Re: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions
- To: Paul Gevers <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: Debian CI team <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions
- From: Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 13:10:45 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <m2n.s.1fFBsYfirstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20180503205017.GU18780@mapreri.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20180504111105.GA43914@Jamess-MacBook.local> <email@example.com> <m2n.s.1fFBsYfirstname.lastname@example.org>
Paul Gevers writes ("Re: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions"):
> Can we carry this discussion over to email@example.com (added
> in CC now)?
Sure. Dropped the other lists.
> On 04-05-18 15:24, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I think therefore that tests should be triggered based, additionally,
> > on binary package dependencies as found in the archive. For every
> > binary package B which is produced by a source package S and depends
> > on another binary package D: tests of S should be retriggered for
> > updates to D. "Depends on" would probably mean "is mentioned as first
> > alternative in any Depends on Recommends requirement". This can be
> > determined from the published metadata without unpacking any source
> > packages or looking at Testsuite-Triggers.
> Let me ponder on this a bit more.
Let me know what you think.
> The code to calculate which packages are triggered lives here:
> (bfa02859 Line 334-340)
Thanks. I haven't worked on Britney before. Can you point me to
instructions for testing changes to it ?
Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.