[Pkg-privacy-maintainers] torbirdy 0.1.4

[u]

Hi intrigeri,

thanks!

intrigeri:
> u wrote (12 Oct 2015 18:37:02 GMT) :
>> > intrigeri:
>>> >> May you please push your "upstream" branch? It seems outdated in
>>> >> Vcs-Git.
>> > Sorry about that. I hope it's better now?
> It's now in the same state as the upstream/0.1.4 tag, which is good.
> 
>>> >> May you please improve a bit the "Patch Torbirdy's default locale."
>>> >> entry in debian/changelog? It doesn't make it clear what problem is
>>> >> solved, nor how.
>> > Ok, I thought that the header in the patch would be sufficient. Added
>> > some more text to the changelog.
> Thanks.
> 
> (The audiences are different: patch header / Git history is mainly for
> Debian and upstream contributors; debian/changelog is mainly for
> users :)

Ok, seems logical.

> I've removed (976042c) the trailing whitespace that was introduced
> while improving debian/changelog. I thought you had configured your
> Git to error on apply.whitespace, no?

I do indeed have those:

[color "diff"]
	whitespace = red reverse
[apply]
	whitespace = error


>> > But let's discuss that here? I'm open to switch to any clear workflow as
>> > long as it's properly documented :p
> I suggest starting a sub-thread with a clear subject.

Ack.

>>> >> * Years are outdated in debian/copyright. That's something one needs
>>> >>   to check every time we import a new upstream release. Not a blocker
>>> >>   but I would appreciate if it was fixed in this upload.
>> > I tried my best to update this from the upstream source.
> Great!
> 
>>> >> * There's some noise in both Debian patches' header.
>> > Ok, I was not aware. I adopted the header style from the patches in the
>> > Vidalia package. I hope that one was not outdated or anything :))
> Using DEP3 is a great idea.
> 
> I can't see any similar noise in the Vidalia packaging branches I've
> looked at, so perhaps we're not talking of the same thing. To clarify
> what I meant, I've addressed my own concerns in commit fe43cca.
> Clearer now?

Yes, I did that too, but obviously forgot to push it. Sorry for the
double work.

> By the way, I see that both patches have Author == Reviewed-By.
> Sounds wrong to suggest that someone reviewed their own work, no?

Completely, but you did not remove it?

> One final note: I had to forcefully replace the existing
> debian/0.1.4-1 tag. In the future, please don't tag the packaging
> before it was uploaded: tagging debian/0.1.4-1 means "that's what
> landed in the Debian archive as torbirdy 0.1.4-1", not "that's the
> current WIP state aimed to become torbirdy 0.1.4-1 in Debian some
> day" :)

Ok, i see!

> Anyway: built, tested and uploaded. Thanks!

yaaaay! <3

cheers!
u.