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
13 matches
Mail list logo
