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

Bug#849581: RFS: numpydoc/0.6.0+ds1-1



Hello Ghislain,

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:48:35PM +0000, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> > >   [ Ghislain Antony Vaillant ]
> > >   * Filter upstream tarball from vendored sphinx.ext.linkcode
> > 
> > Why?  It's not explained anywhere why this was necessary.  It would be
> > good if you could note it in the changelog.
> 
> sphinx.ext.linkcode -> because it is already in Sphinx?
> 
> Isn't this explicit enough?

Firstly, your grammar is wrong: it should be "filter vendored
splinx.ext.linkcode *from upstream tarball*".

Secondly, it still takes some thinking to grasp your meaning.  This
would be easier to understand: "filter vendor copy of
sphinx.ext.linkcode from upstream tarball."

A key purpose of the changelog is to communicate efficiently with other
Debian contributors.  It took me some time to understand your meaning,
so you're not achieving that purpose :)

> > >   * New upstream release
> > >   * Update copyright file
> > >   * Bump versioned depends on Python to 2.7 and 3.4
> > >   * Bump standards version to 3.9.8, no changes required
> > >   * Add packaging testsuite
> > 
> > Not clear what "packaging" means.  Maybe s/packaging/autopkgtest/
> 
> You are the first sponsor who has had problems with this terminology. I use
> packaging testsuite as the testsuite associated to the packaging, as opposed
> to the upstream testsuite associated to the upstream code.
> 
> Anyway, let me know whether this is *really* a deal breaker.

Not a deal breaker.  But since you are editing the "vendored" part, you
might as well edit this too.

How about "Add autopkgtest testsuite for packaging"

> > note to self: checked diff from archive to 0dec799
> 
> If there is more reviewing to come, please consider doing it now. My time
> working on other team-maintained packages is very limited (so is probably
> your sponsorship time) and I would appreciate limiting the number of email
> iterations to accelerate the process.

Don't worry.  I meant "everything except the contents of my e-mail LGTM
in 0dec799".

Don't forget `dch -r` after making further changes.  Thanks!

-- 
Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: