Quoting Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>: > 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 -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
