On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 06:49:06PM -0500, Micah Gersten wrote:
> On 07/25/2013 05:19 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Hi Martin,
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 01:34:40PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> >> == foundations ==
> >> saucy-adt-pandas (regression)
> > It looks like Dmitry Shachnev has fixed this up already - thanks, Dmitry!
> > Beyond that, this is a package in universe which I don't think Foundations
> > should be responsible for fixing the test suite in. I think either this
> > should be owned by MOTU, like other aspects of universe are, or we should
> > not run / not block on autopkgtests for unseeded packages.
> <snip>
> I agree that foundations shouldn't be responsible, but I'd rather not
> see us get in the mindset that quality in universe is not needed. If we
> can automate testing, let's display the failures like any other
> failure. If after review it's decided to not block on the failure, so
> be it, but let's have this be the exception and not the rule.
Sure, that's the first option above, which I think is perfectly fine - I
just didn't want to speak for the MOTU team in suggesting that this was the
right trade-off.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
