Hi, 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