Hi,
On Tue, 09 Jul 2019, Jonas Meurer wrote:
> 1. Upload packages targeted at LTS suites to some dedicated place for
>automated testing
> 2. Run automatic tests (piuparts, autopkgtests, lintian?, ...)
> 3. If tests passed, publish the packages somewhere to do manual
>testing (and reviews)
Hi,
On 11/07/2019 15:20, Jonas Meurer wrote:
>> Many packages are packaged in Git already (probably on Salsa) and have a
>> repo location of their own. With applying GitLab based CI to the
>> workflow, the LTS team would add an extra Git repo, just for the LTS
>> uploads done by the paid
Hello,
Mike Gabriel:
>> In the internal discussions, the following vision for an improved upload
>> workflow arose:
>>
>> 1. Upload packages targeted at LTS suites to some dedicated place for
>> automated testing
>
>> 2. Run automatic tests (piuparts, autopkgtests, lintian?, ...)
>
> Maybe,
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:15:34AM +, Mike Gabriel wrote:
[..snip..]
> Personally, I think that using Salsa for this, adds an extra layer of
> complexity to the uploading workflow, because we have to pump all packages
> that we want to fix in LTS through GitLab.
On the plus side of
Hi Jonas, hi all,
thanks for summarizing the discussion we had on the non-public paid
LTS contributors' "mailing list".
On Di 09 Jul 2019 16:21:47 CEST, Jonas Meurer wrote:
Hello,
Some LTS members recently started discussing options for better
(semi-)automated testing of LTS uploads and
Hello,
Some LTS members recently started discussing options for better
(semi-)automated testing of LTS uploads and an improved upload workflow.
I'll try to summarize the discussion in order to bring it to this public
mailinglist. [1]
The motivation for an improved package upload workflow
