On 10.04.19 04:37, Simon Quigley wrote: > On 4/9/19 9:27 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >> rails is ready to migrate, there is no puma package in the release pocket. >> the >> failing puma autopkg test in -proposed shouldn't be any concern. >> >> Filed LP: #1824049 for that. >> >> Now we could go on removing puma from -proposed, and then rails should >> migrate. >> How can we do that without removal? > > (disclaimer: not on the release team) > > This isn't a bug in Britney; Britney is designed to block on *any* > autopkgtest failures if there aren't any test hints (thus, a documented > reason for it failing). Passing autopkgtests for all packages is a > release goal, and unless the package has a hint (which is an exception > to the rule), any failing autopkgtests shouldn't let a package into the > release pocket. This autopkgtest should be evaluated to see if it's a > real regression in rails or if it's puma autopkgtests not working properly.
Call it a britney bug or a proposed-migration bug. But to what extent should we care about a regression which doesn't show in the software that we ship? It's certainly not contradicting your statement "Passing autopkgtests for all packages is a release goal", because puma then wouldn't be part of the release. Now remove rails and dependencies and you might be able to update to a new ruby version much earlier, with even more regressions outside the archive. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
