On 06/22/2011 09:58 AM, Didier Roche wrote:
> Review: Approve
> Thanks for your work there! Merged :)
> Please, in the future, ensure two things:
> - check the output of debcheckout or apt-get source which should tell you that there is a Vcs-Bzr tag in debian/control pointing to the
branch where the packaging is (I had to put your commit manually to lp:bamf-qt).
Maybe lp should automatically let ubuntu:<package> point to the location
specified in the VCS controlfield?
But for the future I will make sure to look at that field first to
ensure I'm not working on a package that has a different workflow than
the suggested one to not make sponsors live harder, like in this case.
> - when request a change, let the changelog use "UNRELEASED" instead of distribution, in case we are pending updates to add other changes. Then, the sponsor will change UNRELEASED to the version.
On 06/22/2011 09:58 AM, Didier Roche wrote:
> Review: Approve
> Thanks for your work there! Merged :)
> Please, in the future, ensure two things:
> - check the output of debcheckout or apt-get source which should tell you that there is a Vcs-Bzr tag in debian/control pointing to the
branch where the packaging is (I had to put your commit manually to
lp:bamf-qt).
I use neither of those tools. I use the workflow suggested in people. canonical. com/~dholbach/ packaging- guide/html/ udd-intro. html#getting- the-source
http://
Maybe lp should automatically let ubuntu:<package> point to the location
specified in the VCS controlfield?
But for the future I will make sure to look at that field first to
ensure I'm not working on a package that has a different workflow than
the suggested one to not make sponsors live harder, like in this case.
> - when request a change, let the changelog use "UNRELEASED" instead of distribution, in case we are pending updates to add other changes. Then, the sponsor will change UNRELEASED to the version.
Ok.
> I've pushed your changed to lp:bamf-qt.
Thank you!
Cheers, Andreas