El lunes, 6 de agosto de 2018 15:34:02 -03 Paul Gevers escribió: > Dear all, Hi Paul :-) > To be sure, I don't want to block/delay anything here, I just want > autopkgtests to be taken seriously. If you as the maintainer of > ktexteditor say please ignore my test for migration, who am I to say > you're wrong. However, you have also added that test for a reason. That's totally understandable from your part. Now the test has clearly failed. The regression could either be in Qt or in some part of the KDE PIM stack (not the meta package). > On 06-08-18 15:33, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > > I used i, d, v, y, shift+p. I even retried them just now in case I missed > > something. > > What does idvyP (insert mode; add characters d v y P) have to do with > the failing test case? Lot's of vim code seems to go all right, there is > only 1 regression. > With the above and... > As long as this is the only thing, I agree with you, but if you don't > know what's wrong you don't actually know. (Albeit the amount of passing > tests says something, but once you let this one into testing, the whole > autopkgtest of ktexteditor becomes worthless until this issue is fixed > somehow). ... considering it seems happens only in a certain specific case for a certain specific option that can be easily overridden by using the editor in it's normal, default mode: yes, even if there is a regression it's negligible enough to delay things further. So the autopkg tests did it's job, but the balance between pushing Qt or fixing the test/offending code makes it not worth the effort to wait. [snip] > I don't know which package you exactly mean with kdepim as that is a > meta-package that is the same in unstable and testing since 2018-06-10. KDE PIM is a big stack, which needs to be updated and possibly with a small transition involved. We do not want both things tangled together. > All source packages with kdepim in the name are also the same in > unstable and testing (haven't checked binary rebuilds). But if the > package you are really referring to is the same in unstable and testing, > it can't cause the regression. Is it the same? If so, than the > regression isn't a bug there. If not, maybe we can investigate (by > testing) and check if that needs its migration blocked or delayed. There have been fixes in Qt for bugs that might have been used as features, it's not the first time this happens. > > * If the bug is in kdepim then the best way to solve it would be to > > psuh a > > > > new version, for which we need a transition. > > And delay or prevent the version in unstable from migrating to testing? > Depending on severity I guess. Exactly, the severity of this bug is small enough to delay things further. > > - No users have complained about this so far, and we do have lots of users > > using unstable and reporting bugs. This has proven to be a nice regression > > method so far ;-) > > Of course. > > > So I think the best way to go here is just let Qt migrate. > > In 3 days that happens if we don't do anything. I'll let the RT judge if > that is worth waiting for or if migration is more urgent. Same here :-) -- Geek Inside! Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.