On 30/08/16 15:34, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 02:52:45PM +0200, Tomasz Nitecki wrote:
>> <CUT>
> Note that patch 0003 doesn't actually change anything
> (the order of the sort fields is wrong).
> 
> How has this patch been tested?

Yes, you are right. I didn't test it as I was thinking about it as a
potential optional feature. One that needs to be changed to be useful.


>> 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.

Nicolas, would you like to change your patch 0003 according to the
comments above and make it optional (preferably activated by a command
line option)? Or would you prefer if I do it?


> <CUT>
> 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.

At the moment, we are deciding if autoremoval is new based on: source,
version and removal time. If the removal time changes, package is going
to be shown again. We could probably change 'removal time' to 'first
seen' (first appearance of autorm bug), but first I will have to confirm
that this field works as I think it does.

Anyway, I believe that this subject is not related to this (#835653)
pending bug, so how about we move to a new (possibly wishlist?) bug report?


> Similar, O/RFA -> ITA changes should also not trigger listing as "new".

I'll answer this in a reply to your follow up.


Regards,
T.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to