[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#908757: r-cran-processx: autopkgtest regression

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


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: