Bug#970708: ITP: sktime -- Python machine learning toolbox for time series
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Christian Kastner * Package name: sktime Version : 0.4.1 Upstream Author : sktime developers * URL : https://github.com/alan-turing-institute/sktime * License : BSD-3-clause Programming Lang: Python Description : Python machine learning toolbox for time series sktime is a Python machine learning toolbox for time series with a unified interface for multiple learning tasks. It currently supports: * Forecasting, * Time series classification, * Time series regression. sktime provides dedicated time series algorithms and scikit-learn compatible tools for building, tuning, and evaluating composite models. This will be maintained within the Debian AI Team.
Re: Mass bugs filing: autopkgtest should be marked superficial (new list)
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 08:39:44PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > After discussing with few people, I now intend to file them with > "severity: important" and I will also reduce the severity of the > previously open similar bugs to 'important'. thank you, for all your work on this! (which includes these discussions! :) -- cheers, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C "Climate change" is an euphenism. "Global warming" as well. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Build profile proposal: nocil
08.09.2020 18:58, Helmut Grohne пишет:
On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 01:35:50PM +0300, Alexander Volkov wrote:
This profile could be used to build packages without installing dependencies
on mono/cil.
Name: nocil
Changes content of binary packages: No ("C: N" on the wiki)
Changes set of binary packages: Yes ("S: Y" on the wiki)
Description: Disable CIL (Common Intermediate Language) bindings
Seconded if the description becomes more verbose (e.g. what Simon said).
I think the reasoning why this is needed could be more explicit and
verbose. The given example is an implicit reason that is sufficient for
me.
Unless anyone objects within say two weeks, please add it to the spec.
Added:
https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec?action=diff&rev1=123&rev2=124
Re: Mass bugs filing: autopkgtest should be marked superficial (new list)
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:02 AM Holger Levsen wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 08:39:44PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > After discussing with few people, I now intend to file them with > > "severity: important" and I will also reduce the severity of the > > previously open similar bugs to 'important'. > > thank you, for all your work on this! (which includes these discussions! :) Thanks to everyone for helping me with the bug text. And, the final version (unless someone suggests some change): * Subject: : autopkgtest must be marked superficial Severity: important User: sudipm.mukher...@gmail.com Usertags: superficialtest It has been noticed that the autopkgtest in is running a trivial command that does not provide significant test coverage: - Executing that command is considered to be a trivial test, that which does not provide significant coverage for a package as a whole. But these tests are a useful way to detect regressions in dependencies and prevent them from breaking your package. However, it is important that we are realistic about the level of test coverage provided by these commands: most regressions cannot be detected in this way. So it is not appropriate for packages with only superficial tests to have the reduced migration time to migrate from unstable to testing as that means less opportunity for testing by users compared to the package with no tests. To support this, the keyword "Restrictions: superficial" has been defined [1]. Packages where all tests are marked with this keyword are not considered for the reduced migration age from unstable to testing, and will not be allowed to migrate automatically in later stages of the freeze [2]. Its always better to have more extensive testing than having superficial testing, which again is better than having no test. Please consider i) Adding a non-trivial test, and/or ii) Mark the trivial test with "Restrictions: superficial", similar to [3] or [4]. The Release Team has listed this issue in the list of Release Critical Issues for bullseye [5] and has mentioned that the test must be marked superficial if it is not testing one of its own installed binary packages in some way. As a result, the severity of this bug report might be increased to serious in future. [1] https://salsa.debian.org/ci-team/autopkgtest/-/blob/master/doc/README.package-tests.rst#defined-restrictions [2] https://release.debian.org/bullseye/freeze_policy.html [3] https://salsa.debian.org/utopia-team/dbus/-/commit/a80908df7d119b181eec5eb0542634a30c2ad468 [4] https://salsa.debian.org/apparmor-team/apparmor/-/commit/580667513a097088ebe579884b38ac8d8666d3b3 [5] https://release.debian.org/bullseye/rc_policy.txt * If the above sounds good, I will continue with this. -- Regards Sudip
Bug#970738: ITP: lucene8 -- Full-text search engine library for Java(TM)
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Sudip Mukherjee X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org * Package name: lucene8 Version : 8.6.2 Upstream Author : NA * URL : https://lucene.apache.org/ * License : Apache-2.0 Programming Lang: Java Description : Full-text search engine library for Java(TM) Lucene is a full-text search engine for the Java(TM) programming language. Lucene is not a complete application, but rather a code library and API that can easily be used to add search capabilities to applications. I can maintain it under the umbrella of Java team. -- Regards Sudip
Re: Mass bugs filing: autopkgtest should be marked superficial (new list)
Hi Sudip On 22-09-2020 20:57, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > And, the final version (unless someone suggests some change): [...] > Executing that command is considered to be a trivial test, that > which does not provide significant coverage for a package as a whole. I'm not 100% sure as I'm not a native speaker, but s/that which/which/ or s/that which/that/ sounds much better to me. [...] > be increased to serious in future. ^ the ? [...] > If the above sounds good, I will continue with this. Thanks. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
