Control: tags -1 + confirmed On Mon, 2025-07-28 at 22:42 +0100, Samuel Henrique wrote: > Control: tag -1 - moreinfo > > Hello Jonathan, > > On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 at 22:21, Jonathan Wiltshire <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > This proposal does not fit the usual criteria for an update to the > > stable > > release. Why do the enhanced tests need adding *now* for > > hypothetical > > future security updates? > > I thought increasing test coverage was within the scope of stable-pu > updates, is this not the case? I mean, this will make it easier to > catch regressions in stable uploads.
In general, test coverage updates are a thing that we accept as part of updates, but usually not as the sole reason for an update (similar to e.g. documentation updates). > I might have misunderstood the question, but we want to add these > tests to bookworm in order to detect regressions in future updates to > the rsync package in bookworm. We've had a bad regression pushed to > bookworm in January this year as part of a CVE fix, that's the type > of problem I'm trying to avoid from happening, does this answer it? In this case I'm willing to go with it, to try and avoid such issues. Please go ahead; sorry for the delay. Regards, Adam
