On 23.10.17 16:46, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 04:17:37PM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote: >> I admit my motivation was mostly to make yet another "New Version >> Available" button on our tasks page go away ... and add another link to >> the registries. > That's a perfectly valid motivation and pushes me from time to time to > work down this list of yellow buttons (if we do not have some R > migration or lots of open bugs). Everybody should just pick from our > tasks page some interesting target. In most cases such upgrades are > really straigthforward.
Args. Well. Kind of. The problematic bits are in debian/patches. I admit to have been bad at this myself, but even in the best of all possible cases that upstream has adopted a patch, every patch to go through, understand and adapt or decide to ignore - that is work. And it happens at the wrong place. It should be on upstream's github. >> Of course I agree with the test scripts. I truly believe though that we >> need to think more about how to perform this testing on a workflow level. > +1 Thanks. I am a bit stuck on how to treat data-only packages. We have several ways on how to get public data maintained. But for testing, it all needs to be a package already. So we may have to somehow intertwine the data collection with the package formation with that data in place. I am a bit shying off from any such automated package generation. This may be something for volatile, though. Best, Steffen
