NMUs: Talk about `the maintainer [having] an opportunity to comment' rather than...

diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index aebadfd5f7a809aa46d8a67b9f44a0c7ace4d40c..4c38da2ed5a2536ecb10ba015ae3bb6c261628a2 100644 (file)
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -14,6 +14,9 @@ developers-reference (3.4.14~~iwj) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
     duplicates of each other).  The effect is that people are no longer
     discouraged by dev ref from NMUing directly to DELAYED-10 even if the
     bug has only just been discovered.
+  * NMUs: Talk about `the maintainer [having] an opportunity to comment'
+    rather than suggesting specifically that the NMUer should contact the
+    maintainer.  Also slightly improve the wording of that paragraph.
 
  --
 

diff --git a/pkgs.dbk b/pkgs.dbk
index 76ad7d33c9aadfad6b810eee688971433b24fd8f..93c3b240619c9941c60088010325a0fc754c5b61 100644 (file)
--- a/pkgs.dbk
+++ b/pkgs.dbk
@@ -2012,14 +2012,13 @@ many people will be very unhappy about it.
 </listitem>
 <listitem>
 <para>
-<listitem>
-<para>
-If the maintainer is usually active and responsive, have you tried to contact
-them? In general it should be considered preferable that maintainers take care
-of an issue themselves and that they are given the chance to review and
-correct your patch, because they can be expected to be more aware of potential
-issues which an NMUer might miss. It is often a better use of everyone's time
-if the maintainer is given an opportunity to upload a fix on their own.
+If the maintainer is usually active and responsive, has there been an
+opportunity for them to comment?  In general it is preferable that
+maintainers take care of issues themselves, and that they are given
+the chance to review and correct patches, because they can be expected
+to be more aware of potential issues which an NMUer might miss.  It is
+often a better use of everyone's time if the maintainer is given an
+opportunity to upload a fix on their own.
 </para>
 </listitem>
 </itemizedlist>