Check formal content:
- changelog
- patch naming
- version numbers
- patch headers
- etc
- Follows DEP-3
- Contains a bug pointer (LP: #12345678)
- Proper version change
- Proper distribution
- Lists all files changed
- Proper author and email
- Changes are logically split into separate commits
- changelog is the last commit
- Only files inside the debian directory have been modified
The following template may be useful when submitting reviews:
* Changelog:
- [ ] Changelog entry has correct version and targeted codename
- [ ] Correct formatting of changelog items
- [ ] Bug references correct
- [ ] Old content and logical tag match as expected (Package Merge)
* Package Merge - indirect changes:
- [ ] No upstream changes that need adaptating due to Ubuntu's design
- [ ] No further upstream version/changes to consider
- [ ] Debian changes are compatible with the Ubuntu implementation
- [ ] update-maintainer has been run
* Package Merge - old delta:
- [ ] Dropped changes are ok to be dropped
- [ ] Nothing else to drop
- [ ] Changes forwarded upstream/Debian (if appropriate)
* New delta:
- [ ] No new patches added
- [ ] Patches match those proposed/committed upstream
- [ ] Patches correctly included in Debian/patches/series
- [ ] Patches have correct DEP-3 metadata
* Git/maintenance:
- [ ] Testcases added or not strictly required for this
- [ ] Commits are properly split (more important on -dev than on SRUs)
* Build/test:
- [ ] Build is OK
- [ ] Verified PPA package installs/uninstalls
- [ ] autopkgtest against the PPA package passes
- [ ] sanity checks test fine