[pkg-apparmor] Review doc : Contribute to upstream

[intrigeri]

Hi,

u wrote (10 Jan 2015 21:02:57 GMT) :
> could you please review the new documentation on How to contribute to
> Upstream?

Sure thing.

> It can be found on the Debian Wiki:
> https://wiki.debian.org/AppArmor/ContributeUpstream

I'd rather use subpages (AppArmor/Contribute/Upstream) for namespacing
purposes, instead of mixing "/" and CamelCase. But I don't know
MoinMoin well, so maybe there's a good reason to do it the way
you did.

> That is why if you want to submit a new or patch an existing
> profile, this should be done directly upstream.

I suggest s/directly upstream\.$/upstream first./

> The AppArmor wiki provides information on how to contribute upstream. 

s/\.$/:/ or add a sentence to introduce the following bullet list.
(See the various doc style guidelines, e.g. GNOME's, if not convinced :)

> contribute to existing/upstream AppArmor profiles,

"existing/upstream AppArmor profiles" links to
https://code.launchpad.net/~apparmor-dev/apparmor-profiles/,
so maybe make it clear that this is only about contributing to
profiles that live in the upstream apparmor-profiles repo, as opposed
to profiles that live somewhere else upstream?

I see you've added a line at the end that makes this clear. Good.
Maybe it's better to put that line in the introduction. I'm unsure.

> It's there that you should ask for reviews of your patches and/or
> new profiles. 

This contradicts "you will be able to request a merge through the
webinterface". I think it should be replaced with "It's where you can
discuss anything that is not a merge request with the rest of the
AppArmor community".

> It still lacks the detail we talked about last monday: if one can create
> a branch directly without the need to rename it later. I will fix this
> soon and keep you posted.

OK.

> I have moved the Debian-Upstream relation ship part from
> https://wiki.debian.org/AppArmor/PackageMaintainers to the new page and
> simply linked to it from there.

Great.

> Once this page has been reviewed, I could point to it on the bugs tagged
> "new-profile" [1] - after verification if these profiles already exist
> upstream or in the apparmor-profiles-extra package. What do
> you think?

Looks good. I've not the big picture of how the reader is supposed to
travel through our many pages in mind, though. For now, let's go on
adding content, and at some point we'll want to take a step back and
review this all in terms of navigation flow. TODO++ ?

Cheers,
-- 
intrigeri