Bug#849581: RFS: numpydoc/0.6.0+ds1-1
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "numpydoc" * Package name: numpydoc Version : 0.6.0+ds1-1 Upstream Author : Pauli Virtanen and others * URL : https://github.com/numpy/numpydoc * License : BSD Section : python It builds those binary packages: python-numpydoc - Sphinx extension to support docstrings in Numpy format -- Python 2 python3-numpydoc - Sphinx extension to support docstrings in Numpy format -- Python 3 To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/numpydoc Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/numpydoc/numpydoc_0.6.0+ds1-1.dsc Successful build on debomatic: http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#unstable/numpydoc/0.6.0+ds1-1/buildlog Changes since the last upload: * Team upload [ Ondřej Nový ] * Fixed VCS URL (https) [ Ghislain Antony Vaillant ] * Filter upstream tarball from vendored sphinx.ext.linkcode * 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 * Rearrange copyright paragraphs to fix Lintian warnings * Add build dependency on dh-python * Improve description of the Python 2 binary package * cme fix dpkg-control: - Drop versioned dependency on python-all - Drop versioned dependency on python[,3]-sphinx - Wrap and sort * cme fix dpkg-copyright: use HTTPS URI in Format field Regards, Ghislain Vaillant
Bug#849581: RFS: numpydoc/0.6.0+ds1-1
control: tag -1 +moreinfo control: owner -1 ! Dear Ghislain, On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 09:47:09PM +, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "numpydoc" I can sponsor this for you, but I'd like to ask you to improve your changelog a bit -- see below. > Changes since the last upload: > > * Team upload > > [ Ondřej Nový ] > * Fixed VCS URL (https) > > [ 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. > * 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/ > * Rearrange copyright paragraphs to fix Lintian warnings > * Add build dependency on dh-python Why? Maybe s/Add/Add missing/ > * Improve description of the Python 2 binary package > * cme fix dpkg-control: > - Drop versioned dependency on python-all > - Drop versioned dependency on python[,3]-sphinx > - Wrap and sort > * cme fix dpkg-copyright: use HTTPS URI in Format field note to self: checked diff from archive to 0dec799 -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#849581: RFS: numpydoc/0.6.0+ds1-1
On 29/12/16 08:40, Sean Whitton wrote: control: tag -1 +moreinfo control: owner -1 ! Dear Ghislain, On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 09:47:09PM +, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package "numpydoc" I can sponsor this for you, but I'd like to ask you to improve your changelog a bit -- see below. Changes since the last upload: * Team upload [ Ondřej Nový ] * Fixed VCS URL (https) [ 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? * 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. * Rearrange copyright paragraphs to fix Lintian warnings * Add build dependency on dh-python Why? Maybe s/Add/Add missing/ Sure, why not. * Improve description of the Python 2 binary package * cme fix dpkg-control: - Drop versioned dependency on python-all - Drop versioned dependency on python[,3]-sphinx - Wrap and sort * cme fix dpkg-copyright: use HTTPS URI in Format field 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. Many thanks, Ghis
Bug#849581: RFS: numpydoc/0.6.0+ds1-1
Hello Ghislain, On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:48:35PM +, 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 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#849581: RFS: numpydoc/0.6.0+ds1-1
On Thu, 2016-12-29 at 12:55 +, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello Ghislain, > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:48:35PM +, 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
Bug#849581: RFS: numpydoc/0.6.0+ds1-1
On Thu, 2016-12-29 at 15:05 +, Sean Whitton wrote: > Dear Ghislain, > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 02:00:47PM +, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > > Next time, please consider providing your suggestion straight-away. > > I couldn't because I didn't understand your changelog entry! > > > Done. All your comments have now been addressed. See commit 4144e589. > > And uploaded. Thank you for your contribution. Cheers. > I made a new debian/0.6.0+ds1-1 tag, pointing to the correct commit. > Please push that tag to your team repo. > > tag here, after some cron jobs fire: > https://browse.dgit.debian.org/numpydoc.git/ I pushed a refreshed tag pointing at the latest commit already: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/python-modules/packages/numpydoc.git/tag/?h=debian/0.6.0%2bds1-1 Isn't that enough? Ghis
Bug#849581: RFS: numpydoc/0.6.0+ds1-1
Hello Ghislain, On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 03:35:23PM +, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > I pushed a refreshed tag pointing at the latest commit already: > > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/python-modules/packages/numpydoc.git/tag/?h=debian/0.6.0%2bds1-1 > > Isn't that enough? It's fine, it just might cause some confusion later on since there are two tags in existence, with the same name but signed by different people. This was basically my fault for not telling dgit not to create the second tag. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
