On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 02:52:45PM +0200, Tomasz Nitecki wrote:
> tags 835653 + pending
> thanks
>
>
> Hey Nicolas,
>
> On 28/08/16 17:31, Nicolas Braud-Santoni wrote:
> > I wrote up a quick patch that takes into account the package names
> > when sorting (or bug id, in the case of RFSes), then added the
> > removal time (in the case of autorm) and cleaned up a bit the
> > surrounding code by using `sort_by` rather than `sort { |a,b| expr(a)
> > <=> expr(b) }`.
>
> Thanks for the patches! :)
>
> I've applied both 0001 and 0002, so #835653 should be resolved with the
> upcoming upload.
>
> However, I do agree with Paul about making the sort by removal date
> feature (patch 0003) optional.
Note that patch 0003 doesn't actually change anything
(the order of the sort fields is wrong).
How has this patch been tested?
> I'm also wondering if sorting by removal
> date as the primary sorting field, wouldn't be more useful in this case
> (so that the packages that are going to be removed first are at the
> top)? What do you think?
I was actually about to suggest something similar, since this part of
"how-can-i-help --old --all" makes most sense when it tells you what
is going to be removed soon.
Paul, why are you diffing the daily output of --old?
Diffing the --old output should be roughly equivalent
to not using --old.
Not sure whether it is related to what Paul is doing, but I would call
it a bug that how-can-i-help (without --old) lists a package under
"New packages going to be removed from Debian 'testing'" each time
a comment to a bug report moved that removal further into the future.
As an example, "how-can-i-help --all" currently lists fpc and all it's
rdeps every day again as "new" due to the discussion in #826300.
Similar, O/RFA -> ITA changes should also not trigger listing as "new".
> Regards,
> T. Nitecki
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
