-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=UyuV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 4/9/19 10:15 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> 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.
I think we should care about it to the extent that we can ensure that
puma's failure is not caused by ruby. If puma's autopkgtests are
flaky/unfixable without Very Horrible Hacks, they should be hinted. If
the failures are irrelevant to the ruby update, ruby should be hinted
when all other rdep pass their tests. If the puma test failure is easy
to fix, we should solve that, and then we're done here. All of these
actions can be completed without the Archive Admins.
I still don't personally see this as a bug in currently-deployed code.
--
Simon Quigley
tsimonq2@ubuntu.com
tsimonq2 on freenode and OFTC
5C7A BEA2 0F86 3045 9CC8
C8B5 E27F 2CF8 458C 2FA4
