Re: Dealing with ci.d.n for package regressions

[Chris Lamb <lamby@debian.org>]

Hi Paul,

> > ie. 75 out of "top" 100 packages according to popcon are missing
> > autopkgtests.
> 
> Yes, go provide patches to add them ;) But let's make them smart.

Well, you're pushing at an open door with me with the "patches
welcome" call to arms :)

But is there not value to even the smallest test here? I've caught
a ludicrous number of idiotic mistakes in my packages and code in
general with even the dumbest of "smoke" tests.

Indeed, the return-on-investment versus clever tests is often
scary and that's before we start trading clichés such as "the
perfect is the enemy of the good" etc. etc.

> https://ci.debian.net/status/

(I note that these are statistics about packages that actually have
tests.)


Best wishes,

-- 
      ,''`.
     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      lamby@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
       `-