[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Orphaning php-codesniffer, then take it over by the PHP PEAR team


On 30.05.2012 18:17, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 09:41:30PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> By the way, do other think that, even in this case, I should keep the
>> changes
>> as minimum as possible? Or is it ok, considering that all of our
>> toolsets have
>> changed since the last upload (eg: we now have pkg-php-tools and dh 8
>> sequencer), that we do a bit more changes in the package than just the new
>> upstream release?
> It's difficult to answer that without seeing the NMU package.  It's not so
> black and white, in my opinion.  Generally I think it is best to keep the
> changes minimal, but I see no harm in fixing a few real problems that are not
> part of packaging the newest upstream release.

why such a hurry? I thought the purpose would be to ship an up to date
version of php-codesniffer in Wheezy? The user does not care if that's
coming from a 1.0 source package using quilt or whatever fancy
alternative tools we have available to date. Hence, please, keep the
changes as minimally invasive as possible and follow the usual rules for
a NMU as much as possible.

The non essential cosmetic changes can still be done after having
php-codesniffer in an up to date version in Wheezy and Thomas waited a
sensible amount of time for feedback by the current maintainer.

I'm not saying this package shouldn't deserve more packaging love, but
this does not need to happen *now* beyond the bare essential minimum to
improve the user experience in Wheezy.

with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: