> 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
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel