already has this data), the > migration would be delayed by 10 days. This would actually _discourage_ people from using Salsa CI if they don't even bother looking at the results and just waste both machine and human resources in vain. - Otto
