On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 6:56:32 P.M. CDT Nilesh Patra wrote: > On 24 August 2022 3:29:10 am IST, Steven Robbins <st...@sumost.ca> wrote: > >The binary upload cannot transition to testing -- a buildd binary build is > >required. So far as I know -- assuming [1] is still up-to-date, this means > >a nuisance upload just bumping the debian revision from -1 to -2. Is this > >still the recommended practice?
> >I've also been wondering about the "Give Back" action button on the buildd > >log page. It doesn't work in this case because "Package in state > >Installed, cannot give back. ✗". > >Wondering if the logic can be modified to also check > >whether the build was done on a buildd -- e.g. check whether the logs > >column contains "no log". If it wasn't a buildd build, can the giveback > >be allowed? > It was probably intentional. In any case, you might want to CC the > wanna-build team ML as well I understand that the current state is that one can only "give back" a failed build. I'm asking whether this must necessarily be the case. Specficially: in the case of a NEW binary upload, could a manual request be implemented (pick a different name if "give back" is not suitable) such that it is thrown away and replaced by a buildd build? Thanks, -Steve
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
