On Tue, Mar 17, 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > First, real piuparts failures are usually real RC bugs. If they are only > reported to the PTS, they won't be properly tracked by the release team, > for example. Are you planning to actively report bugs on piuparts > failures in addition to reporting them to the PTS? Have you reported > bugs on the piuparts failures you found so far?
This is comparable to build failures; buildd logs are linked from the PTS. > Second, since piuparts failures are real bugs, they should be "pushed" > to the maintainer. I don't think that adding them to the PTS web page is > a "pushy-enough" way to provide that information to maintainers. > Instead, the PTS mail interface could be a nice way to inform the > maintainer of failures. > > Third, in my experience, piuparts generates a lot of false positives, > that are either: > - minor bugs (like corner-cases related to symlinks) > - bugs in other packages (packages failing because one of their > dependencies is failing) > Before information is provided automatically to maintainers, I would > like to see numbers about percentage of false positives. Is piuparts > really ready for that? I think the false positive problem is a good reason to avoid sending emails and a good reason to link the logs from the PTS to allow maintainers to read them if they like to. -- Loïc Minier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org