On Sun, 2016-12-18 at 16:01 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 03:21:14PM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > > But at some point it's just not practical. > > This is becoming interesting. So, would you be in favour of > establishing some kind of "probability of failure" threshold under > which every FTBFS bug stop being severity:serious? > > [ In some sense, you have already done that in this report ]. > > I asked the release managers what to do with packages which FTBFS > randomly, but they didn't give me any useful guideline yet. > > Based on your "at some point" above, do you personally think that > probability-based RC-ness is the way to go, and if yes, where would > you put the threshold?
I just meant I want to stop losing my time on this particular issue. Regards, -- Yves-Alexis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
