issues list(s)

[Eric Rostetter]

Quoting Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore.fi>:

> I did update the whiteboard for VERIFYs.  (Only the bug creator and
> specially privileged folks can edit these, unfortunately.)

Thanks.
 
> I didn't yet update the PUBLISH votes, because the patches need to be
> verified, check the requirements at:
>
> http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legacy/QAPublish

That doesn't explicitely state that I must do so.  If each of the things
there *must* be done, then you need to make that more clear, and restate
things that are optional as being optional, and restate what you mean since
it isn't clear.

I did diff the files, I did inspect the patch(es).  I even *tested* the
patched packages to make sure they fixed the problem.  I didn't see
anything unusal when I look at the patched code.  I just didn't try to find
the "original source" or "upstream patch" it was based on and compare them.

Since others have already (before me) verified the patches versus the
upstream provider, I think it can be implied that they are valid
in my version since the sha1sum matched for both them and me.  If not, the
other person needs to be banished. ;)  But I see there is a trust issue here,
so I get why I should have done this step.

> In additionl, PUBLISH needs to be done for all distro versions before
> the package can be built.  Would it be possible to the FC1 review for
> a2ps?

No, I don't run FC1.

So, are my PUBLISH votes worth zero votes since I didn't compare the 
patch against the upstream publisher's version, dispite all the other
work I did?  Or maybe they can at least be a 0.5 vote?

> --
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

-- 
Eric Rostetter