Bug#849581: RFS: numpydoc/0.6.0+ds1-1
On Thu, 2016-12-29 at 12:55 +0000, Sean Whitton wrote:
> 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*".
I appreciate the grammar lecture.
> 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 :)
Fixed.
Next time, please consider providing your suggestion straight-away.
> > > > * 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"
Fixed.
> > > 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!
Done. All your comments have now been addressed. See commit 4144e589.
Cheers,
Ghis
Reply to: