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.
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
that would help for the failing tests, but not for the timeouts(?) or still
"RUNNING" tests in the infrastructure.
ubuntu-devel mailing list
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel