Am 26.01.2014 11:30, schrieb Martin Pitt: > Matthias Klose [2014-01-26 9:53 +0100]: >> Unfortunately this includes some tests which did fail before too >> (python-misaka). Marking these as python3.4 is "interesting". > > As I wrote, I didn't file bugs about "broken tests" for packages which > already fail with 3.3. For misaka I filed LP#1272372 that merely says > "needs to build a python 3.4 extension". The test shows clearly that > it doesn't currently have one.
https://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/view/Trusty/view/AutoPkgTest/job/trusty-adt-python-misaka/ clearly shows that the test never did succeed. Yes, it did need a fixed build dependency, but it still fails the test as before, even after adding the module as a dependency for the autopkg test. >> In general I don't like the way how the introduction of autopkg tests forces >> work on maintainers to do for the migration, when you don't have the time to >> spend resources or want to use this time to improve packages in other areas. >> Developer time is limited, and I'm tired being forced to spend time on broken >> autopkg tests and to spend time to hunt down people to ignore failing or >> stalling tests on the autopkg test infrastructure. > > Yes, that's a fair point. I believe we should only consider a failed > autopkgtest in britney if it ever succeeded, so that this doesn't > happen. that would help for the failing tests, but not for the timeouts(?) or still "RUNNING" tests in the infrastructure. Matthias -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
