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

Bug#594896: marked as done (unblock: sphinx/0.6.6-3)

Your message dated Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:36:08 +0100
with message-id <1283193368.28333.1657.camel@kaa.jungle.aubergine.my-net-space.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#594896: unblock: sphinx/0.6.6-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #594896,
regarding unblock: sphinx/0.6.6-3
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
594896: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=594896
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: freeze-exception
Please unblock package sphinx. The new version improves documentation (bug #593623). 

unblock sphinx/0.6.6-3

--
Jakub Wilk

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 17:24 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>, 2010-08-30, 16:06:
> >> Please unblock package sphinx. The new version improves documentation
> >> (bug #593623).
> >
> >A couple of quick comments:
> >
> >+\fIfilename\fR
> >+Force to generate documentation for the file.
> >
> >"Force to" doesn't sound right - "Force generation of documentation for
> >\fIfilename\fR." ?
> 
> Agreed. (Note that this is not a regression, 0.6.6-2 includes the same 
> sentence.)

Yep; just thought I'd mention it though.

> >+Define the \fItag\fR. This is relevant for \[oq]only\[cq] directives
> >that only include their content if this tag is set.
> >
> >That sentence appears to contain too many "only"s; ah, does it mean that
> >it's only relevant for directives that would not include their content
> >if the tag were not set?  If so then I'd suggest changing the start to
> >"This is only relevant for directives that"
> 
> Okay, this is a bit confusing. The first "only" refers to the name of a 
> directive: 
> http://sphinx.pocoo.org/latest/markup/misc.html#directive-only

Ah, that makes a little more sense now; thanks.

Unblocked.

Regards,

Adam

--- End Message ---
Reply to: