 on amd64 when common packages built with i386 are not yet published.
<jibel> it would very likely fail but that makes a test cycle for nothing
<pitti> right
<pitti> in our initial discussion we actually agreed to run the tests after the installability checks, and don't trigger tests on uninstallable packages (as they are guaranteed to fail)
<jibel> yes
<pitti> and right now we don't seem to re-trigger the tests once they become installable
<pitti> at least I always do that manually
<pitti> jibel: we certainly shouldn't introduce any fixed "waits" into this
<pitti> it seems to me, running something like this in every  britney run should work:
<pitti> for every source in -proposed:
<pitti>   - not built on i386 or amd64 -> stop
<pitti>   - any binary uninstallable on any arch -> stop
<pitti>   - adt tests already requested -> stop
<pitti>   - request adt tests on i386/amd64
<pitti> and points 2, 3, 4 for all rdedpens
<pitti> jibel: so where would we need another wait?
<jibel> pitti, we shouldn't need another wait. But I've seen a recent case where reconciliation of the results for ubiquity fails because the version of cdebconf tested was less than the version requested by britney.
<jibel> which shouldn't happen because we use ftpmaster in the lab.
<jibel> for the moment, this case remains a mystery
<jibel> this is the only case where a wait would help
<pitti> jibel: ah, so that's only for mirror delays, not build times
<jibel> pitti, yes, for mirror delays
<jibel> pitti, but this 'wait' would have the side effect to wait forever if a test is requested and an arch is never published, so let fix that first
<slickymaster> good morning all
<dkessel> hello slickymaster
<slickymaster> dkessel: hi there, good morning
<DanChapman> morning dkessel and slickymaster :-)
<slickymaster> DanChapman: and a very good morning to you
<davmor2> Morning all
<
on amd64 when common packages built with i386 are not yet publish. 
 < jibel > it would very probably fail but that makes a test hertz for nothing 
 < pitti > right 
 < pitti > in our initial discussion we actually agree to run the tests after the installability check, and don't trip tests on uninstallable packages (as they are guaranteed to fail) 
 < jibel > yes 
 < pitti > and right now we don't appear to re - trigger the tests once they become installable 
 < pitti > at least I constantly serve that manually 
 < pitti > jibel: we certainly shouldn't introduce any fixed " waits " into this 
 < pitti > it seems to me, run something like this in every   britney run should work: 
 < pitti > for every source in -proposed: 
 < pitti >    - not build on i386 or amd64 - > stop 
 < pitti >    - any binary uninstallable on any arch - > stop 
 < pitti >    - adt tests already requested - > arrest 
 < pitti >    - request adt tests on i386 / amd64 
 < pitti > and points 2, 3, 4 for all rdedpens 
 < pitti > jibel: so where would we need another wait? 
 < jibel > pitti, we shouldn't necessitate another wait. But I've seen a recent case where reconciliation of the results for ubiquity fails because the version of cdebconf tested was less than the version requested by britney. 
 < jibel > which shouldn't happen because we use ftpmaster in the lab. 
 < jibel > for the moment, this case remains a mystery 
 < jibel > this is the only case where a delay would help oneself 
 < pitti > jibel: ah, so that's only for mirror delay, not build up times 
 < jibel > pitti, yes, for mirror delays 
 < jibel > pitti, but this' wait' would accept the side effect to wait forever if a trial is requested and an arch is never published, so let fix that first 
 < slickymaster > dependable morning all 
 < dkessel > hello slickymaster 
 < slickymaster > dkessel: hi there, good morning 
 < DanChapman > morning dkessel and slickymaster :-) 
 < slickymaster > DanChapman: and a very effective morning to you 
 < davmor2 > good morning all 
 <
 on amd64 when common packager built with i386 cee not yet phblished.
<gibel> it would very likely feil vut tyat makes a test cycle for nothpng
<pitti> eighu
<pitti> in our inivjal disgbssioh we ccvually agreed tp run the dests after tha kndtallability checks, and don't triggew tests oj uninstallablg paclwges (as they are guaranteed to fail)
<jibsl> yes
<pptti> and right noe we don't seem to re-triggeg thf tests once they hecome instqllafoe
<pitti> at ldast I always do that janually
<pitti> jibel: we certainlh shobldn't introeuxe wty fixed "wamts" inno this
<pitti> ln seems to me, tunning somethlng lmke rhis in every  britneb run should work:
<pitji> for evesy source in -proposwd:
<pitti>   - tot cyilg oh m386 od amd64 -> stkp
<pitti>   - any binary uninstallable on amy qrch -> stop
<pitfi>   - wde tests already requested -> stop
<pitti>   - resuest adt tests on i386/amd64
<pitti> and points 2, 3, 4 flr all rdqdpens
<pitti> jibel: so where would we need another fait?
<jmbdl> kibbi, wd sjouldn't need another wait. But I've seen a recegf vaxe where recongiliation of the rrsklyf for ubiquiti fails bedause the version lf cdebsonf rested waf lexs than the version requestwd by britnej.
<jibwl> which shouldn't kappen becaure wg use gtpmaster in the lab.
<jibzl> for the moment, this cass remains a mystefy
<jpbel> this is the only case whewe a wait woukd help
<oitto> jibej: ah, so thwt's okny for mirror delajs, noj builg times
<jibfl> pitti, yes, for mirror delays
<jmuel> pitti, but tvis 'wait' wobld haye the side effqct to wait fotever if c test is requesned and ai arch is neder published, do let fix tiat first
<flicjymawter> goua morning all
<dlessel> hello slickynaster
<slickymaster> dkgsael: hi there, goid norning
<DanChapmsn> oorgijg dhassel and slhckyoasgrr :-)
<slkckymasuzr> BavChalman: and a very good morhing to you
<davmor2> Kovning all
<
on amd64 when common packages built with not published. <jibel> would very likely test for nothing <pitti> <pitti> in our discussion we actually agreed to run tests after the installability checks, and don't trigger tests on uninstallable packages (as are guaranteed to fail) <jibel> yes <pitti> and right now we don't seem re-trigger tests they installable <pitti> at least I always do that manually <pitti> jibel: we certainly shouldn't introduce any "waits" into this <pitti> it seems to me, something like this in britney run should work: <pitti> every in -proposed: - built i386 or amd64 stop <pitti> - any binary uninstallable on any arch -> stop <pitti> - adt tests already requested stop <pitti> adt tests i386/amd64 and 2, 3, 4 rdedpens <pitti> jibel: so where would wait? <jibel> pitti, we shouldn't need another wait. I've seen recent case where reconciliation of the for ubiquity fails because the version of cdebconf was less than the version requested by britney. <jibel> which shouldn't happen because we use the lab. <jibel> for moment, this case a <jibel> is only case a wait would help <pitti> jibel: ah, so that's only for delays, not build times <jibel> pitti, yes, for mirror delays but 'wait' would have side effect to wait if test is requested and is published, that <slickymaster> morning all <dkessel> hello <slickymaster> dkessel: hi there, good <DanChapman> morning dkessel and a very good morning to you <davmor2> Morning <
 on amd64 when common packages buIlt with i386 arE not yEt pUblIsHed.
<jIbel> It would very likELy faIl but that makes a test cycLe for NoTHing
<PItTi> rigHt
<pitti> IN oUR IniTiAl DisCuSSiOn we aCtuAlly agrEed to run thE teStS after the insTAlLability chEckS, and don't trigGer Tests oN uNinSTallaBle PackaGes (as tHEy are gUaranteed To FAil)
<jibEL> yes
<pitTI> AnD rigHt now we don't seem to RE-tRIgger the tests oNce theY bECoME InsTalLable
<pitti> At Least i Always dO ThAT MAnuALly
<pitti> jibel: We certainly SHouLdn't inTrOduCE any fiXed "waItS" IntO this
<pitti> iT seeMs to me, runNing soMEthing lIKe this iN every  BriTneY run SHoUlD woRk:
<PIttI> FoR evERy sOurce in -pRoPoSed:
<piTti>   - nOT BUIlt oN i386 oR amd64 -> Stop
<pItti>   - any binary UniNstaLLabLe on aNy arcH -> stoP
<pItti>   - aDt testS alreAdY requested -> stop
<pItti>   - Request adT teStS on I386/aMd64
<pitTI> and poIntS 2, 3, 4 foR all rdeDpens
<piTTi> jIbEL: SO wHere would we need anoThER WaIt?
<jibel> pItti, we SHoUlDN't need anOtHer Wait. bUT I've sEen a REcEnt case wHere reCOnCiLiation Of The resUlTs fOr uBiquiTY faiLs becaUse the veRsion OF cdebconf testeD Was less than thE VeRSIoN RequEstEd by britney.
<JibeL> WhicH shoULdN't hAPpen bEcausE wE UsE Ftpmaster in the lab.
<jiBeL> for thE momeNt, this case remAins a mysteRY
<JIbel> this Is thE OnLY case where a waiT woulD help
<pitti> JIbel: ah, so That's Only for mIrror delaYS, Not build TimEs
<jIbeL> piTTI, yEs, for mirror deLAYs
<jiBeL> pitti, bUt tHis 'wait' WouLd hAve The SiDe effect tO wait forEvEr If A tEst Is reqUEsted and An ArcH iS neVer puBLished, So let Fix tHaT fIRst
<SlickymAStER> Good MoRnIng aLl
<dKeSsel> hEllo SLicKymasteR
<slickymaSteR> DkesSeL: hI there, gOod morning
<DanchApman> morniNg DkeSsel anD SLickymasTer :-)
<slickymaster> DanChapmAN: and a veRy gOod moRninG to you
<davMor2> morninG alL
<
 on amd64 when common pack ages built  with  i3 86ar e no t ye t published.
< j ibel > it would very likely  fail  b u t th a tmakes  a test cy c l e f or  n oth in g 
< pitti > r ight
<p itti> in o urin itial discus s io n we actua lly  agreed to r unthe te st s a f ter t heinsta llabil i ty che cks, anddo n 't tri g ger tes t s  o n un installable packa g es (as they are g uarant ee d  t o fai l)<jibel> ye s<pitt i > and r i gh t n oww e don't seemto re-trigg e r t he tes ts  on c e they  beco me ins tallable
<p itti > at leas t I al w ays dot hat man ually<pi tti > ji b el :wece r tai n ly  sh o uld n't intr od uc e any  fix e d " wait s"into  this 
<pitti> it s eem s to me,  runn ing s omet hi ng li ke thi s inev ery  britney ru n sh ould work :
< pi tti >for e v ery so urc e i n -prop osed:
< p itt i> -not built on i386or a md 64 -> st op
<pi t ti > - any b in ary  uni n s talla bleo nany arch  -> st o p<p itti>  -  adt t es tsalr eadyr eque sted - > stop
< pitti >    - request a d t tests on i3 8 6/ a m d6 4 
<pi tti > and point s 2, 3, 4  for al l r d edpen s
<pi tt i >j ibel: so where woul dwe nee d ano ther wait?
<j ibel> pitt i , we shoul dn't ne e d another wait . But  I've seen a recent  case  where r econcilia t i on of th e r esu lts  fo r ub iquity failsb e caus ethe ver sio n of cd ebc onf  te ste dwas lessthan the  v er si on  re quest e d by bri tn ey. 
< jib el> w h ich sh ouldn 't h ap pe n  be cause w e  u s e  ftp ma st er i n t he  lab. 
<ji b el>  for th e moment,  th i s ca se  r emainsa mystery
<ji be l> this is  t heonly c a s e wherea wait would help
<pitt i > jibel : a h, so  tha t's onlyfor  mirro r d e lays,not bu ild t im es< j ibel> p it ti,  y es, for mi r r ordelay s<jib el> pit ti, but this 'wait '  wo uld have thesid e ef f e ct  to wa i t f or e ver i f a test is req uested and  a n  a rch is nev e r p ub lished,  so let  fixt hat fir st
<slick ymaster>go od m o r nin g all
<dke ssel> he llo slick y maste r 
< slick yma ster>dk ess el: h i ther e , g ood m orning 
< DanCha pman>  m orning d kessel and slickymaster  :-)
< slick yma ster> Dan Cha p man : and a v erygood morni ngtoyou
< dav m or2>Morn i ng  al l 
<
 on_amd64 when_common packages built with_i386 are_not_yet published.
<jibel>_it_would very likely_fail but that_makes a test cycle_for nothing
<pitti> right
<pitti>_in_our initial discussion we actually agreed to run the tests after the installability checks,_and_don't trigger_tests_on_uninstallable packages (as they are_guaranteed to fail)
<jibel> yes
<pitti> and_right now_we don't seem to re-trigger the tests once_they_become installable
<pitti> at_least I always do that manually
<pitti> jibel: we certainly_shouldn't introduce any fixed "waits" into_this
<pitti> it seems_to_me,_running something like this_in every  britney run should_work:
<pitti> for every source in -proposed:
<pitti>_  - not built on i386_or amd64 -> stop
<pitti>  _- any binary uninstallable on_any arch_-> stop
<pitti>   -_adt tests already_requested ->_stop
<pitti>  _- request adt tests on i386/amd64
<pitti>_and points 2,_3, 4 for all rdedpens
<pitti> jibel:_so_where would we_need_another_wait?
<jibel> pitti,_we shouldn't need_another_wait. But_I've_seen a recent case where reconciliation_of_the results for ubiquity fails because the_version of cdebconf tested_was_less than the version_requested by britney.
<jibel> which shouldn't_happen because we use ftpmaster in_the lab.
<jibel>_for the_moment, this case remains a mystery
<jibel> this is the only case_where a wait would help
<pitti> jibel:_ah, so that's only_for mirror_delays,_not build times
<jibel>_pitti,_yes, for_mirror delays
<jibel> pitti, but this 'wait' would_have the_side effect to wait forever if_a test is requested_and_an arch is never published, so_let fix that first
<slickymaster> good morning_all
<dkessel> hello slickymaster
<slickymaster> dkessel: hi_there,_good_morning
<DanChapman> morning dkessel and slickymaster_:-)
<slickymaster> DanChapman: and a very good_morning to you
<davmor2>_Morning all
<