Bug#1067490: britney: excuses: Display release-team blocks more prominently

Control: reassign -1 release.debian.org
Control: retitle -1 britney: excuses: Display release-team blocks more prominently
Control: user [email protected]
Control: usertags -1 britney

Hi!

On Fri, 2024-03-22 at 16:12:56 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> top-posting and leaving quite some context because the main point of my
> message is to actually share your bug report to the release team.
> If I remember correctly, tracker.debian.org is not doing any fancy
> treatment. We are just turning some YAML into HTML:
> https://release.debian.org/britney/excuses.yaml
> 
> We copy the lines from "excuses" as-is so if you want to change the order
> here, it needs to happen on the britney side.
> 
> Feel free to reassign this to release.debian.org or any other suitable
> package if you want.

Ah, ok, reassigning now to the (hopefully) correct package, thanks!

On Fri, 2024-03-22 at 12:13:49 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Package: tracker.debian.org
> Severity: wishlist
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Currently when a package is blocked by a release-team block hint, that
> appears at the end of the "Issues preventing migration" list, which
> can easily be missed if there are also lots of autopkgtest issues,
> (see the current dpkg tracker page).
> 
> ,---
> Migration status for dpkg (1.22.4 to 1.22.6): BLOCKED: Rejected/violates migration policy/introduces a regression
> Issues preventing migration:
> ∙ ∙ Updating dpkg would introduce bugs in testing: #1067427
> ∙ ∙ autopkgtest for ceilometer/blocked-on-ci-infra: i386: Ignored failure
> ∙ ∙ autopkgtest for chrony/4.5-1: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), i386: Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass
> ∙ ∙ autopkgtest for dash/0.5.12-6: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), i386: Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass
> ∙ ∙ autopkgtest for dpkg/1.22.6: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Pass, armhf: Pass, i386: Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass
> ∙ ∙ autopkgtest for gsocket/1.4.41-1: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), i386: Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass
> ∙ ∙ autopkgtest for lintian/2.117.0: amd64: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), arm64: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), armel: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), i386: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), ppc64el: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), s390x: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻)
> ∙ ∙ Not touching package due to block request by sramacher (please contact debian-release if update is needed)
> Additional info:
> ∙ ∙ Piuparts tested OK - https://piuparts.debian.org/sid/source/d/dpkg.html
> ∙ ∙ Reproducible on amd64 - info ♻
> ∙ ∙ Reproducible on arm64 - info ♻
> ∙ ∙ Waiting for reproducibility test results on armhf - info ♻
> ∙ ∙ Reproducible on i386 - info ♻
> ∙ ∙ 11 days old (needed 5 days)
> Not considered
> `---
> 
> The block seems like the most important information there, because
> even if everything else gets solved that still requires active action
> by the release-team. So I think it would be better to place it as the
> first item, also so that it does not get drown by autopkgtest entries
> that can be many. Also perhaps the autopkgtest entries should be
> nested? As in:
> 
> ,---
> ∙ ∙ Status for autopkgtest:
> ∙ ∙ ∙ ceilometer/blocked-on-ci-infra: i386: Ignored failure
> ∙ ∙ ∙ chrony/4.5-1: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), i386: Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass
> ∙ ∙ ∙ dash/0.5.12-6: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), i386: Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass
> ∙ ∙ ∙ dpkg/1.22.6: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Pass, armhf: Pass, i386: Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass
> ∙ ∙ ∙ gsocket/1.4.41-1: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armel: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), i386: Pass, ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Pass
> ∙ ∙ ∙ lintian/2.117.0: amd64: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), arm64: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), armel: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), armhf: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), i386: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), ppc64el: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻), s390x: Regression or new test ♻ (reference ♻)
> `---
> 
> Which would remove repetition and make it visually easier to see?
> 
> (This has come up recently, I think multiple times, as I've got multiple
> private queries, and some public ones, where it looks like people missed
> the main reason for why dpkg is not migrating.)
> 
> (Also as an aside, perhaps autopkgtest entries that are all-pass,
> should appear in the “Additional info” part instead?)

Thanks,
Guillem