Hi,

On Tue, 24 Mar 2020, 18:36 Andreas Henriksson, <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hello again,
>
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 09:12:09PM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> [...]
> > * golang-go.uber-zap [3] - This also has RFA, and hence I have added my
> > name to uploaders.
> [...]
> > [3]: https://salsa.debian.org/go-team/packages/golang-go.uber-zap
> [...]
>
> The upstream/1.14.1 tag is missing in the git repo, please make sure to
> push tags.


Pushed for all the updates.

(gbp push will help you DTRT. Also as you mentioned I agree
> it's better if the uploader pushes the debian/* tag when the package
> is actually uploaded, but other tags like upstream/* you really have
> to push. OTOH it's also ok by me if you push the debian/* tag. When
> you're the maintainer you decide about releases, even if some of them
> mighht never make it into the official archive.)
>

Thanks, but I'll leave that to the uploader to do it, as a good practice.


> Some things to note that would make it easier for a drive-by sponsor
> like me to review your work:
>
> * New upstream release.
>
>   I don't trust golang stuff to not break API every release, so please
>   tell me (in your RFS) if you've:
>    - investigated possible API breaks
>

I did, but didn't find any 'breaking' changes here.

   - tested building reverse dependencies (see ratt)
>

No, I didn't do this. I admit that it's a little difficult for me to do,
with the limited bandwidth that I have as of now. I'll try doing this
whenever I can, then.
Btw, is this a (major) package which can break a lot of stuff?
If it isn't, then I'll prefer to skip ratt, as it's beyond my current
computation power and bandwidth to do; also I'm not sure if this would
bring in major changes, since this package was already broken.
Apologies if this doesn't sound good to you.

   - any other useful info related to the new release that I should be
>      aware of (like any particular reason for updating it).
>

I updated this to keep it close to upstream version, no other ulterior
motive, really.


> * debian/compat to debhelper-compat
>
>   - You forgot to mention that you also bumped compat from 10 to 12!
>     This is more important to mention than changing from file to
>     virtual package dep. (See also lintian-brush which will help
>     you do these kinds of changes and DTRT with commit messages.)
>

Noted.


> * debian/copyright changes
>
>   Please mention all changes in debian/changelog !!!
>   The commit message doesn't help me much either. Please write good
>   commit messages describing not only what you did but also why.
>


Since this wasn't changing a lot, I didn't write the commit message
explaining the 'why' of it, but thanks for pointing out, and I'll keep this
in mind from now on.

  Please use 'gbp dch' to generate debian/changelog which will
>   help you make sure to mention all changes in the changelog
>   as well as making sure your commit messages has the quality
>   that is expected from debian/changelog messages.
>   I still don't know if I agree with dropping the Files-Excluded
>   change (and also don't know your reason for doing that).
>

I looked up upstream and didn't find the vendor directory or Godeps there,
and hence removed them.
Should this change not have been done?

I guess these are all minor nitpicks and I can probably find more even
>
smaller ones, but as mentioned... everyone is busy and sponsorship
> is a limited resource, so please make your stuff easy to review. Making
> it easy for sponsors means you get more of your stuff sponsored.
>

Thanks a lot! That was an exhaustive review! :)
You really pointed out minor stuff that I need to change, and I'll keep
that in mind for sure.

That said, if you would agree with me here, can you sponsor this one too?

Thanks a lot,
Nilesh

>

Reply via email to