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
