| juliank | slangasek: I'm not pitti, but I can say that the coverage of the diff from 1.0.7 to 1.0.10 is 76%, with the average code coverage improving to 83.88% - https://codecov.io/gh/borgbackup/borg/compare/f32c885...e5f712129685e02a6755fa53f1546a66e842b215/diff - that would make me fairly confident. | 08:33 |
|---|---|---|
| juliank | That link really should have been in the SRU bug IMO | 08:34 |
| juliank | There's one part that is not well tested, which is the newly adding importing of paperkeys. If that's broken, that would not cause a regression, though. | 08:35 |
| === JanC_ is now known as JanC | ||
| erle- | Why is “unattended-upgrades” updated so often recently? | 10:10 |
| erle- | And why is it called upgrades rather than updates in the first place? | 10:10 |
| JanC | erle-: did you read the changelog? | 10:52 |
| rbasak | erle-: probably because "update" and "upgrade" have specific meanings in the context of apt. | 12:25 |
| === NCommander is now known as mcasadevall | ||
| slangasek | juliank: well, I don't think unit test code coverage ever tells the whole story, but that's useful info, thanks | 21:59 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!