Hi Ian,
I really appreciate your comments.
On 18-09-18 17:24, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Paul Gevers writes ("Re: Bug#908757: r-cran-processx: autopkgtest regression"):
>> On 18-09-18 14:23, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> How about a table:
>>>
>>> The recent upload of r-cran-processx seems to have introduced a
>>> regression:
>>>
>>> passing failing
>>>
>>> r-cran-processx <version> <version>
>>> autopkgtest (currenlty in testing) (currently in unstable)
>>>
>>> r-cran-processx <version> <version>
>>> binary packages (currenlty in testing) (currently in unstable)
>>
>> The two above should nowadays be in sync, so that is not the issue. If
>> they are not in sync, I'll never file a bug report.
>
> But the reader may not know that.
To be honest, apart from you I think most readers aren't aware of it
being possibly an issue.
>>> some-dependency <version> <version>
>>> binary package (currenlty in testing) (currently in unstable)
>>>
>>> other packages those from testing those from testing
>>>
>>> or something ?
>
> To put it another way, I think the existing prose representation is
> trying to present and contrast a fairly complicated pair of
> situations. A more structured representation can help.
I'll be pondering on it a bit more. I am missing the information in the
britney excuses to actually add the "some-dependencies" row, which makes
the table less useful/correct if I leave that out. It would also mean I
have to restructure my data file and tooling to add the current version
in testing as I don't process that currently. I want to fix other issues
first.
Paul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature