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

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

Paul Gevers writes ("Re: Bug#908757: r-cran-processx: autopkgtest regression"):
> I really appreciate your comments.

Oh good!  I sometimes feel we are talking past each other.  I hope
it's not too frustrating for you.

> 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:
> >>>                      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.

Maybe not, in which case yoou could fold together those two rows.

> >>>   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.

Then you could write something ambiguous in the table, maybe ?

        deps involved in   versions from             versions from
        same migration[1]   Debian testing            Debian unstable

with probably a footnote:

   [1] [insert explanation of which packages that might be,
        and/or how to find out what they were]

Explicitly presenting the missingness of information in this way is a
lot clearer than attempting to write prose which carefully omits to
specify it.


Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   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.

Reply to: