On 2020-06-02 8:50 p.m., Chris Halse Rogers wrote:
> You don't *have* to include the full output of the test cases when
> verifying a bug (although, depending on how much output there is, it can
> be nice).
OK, good, thanks for clarifying!
> I don't think it was clear that you *had* gone through the full test-
> case in your verification comment - I'm not entirely sure what gave that
> impression, but I think it might have been the combination of *some*
> output (the apt/dpkg bit) and saying “the bug is fixed, thanks” without
> making reference to the test case.
True, I should have been more explicit, duly noted!
On 2020-06-02 8:50 p.m., Chris Halse Rogers wrote:
> You don't *have* to include the full output of the test cases when
> verifying a bug (although, depending on how much output there is, it can
> be nice).
OK, good, thanks for clarifying!
> I don't think it was clear that you *had* gone through the full test-
> case in your verification comment - I'm not entirely sure what gave that
> impression, but I think it might have been the combination of *some*
> output (the apt/dpkg bit) and saying “the bug is fixed, thanks” without
> making reference to the test case.
True, I should have been more explicit, duly noted!