Hi Sudip
On 22-09-2020 20:57, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> And, the final version (unless someone suggests some change):
[...]
> Executing that command is considered to be a trivial test, that
> which does not provide significant coverage for a package as a whole.
I'm not 100% sure as I'm not a
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:02 AM Holger Levsen wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 08:39:44PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > After discussing with few people, I now intend to file them with
> > "severity: important" and I will also reduce the severity of the
> > previously open similar bugs to
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 08:39:44PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> After discussing with few people, I now intend to file them with
> "severity: important" and I will also reduce the severity of the
> previously open similar bugs to 'important'.
thank you, for all your work on this! (which
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 2:53 PM Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 09:09:51 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > Maybe you could include something like this (the wording can be improved):
> >
> > Note, however, that such superficial tests are still somewhat useful,
> > as they
On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 09:09:51 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Maybe you could include something like this (the wording can be improved):
>
> Note, however, that such superficial tests are still somewhat useful,
> as they will be considered, for example, to block dependencies from
>
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 12:31:13AM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> HI Mattia,
>
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 8:58 PM Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 08:39:44PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > > After discussing with few people, I now intend to file them with
> > > "severity:
HI Mattia,
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 8:58 PM Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 08:39:44PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > After discussing with few people, I now intend to file them with
> > "severity: important" and I will also reduce the severity of the
> > previously open
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 08:39:44PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> After discussing with few people, I now intend to file them with
> "severity: important" and I will also reduce the severity of the
> previously open similar bugs to 'important'.
That's good.
But please also share your proposed
Hi All,
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:21 PM Sudip Mukherjee
wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> If the test done in the autopkgtest does not provide significant test
> coverage then it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial".
> Ref:
>
HI Holger,
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:02 PM Holger Levsen wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 09:21:52PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > If the test done in the autopkgtest does not provide significant test
> > coverage then it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial".
> > Ref:
> >
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 09:21:52PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
[...]
sigh. I forgot to thank you for all the work you put into this! I *very*
much appreciate good tests and your work to improve the quality of
autopkgtests! I'm sorry this severity detail distracted me from expressing
this.
So:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 09:21:52PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> If the test done in the autopkgtest does not provide significant test
> coverage then it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial".
> Ref:
>
Hi All,
If the test done in the autopkgtest does not provide significant test
coverage then it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial".
Ref:
https://salsa.debian.org/ci-team/autopkgtest/-/blob/master/doc/README.package-tests.rst
Examples of tests which are not significant includes
On 9/17/20 10:54 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> That's not the only possible reason for a bug to have a severity of
> "serious".
>
> These issues do violate the RC Policy for bullseye, which means that
> each "in the ... release manager's opinion, makes the package
> unsuitable for release".
If
On 9/4/20 8:52 PM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> If the test done in the autopkgtest does not provide significant test
> coverage then it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial".
> Ref: https://people.debian.org/~eriberto/README.package-tests.html
>
> Examples of tests which are
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 7:47 PM Paul Gevers wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On 17-09-2020 13:38, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > And consider the case where the bug has been fixed in git but the package
> > has not been uploaded because that small change didn't warrant an upload
> > of its own. When the FTBFS
On 9/17/20 11:12 AM, Ole Streicher wrote:
> "Adam D. Barratt" writes:
>> On Thu, 2020-09-17 at 09:55 +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>>> Graham Inggs writes:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 09:18, Raphael Hertzog
wrote:
> Please reduce the severity of all the bugs that you opened to
>
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > And consider the case where the bug has been fixed in git but the package
> > has not been uploaded because that small change didn't warrant an upload
> > of its own. When the FTBFS bug pops up, the fix for the autopkgtest will
> > be uploaded.
>
> For
Hi,
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020, Paul Gevers wrote:
> This. I have written it done in response to bug [#969819]:
>
> Notwithstanding the wording, the Release Team is happy with the bugs
> that Sudip is filing. Because of the way that autopkgtests are used in
> the Debian infrastructure to influence
Hi all,
On 17-09-2020 13:38, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> And consider the case where the bug has been fixed in git but the package
> has not been uploaded because that small change didn't warrant an upload
> of its own. When the FTBFS bug pops up, the fix for the autopkgtest will
> be uploaded.
For
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> i think I will leave it for the Release Team to decide. But just
> consider the scenario when the severity of this bug for a package 'X'
> is reduced and then another FTBFS bug is raised on that same package.
> The FTBFS bug will be fixed and it will
Hi David,
On 17-09-2020 12:50, David Bremner wrote:
> Paul Gevers writes:
> OK, that's all very well, I understand the release team needs to do
> things for its own needs. However
>
> 1) Such an autopkgtest would have prevented an actual RC (as in makes
> the package unusable) bug in a recent
Paul Gevers writes:
>
> Notwithstanding the wording, the Release Team is happy with the bugs
> that Sudip is filing. Because of the way that autopkgtests are used in
> the Debian infrastructure to influence migration from unstable to
> testing [1], it is very important that autopkgtests are
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 10:30 AM Ole Streicher wrote:
>
> "Adam D. Barratt" writes:
> > On Thu, 2020-09-17 at 09:55 +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> >> Graham Inggs writes:
> >> > On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 09:18, Raphael Hertzog
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > Please reduce the severity of all the bugs that
"Adam D. Barratt" writes:
> On Thu, 2020-09-17 at 09:55 +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> Graham Inggs writes:
>> > On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 09:18, Raphael Hertzog
>> > wrote:
>> > > Please reduce the severity of all the bugs that you opened to
>> > > "normal" or "minor".
>> >
>> > Why?
>>
>> It
On Thu, 2020-09-17 at 09:55 +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Graham Inggs writes:
> > On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 09:18, Raphael Hertzog
> > wrote:
> > > Please reduce the severity of all the bugs that you opened to
> > > "normal" or "minor".
> >
> > Why?
>
> It does not violate the Debian Policy,
Graham Inggs writes:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 09:18, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> Please reduce the severity of all the bugs that you opened to "normal"
>> or "minor".
>
> Why?
It does not violate the Debian Policy, and it does not make the package
somehow unusable. The only practical difference
Hi all,
On 17-09-2020 10:03, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 7:18 AM Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
>> I agreed about those bugs being filed but I strongly disagree about the
>> "serious" severity that you used for those bugs. You should have mentioned
>> your intent to use a RC-level
Quoting Graham Inggs (2020-09-17 09:28:05)
> Hi Raphael
>
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 09:18, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Please reduce the severity of all the bugs that you opened to "normal"
> > or "minor".
>
> Why?
RC severities imply "the package should be kicked if this is not solved"
which
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 7:18 AM Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I agreed about those bugs being filed but I strongly disagree about the
> "serious" severity that you used for those bugs. You should have mentioned
> your intent to use a RC-level severity and I would have reacted.
If I were part of the
Hi Graham,
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020, Graham Inggs wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 09:18, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Please reduce the severity of all the bugs that you opened to "normal"
> > or "minor".
>
> Why?
Because the packages are not broken and do not deserve to be threatened by
a testing
Hi Raphael
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 09:18, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Please reduce the severity of all the bugs that you opened to "normal"
> or "minor".
Why?
Regards
Graham
On Fri, 04 Sep 2020, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> If the test done in the autopkgtest does not provide significant test
> coverage then it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial".
> Ref: https://people.debian.org/~eriberto/README.package-tests.html
I agreed about those bugs being filed but
On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 12:31:22AM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 1:56 AM Paul Wise wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 6:53 PM Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> >
> > > If the test done in the autopkgtest does not provide significant test
> > > coverage then it
Hi Paul,
On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 1:56 AM Paul Wise wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 6:53 PM Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
>
> > If the test done in the autopkgtest does not provide significant test
> > coverage then it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial".
> ...
> > I am still trying to
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 6:53 PM Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> If the test done in the autopkgtest does not provide significant test
> coverage then it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial".
...
> I am still trying to figure out a generalized method to find them but
> an initial script has
Hi All,
If the test done in the autopkgtest does not provide significant test
coverage then it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial".
Ref: https://people.debian.org/~eriberto/README.package-tests.html
Examples of tests which are not significant includes (its not a complete list):
1)
37 matches
Mail list logo
