[08:33] <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.
[08:34] <juliank> That link really should have been in the SRU bug IMO
[08:35] <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.
[10:10] <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?
[10:52] <JanC> erle-: did you read the changelog?
[12:25] <rbasak> erle-: probably because "update" and "upgrade" have specific meanings in the context of apt.
[21:59] <slangasek> juliank: well, I don't think unit test code coverage ever tells the whole story, but that's useful info, thanks