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