On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 10:37:14AM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Sure. I'm also fine with dropping the scheduled runs entirely. But it > was not me who put them in place. :-)
The whole reason I started this discussion was also this, instead of just dropping them. But, on the other hand I only find the scheduling useful only if hints picked up from that are used to improve the application. For example, as I mentioned ruby-serverengine has been failing autopkgtest in salsa ci for as long as I can remember (since the first I noticed it) and looking at t.d.o it also fails tests on debci. Only the person who triggers the pipeline gets the mail as well (maybe you can subscribe, but it is not practical to subscribe to every package) and usually no one else would stright out notice these failures. #d-ruby-changes does show them, but I am not sure how many people really check that even and others who see really cares (like I didn't/couldn't for such a long time). My point being, catching errors on salsa ci is only useful if that ends up in a corresponding fix. It's not like the archive where the package could get dropped because of failures. So I come to the conclusion that we should just drop them, and I am fine with being the person to do it as the one who brought it up. If Hideki-san has problems with that and expresses the same later, I can volunteer to put them back up later. What do you think? -- Best, Ananthu
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
