https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
Bug ID: 1308779 Summary: Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: gbailey@lxpro.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://gbailey.fedorapeople.org/git-tools/git-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://gbailey.fedorapeople.org/git-tools/git-tools-0-0.1.20160215gitea0951...
Description:
Assorted git-related scripts and tools:
git-branches-rename: Batch renames branches with a matching prefix to another prefix
git-clone-subset: Clones a subset of a git repository
git-find-uncommitted-repos: Recursively list repos with uncommitted changes
git-rebase-theirs: Resolve rebase conflicts and failed cherry-picks by favoring 'theirs' version
git-restore-mtime: Restore original modification time of files based on the date of the most recent commit that modified them
git-strip-merge: A git-merge wrapper that deletes files on a "foreign" branch before merging
Fedora Account System Username: gbailey
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- gbailey's scratch build of git-tools-0-0.1.20160215gitea09519.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13002100
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #2 from Greg Bailey gbailey@lxpro.com --- Koji scratch builds:
rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13002100
f24 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13002125
epel7 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13002128
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
Anoop C S anoopcs@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |anoopcs@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Anoop C S anoopcs@redhat.com --- Hi Greg,
Initial review comments on running rpmlint against source and binary rpms.
[1] rpmlint warns about missing man pages for git-restore-mtime-bare and git-restore-mtime-core binaries. Was that intentional? Please feel free to add man pages in case you missed.
git-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-restore-mtime-bare Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
git-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-restore-mtime-core Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
[2] rpmlint also warns about mismatch in version from changelog entry and created binary rpm. git-tools.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.20160215gitea09519 ['0-0.1.20160215gitea09519.fc23', '0-0.1.20160215gitea09519']
If you need version 0.1, then you need to make the following changes in spec file: Version: 0.1 Release: 1.20160215gitea09519%{?dist}
and changelog entry should include 0.1-1.20160215gitea09519
I will get back with more detailed review soon over weekend.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
Anoop C S anoopcs@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |anoopcs@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #4 from Anoop C S anoopcs@redhat.com --- rpmlint.txt on running fedora-review:
Checking: git-tools-0-0.1.20160215gitea09519.fc24.noarch.rpm git-tools-0-0.1.20160215gitea09519.fc24.src.rpm git-tools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repos -> ropes, reps, repose git-tools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rebase -> rebate, debase, re base git-tools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mtime -> mime, time, m time git-tools.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.20160215gitea09519 ['0-0.1.20160215gitea09519.fc24', '0-0.1.20160215gitea09519'] git-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-restore-mtime-core git-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-restore-mtime-bare git-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repos -> ropes, reps, repose git-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rebase -> rebate, debase, re base git-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mtime -> mime, time, m time 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
Anoop C S anoopcs@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #5 from Anoop C S anoopcs@redhat.com --- licensecheck.txt on running fedora-review:
GPL (v3 or later) ----------------- git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/git-branches-rename git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/git-clone-subset git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/git-find-uncommitted-repos git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/git-rebase-theirs git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/git-restore-mtime git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/git-restore-mtime-core git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/git-strip-merge
Unknown or generated -------------------- git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/README.md git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/git-restore-mtime-bare
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #6 from Anoop C S anoopcs@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. Note: You must have one LICENSE file in source.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. licensecheck.txt complains about two files under "Unknown or generated" section. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779#c5 Can you please correct this?
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. Note: See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779#c3
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Note: May be you can provide all reuqires in a single line.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779#c4.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Note: Please do so.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see below). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779#c4
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: git-tools-0-0.1.20160215gitea09519.fc24.noarch.rpm git-tools-0-0.1.20160215gitea09519.fc24.src.rpm git-tools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repos -> ropes, reps, repose git-tools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rebase -> rebate, debase, re base git-tools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mtime -> mime, time, m time git-tools.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.20160215gitea09519 ['0-0.1.20160215gitea09519.fc24', '0-0.1.20160215gitea09519'] git-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-restore-mtime-core git-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-restore-mtime-bare git-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repos -> ropes, reps, repose git-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rebase -> rebate, debase, re base git-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mtime -> mime, time, m time 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Requires -------- git-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /usr/bin/env git python
Provides -------- git-tools: git-tools
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/MestreLion/git-tools/archive/ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650dea... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 36058da7ba669beaf8fa4d301e6ba50d86a302baa5b073d3135bc04fde61f608 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 36058da7ba669beaf8fa4d301e6ba50d86a302baa5b073d3135bc04fde61f608
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n git-tools Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #7 from Greg Bailey gbailey@lxpro.com --- Thank you for the detailed review.
I will be submitting a pull request to upstream to remedy the licensing issues you raised; I will then submit a new SPEC and SRPM with the other suggestions as well.
thanks again!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #8 from Greg Bailey gbailey@lxpro.com --- (In reply to Anoop C S from comment #3)
Hi Greg,
[1] rpmlint warns about missing man pages for git-restore-mtime-bare and git-restore-mtime-core binaries. Was that intentional? Please feel free to add man pages in case you missed.
git-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-restore-mtime-bare Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
git-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-restore-mtime-core Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
I've removed git-restore-mtime-bare and git-restore-mtime-core from packaging, as they are intended for proof-of-concept purposes and not meant to be packaged.
https://github.com/MestreLion/git-tools/commit/46b8cdf03b6a44d58f07207815df2...
[2] rpmlint also warns about mismatch in version from changelog entry and created binary rpm. git-tools.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.20160215gitea09519 ['0-0.1.20160215gitea09519.fc23', '0-0.1.20160215gitea09519']
Changelog entries fixed.
(In reply to Anoop C S from comment #5)
licensecheck.txt on running fedora-review:
Unknown or generated
git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/README.md
I'm not sure this is valid; the README.md specifies GPLv3+.
(In reply to Anoop C S from comment #6)
Package Review
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. Note: You must have one LICENSE file in source.
Fixed (via upstream pull request)
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. licensecheck.txt complains about two files under "Unknown or generated" section. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779#c5 Can you please correct this?
Fixed. Not sure why README.md is listed.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format. Note: See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779#c3
Fixed.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
Fixed; removed.
Note: May be you can provide all reuqires in a single line.
Requires moved to single line.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779#c4.
rpmlint output is now clean.
Generic: [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Note: Please do so.
Done via pull request.
New package:
Spec URL: https://gbailey.fedorapeople.org/git-tools/0-0.2/git-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://gbailey.fedorapeople.org/git-tools/0-0.2/git-tools-0-0.2.20160313git...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #9 from Anoop C S anoopcs@redhat.com --- Hi Greg,
Thanks for your quick turn back.
I will do another round of review sometime today/tomorrow.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #10 from Anoop C S anoopcs@redhat.com --- (In reply to Greg Bailey from comment #8)
licensecheck.txt on running fedora-review:
Unknown or generated
git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/README.md
I'm not sure this is valid; the README.md specifies GPLv3+.
Here is the reason: fedora-review tool uses licensecheck utility for checking the presence of license related terms inside source file. See line number 733 from https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/tree/plugins/generic.py. And looking through sources for licensecheck utility from debian I could see that they are checking for specified lines. See the following links which proves this argument. https://github.com/Debian/devscripts/blob/master/scripts/licensecheck.pl#L62... https://github.com/Debian/devscripts/blob/master/scripts/licensecheck.pl#L65... You may need to include the following to get rid of this warning:
This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
One more suggestion (sorry for not mentioning this before): Reading from rpm built it looks like git-tools is of version 0 and release 0.2 which is not correct. Would you mind changing the version to 0.1 and release to 3 in the spec file? So that it looks clean something like git-tools-0.1-3. Or even you can have version = 0.1.1 and release = 3. If you can make this change, I will give it a final round review afterwards.
Otherwise it looks good. Thanks for addressing the comments.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #11 from Anoop C S anoopcs@redhat.com --- Sorry, w.r.t version numbers I think I got it wrong in previous comment.
Some suggestions: Version = 0.1 and Release = 3.20150315gitxxxxxxx Version = 0.0.1 and Release = 1.20150315gitxxxxxxx
And don't forget to change changelog entries accordingly.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #12 from Greg Bailey gbailey@lxpro.com --- Hi Anoop,
Thanks for the analysis and pointers to further information re: licensecheck.
I checked out licensecheck against the git-tools README.md file on an Ubuntu machine, and the version there flags README.md as "README.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN", even with the suggested addition you provided. I think it's sufficient to say that the existing README.md references the correct license, and that that license matches GPLv3+ as specified in the .spec file. I'm hesitant to submit a pull request for it upstream because it's essentially a change only to satisfy the fedora-review tool, and we can manually verify the license referenced in README.md anyway.
Regarding the version numbers, upsteam only has one lightweight tag, "v2015.2", and it's obviously a bit old. There's a request to tag a new version:
https://github.com/MestreLion/git-tools/issues/15
Since I don't know what that new tag will be ("v2016.3" or higher, presumably), I opted to use the version and release numbering suggestions given by:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packag...
(See the provided example for the "kismet" RPM there).
My thinking was that once upstream releases "v2016.3" (or "v2016.4", etc.), then I would change the RPM Version tag to "2016.3" and use a RPM Release tag of "1", etc. from that point forward.
Thanks again for your help!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #13 from Anoop C S anoopcs@redhat.com --- (In reply to Greg Bailey from comment #12)
I checked out licensecheck against the git-tools README.md file on an Ubuntu machine, and the version there flags README.md as "README.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN", even with the suggested addition you provided.I think it's
Really? For me(on Fedora 23) when I added the mentioned text in README.md, licensecheck(from devscripts v2.15.10) output was clean displaying (GPLv3 or later).
sufficient to say that the existing README.md references the correct license, and that that license matches GPLv3+ as specified in the .spec file. I'm hesitant to submit a pull request for it upstream because it's essentially a change only to satisfy the fedora-review tool, and we can manually verify the license referenced in README.md anyway.
Yeah...Make sense. I just pointed out the reason. That's all.
Regarding the version numbers, upsteam only has one lightweight tag, "v2015.2", and it's obviously a bit old. There's a request to tag a new version:
https://github.com/MestreLion/git-tools/issues/15
Since I don't know what that new tag will be ("v2016.3" or higher, presumably), I opted to use the version and release numbering suggestions given by:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre- Release_packages
Ah.. You are right. Somehow I failed to understand it correctly. My bad.
(See the provided example for the "kismet" RPM there).
My thinking was that once upstream releases "v2016.3" (or "v2016.4", etc.), then I would change the RPM Version tag to "2016.3" and use a RPM Release tag of "1", etc. from that point forward.
Fine.
LGTM and good to go. Thanks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #14 from Greg Bailey gbailey@lxpro.com --- (In reply to Anoop C S from comment #13)
(In reply to Greg Bailey from comment #12)
I checked out licensecheck against the git-tools README.md file on an Ubuntu machine, and the version there flags README.md as "README.md: *No copyright* UNKNOWN", even with the suggested addition you provided.I think it's
Really? For me(on Fedora 23) when I added the mentioned text in README.md, licensecheck(from devscripts v2.15.10) output was clean displaying (GPLv3 or later).
You are right, adding the suggested text makes the licensecheck output "clean" on a Fedora 23 system, but my point was that adding the same suggested text didn't appear to make the output clean when run on a non-Fedora system...
LGTM and good to go. Thanks.
Thank you for your time reviewing this!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
Anoop C S anoopcs@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Flags|fedora-review? |
--- Comment #15 from Anoop C S anoopcs@redhat.com --- Sorry Greg,
Guidelines from the following link says that an unofficial reviewer must not change the review request status other than adding himself to the CC list.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#...
So changing status back to NEW and removing the fedora-review flag...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
Greg Bailey gbailey@lxpro.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard| |trivial
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
Anoop C S anoopcs@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|anoopcs@redhat.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
Patrick Uiterwijk puiterwijk@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |puiterwijk@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |puiterwijk@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #16 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterwijk@redhat.com --- After reading through this review, it looks like this has been quite thorough.
I will approve the package based on the previous review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #17 from Greg Bailey gbailey@lxpro.com --- (In reply to Patrick Uiterwijk from comment #16)
After reading through this review, it looks like this has been quite thorough.
I will approve the package based on the previous review.
Thank you, Patrick.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-87b1484ae7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-2a130054d0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6e7b9d3622
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a10d0e27bc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e5689781c0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e5689781c0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-2a130054d0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-87b1484ae7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6e7b9d3622
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a10d0e27bc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2016-03-26 13:55:23
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779
--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla