On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:27:34 +1000, Andrew Bennetts <[email protected]> wrote: > <https://bugs.launchpad.net/bzr-builddeb/+bug/718944> proposes replacing the > existing changelog merge logic with dpkg-mergechangelogs' implementation. > I've > done that in <lp:~spiv/bzr-builddeb/use-dpkg-mergechangelogs> (simply by > shelling out to it), but it changes the existing output enough that the > existing > tests fail. > > So here's where I'd like help: tell me, is the new output better (or at least > no > worse) for you? > > If so, we can adjust the tests accordingly and land it. If not, we can try to > figure out what to do instead.
Hi, I had three failures: bzrlib.plugins.builddeb.tests.test_merge_changelog.TestMergeChangelog.test_unsorted This one is asserting that it will sort the changelog, which I think is the root of why the bug was filed, so the failure would be expected. bzrlib.plugins.builddeb.tests.test_merge_changelog.TestMergeChangelog.test_not_valid_changelog This is testing what happens with an invalid changelog. I'm not sure what the effect of returning "not_applicable" versus "success" with the invalid text would be. I don't think it's a particularly important case though. bzrlib.plugins.builddeb.tests.test_merge_changelog.TestMergeChangelog.test_3way_conflicted Getting success back in this case seems wrong. The text it returns is: psuedo-prog (1.1.1-2) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream release. * Yet another content for 1.1.1-2 * But more is better -- Joe Foo <[email protected]> Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:45:44 +0000 and I'm not sure that's correct as it's discarding a line. If it's the desired behaviour of dpkg-mergechangelog then it may be what we want, but it seems odd to me. Thanks, James -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
