On 08/05/2016 08:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> > > Ultimately, I think we need some form of automated stabilization, e.g.
>>> > > if a package version sits in ~ for 30 days and there are no blockers at
>>> > > that point, the new version should go automatically to stable on all
>>> > > architectures where there is a previous stable version.
>> > 
>> > I LOUDLY disagree. The stable tree should not be compromised by such
>> > automation, it is already bad enough without proper use-testing in some
>> > cases. Stable isn't only about building properly.
> and that's why we don't commit straight to stable. people are supposed
> to be testing those ~arch versions for a while before they go stable.
> That testing should cover the use cases you are talking about and work
> out the bugs. Once that's done, we should be able to move the package to
> stable.

It was recently a discussion in #-dev that could help on this, the
automation can't be only build-testing, but if writing usage-tests
(protocol, interface access testing etc for servers etc) automation
would indeed be helpful.

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3