Please review the draft for April's report

[Chris Lamb]

Hi Manuel,

> I am a bit confused that 
> https://reproducible-builds.org/reports/2026-04/?draft#upstream-patches 
> mostly contains what I would call downstream patches to the Debian 
> package. For most of the patches, I couldn’t find that they were 
> submitted upstream.

That's a fair critique, especially given that submitting a patch
upstream is considered the "socially good" thing to do (and is of
course more time-consuming). I would agree that the section, as written,
is misleading. I will clarify this section prior to publication, and
likely take up your suggestion of renaming the section.

> Unrelated to the previous paragraph: The post lists some documentation 
> changes that I made which I wouldn’t have considered noteworthy, such as 
> changing the tense of the sentence or adding a missing word. My first
> thought was that the summary might be automatically generated.

(To clarify this bit at least, they are only automatically generated
in the sense that a very crude draft is first generated from the Git commit
messages. The text is then massaged by hand.)

> Regardless of this, do you think it’s important to list all changes or 
> should I remove some minor changes listed in the post?

Well, it's important to the project that contributions of whatever size
are acknowledged and appreciated. I'm sure there are some incredibly tiny
ones that might not, but I'd rather err on the side of mentioning them and
especially so when they are a new contributor—such as yourself! At the very
least, seeing one's own name in a status report might encourage a developer
to contribute more...

But of course, if you would prefer some of them not to be in the report,
please go ahead and remove them (or ask).


Best wishes,

-- 
      o
    ⬋   ⬊      Chris Lamb
   o     o     reproducible-builds.org 💠
    ⬊   ⬋
      o