[Bug 619593] New: Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619593

           Summary: Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue
                    manager
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
        ReportedBy: thomas.moschny(a)gmx.de
         QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
                CC: notting(a)redhat.com, fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
    Classification: Fedora


Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/topgit/topgit.spec
SRPM URL:
http://thm.fedorapeople.org/topgit/topgit-0.8-1.git5aed7e7b.fc13.src.rpm

Description:
TopGit aims to make handling of large amount of interdependent topic
branches easier. In fact, it is designed especially for the case when
you maintain a queue of third-party patches on top of another (perhaps
Git-controlled) project and want to easily organize, maintain and
submit them - TopGit achieves that by keeping a separate topic branch
for each patch and providing few tools to maintain the branches.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 619593] Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619593

Lameire Alexis <alexisis-pristontale(a)hotmail.com&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |alexisis-pristontale@hotmai
                   |                            |l.com

--- Comment #1 from Lameire Alexis <alexisis-pristontale(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2010-07-31
05:51:32 EDT ---
Hi,

since I'm not sponsored, this informal eview is not official.

-> rpmlint is ok 

$ rpmlint topgit-0.8-1.git5aed7e7b.fc13.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

I have checked the spec file, it looks quite good

[ok] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
[ok] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . 
[ok] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[ok] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[ok] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
[ok] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.[4]
[ok] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[ok] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[ok] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[ok] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]
[ok] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
[ok] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[ok] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
[ok] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
[ok] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]
[ok] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. [13]
[ok] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)[14]
[ok] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. [15]
[ok] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
[ok] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[ok] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
[ok] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present. [18]
[ok] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[22]
[ok] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time. [23]
[ok] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]
[ok] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27]
SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it
doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[32]

only the least SHOULD can pose a problem ;) else all is good :)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 619593] Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619593

--- Comment #2 from Thomas Moschny <thomas.moschny(a)gmx.de&gt; 2010-09-08 05:26:35 EDT
---
Thanks for that informal review!

Talked to upstream about man pages. There already was some effort to create man
pages from the help texts that are already there, see
http://bugs.debian.org/499071.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 619593] Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619593

Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |mathstuf(a)gmail.com
         AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org    |mathstuf(a)gmail.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #3 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com&gt; 2010-09-08 09:36:40 EDT ---
I'll take this. Sounds like some things I do every now and then :) .

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 619593] Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619593

--- Comment #4 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com&gt; 2010-09-11 13:16:34 EDT ---
-> rpmlint is ok 

% lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb                                                 
 -
topgit.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/tg-completion.bash
topgit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tg
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

[ok] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
[ok] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[ok] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[ok] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[ok] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[ok] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[ok] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ok] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[FAIL] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.

% sha1sum 5aed7e7bad8c23080139b452adac75d2571b6dfa.tar.gz
../SOURCES/5aed7e7bad8c23080139b452adac75d2571b6dfa.tar.gz
1b38e02c8f55a9029c081562aaec3e787614689e 
5aed7e7bad8c23080139b452adac75d2571b6dfa.tar.gz
c0a1ea211a7eb4732987cc299c44095a7f41673d 
../SOURCES/5aed7e7bad8c23080139b452adac75d2571b6dfa.tar.gz

Tarball was fetched with `spectool -g`.

[ok] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[ok] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[ok] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[ok] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[ok] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[ok] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[FAIL] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.

/etc/bash_completion.d/ isn't owned. I'd recommend splitting off the bash
completion into a separate file and Requires: topgit and Requires:
bash-completion.

[ok] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[ok] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[ok] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[ok] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ok] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[ok] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present.
[ok] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[ok] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time.
[ok] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[ok] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ok] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it
doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.

Working off the Debian patches. Should file a tracking bug here once accepted.

=============

One weird thing I see is %doc at the end of %files. I'd also recommend adding a
trailing slash to the %{_libexecdir} and %{_datarootdir} lines to better
indicate that they are directories.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 619593] Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619593

--- Comment #5 from Thomas Moschny <thomas.moschny(a)gmx.de&gt; 2010-09-26 09:18:23 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #4)
>  [FAIL] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the
> upstream
>  source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
>  If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
>  Guidelines for how to deal with this.
>  
>  % sha1sum 5aed7e7bad8c23080139b452adac75d2571b6dfa.tar.gz
>  ../SOURCES/5aed7e7bad8c23080139b452adac75d2571b6dfa.tar.gz
>  1b38e02c8f55a9029c081562aaec3e787614689e 
>  5aed7e7bad8c23080139b452adac75d2571b6dfa.tar.gz
>  c0a1ea211a7eb4732987cc299c44095a7f41673d 
>  ../SOURCES/5aed7e7bad8c23080139b452adac75d2571b6dfa.tar.gz
>  
>  Tarball was fetched with `spectool -g`. 
Yeah, the problem is gitweb, which seems to embed a datestamp or something like
this in the tarfile, causing it to have a different hash each time one
downloads it.

I changed the specfile to refer to the zipfile instead, which doesn't seem to
have that problem.

(Note that this problem would persist even when we don't packaged a git
snapshot, but a released version, as there currently is no real upstream
website other than gitweb.)

>  [FAIL] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If
> it does not
>  create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
>  create that directory.
>  
>  /etc/bash_completion.d/ isn't owned. I'd recommend splitting off the bash
>  completion into a separate file and Requires: topgit and Requires:
>  bash-completion. 
That's overkill imho. Following what other packages do, I simply own
/etc/bash_completion.d now.

>  One weird thing I see is %doc at the end of %files. 
Moved to the top of the %files section.

>  I'd also recommend adding a
>  trailing slash to the %{_libexecdir} and %{_datarootdir} lines to better
>  indicate that they are directories. 
Slashes added.


Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/topgit/topgit.spec
SRPM URL:
http://thm.fedorapeople.org/topgit/topgit-0.8-2.git9404aa1a.fc13.src.rpm

%changelog
* Mon Sep 13 2010 Thomas Moschny <..> - 0.8-2.git9404aa1a
- Update to revision 9404aa1a.
- Specfile fixes as suggested in the review.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 619593] Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619593

--- Comment #6 from Thomas Moschny <thomas.moschny(a)gmx.de&gt; 2010-10-10 17:33:18 EDT
---
Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/topgit/topgit.spec
SRPM URL:
http://thm.fedorapeople.org/topgit/topgit-0.9-0.1.git8b0f1f9d.fc13.src.rpm

%changelog
* Sun Oct 10 2010 Thomas Moschny <..> - 0.9-0.1.git8b0f1f9d
- Update to revision 8b0f1f9d.

There seems to be a 0.9 release imminent, so I decided to use a pre-release
snapshot naming scheme.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 619593] Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619593

--- Comment #7 from Thomas Moschny <thomas.moschny(a)gmx.de&gt; 2010-12-11 07:34:39 EST
---
Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/topgit/topgit.spec
SRPM URL:
http://thm.fedorapeople.org/topgit/topgit-0.9-0.2.git9b25e848.fc14.src.rpm

%changelog
* Sat Dec 11 2010 Thomas Moschny <..> - 0.9-0.2.git9b25e848
- Update to revision 9b25e848.


Ben, are you still interested in reviewing this package?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 619593] Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619593

Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #8 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com&gt; 2010-12-11 11:48:25 EST ---
Yep, sorry. Got buried in other stuff.

Looks good to me.

APPROVED.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 619593] Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619593

Thomas Moschny <thomas.moschny(a)gmx.de&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #9 from Thomas Moschny <thomas.moschny(a)gmx.de&gt; 2010-12-13 05:57:00 EST
---
Thanks for the review!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: topgit
Short Description: A different patch queue manager
Owners: thm
Branches: f13 f14 el5 el6

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 619593] Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619593

--- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu&gt; 2010-12-13 13:32:27 EST ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 619593] Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619593

Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |MODIFIED

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 619593] Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619593

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2010-12-18
17:59:36 EST ---
topgit-0.9-0.2.git9b25e848.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/topgit-0.9-0.2.git9b25e848.fc13

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 619593] Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619593

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2010-12-18
17:59:45 EST ---
topgit-0.9-0.2.git9b25e848.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL
5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/topgit-0.9-0.2.git9b25e848.el5

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 619593] Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619593

--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2010-12-18
17:59:55 EST ---
topgit-0.9-0.2.git9b25e848.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/topgit-0.9-0.2.git9b25e848.fc14

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 619593] Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619593

Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|MODIFIED                    |ON_QA

--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2010-12-19
12:32:31 EST ---
topgit-0.9-0.2.git9b25e848.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing
repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update topgit'.  You can provide
feedback for this update here:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/topgit-0.9-0.2.git9b25e848.el5

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 619593] Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619593

--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2011-01-03
12:33:22 EST ---
topgit-0.9-0.2.git9b25e848.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable
repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 619593] Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619593

Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ON_QA                       |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version|                            |topgit-0.9-0.2.git9b25e848.
                   |                            |el5
         Resolution|                            |ERRATA
        Last Closed|                            |2011-01-03 12:33:28

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 619593] Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619593

--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2011-01-03
14:55:35 EST ---
topgit-0.9-0.2.git9b25e848.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable
repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 619593] Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619593

Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Fixed In Version|topgit-0.9-0.2.git9b25e848. |topgit-0.9-0.2.git9b25e848.
                   |el5                         |fc14

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 619593] Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619593

--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2011-01-03
15:08:50 EST ---
topgit-0.9-0.2.git9b25e848.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable
repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 619593] Review Request: topgit - A different patch queue manager

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=619593

Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Fixed In Version|topgit-0.9-0.2.git9b25e848. |topgit-0.9-0.2.git9b25e848.
                   |fc14                        |fc13

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.