QA format for bugzilla

[Jesse Keating]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 20 January 2004 21:51, Todd wrote:
> Is there a recommended format or template for adding comments on QA to
> bugzilla?  If there isn't, can someone point me to some examples of
> what are considered good QA comments in bugzilla?
>
> I've gone through the QA Checklist[1] on the tcpdump SRPM that
> Christian posted a few days ago for RH7.3 and would like to post that
> data so the package can get closer to being put into updates-testing.
>
> [1] http://www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy/QAChecklist

Thank you for your work!

I've been using the following format:

{RHL release}
{sha1sum or md5sum of the srpm}   {srpmfilename}
{Work performed, comments, suggestions}
{Vote for Publish or not}

Put all of this in a file and gpg --clearsign the file.  Paste the results 
of the clearsign into bugzilla.  Add yourself to the bugzilla CC list if 
you wish.

<exmaple>
7.3
e22108165eeb8a4f2d6f078600117d2a3b5dc88d  screen-3.9.11-4.legacy.src.rpm

Package sums check out, verified patch against CAN article.  Patch applies 
cleanly during build, build completes.  ldd comparison from previous 
release of package to this release matches up.  Basic functionality tests 
pass.

I vote for PUBLISH
</example>

Once again, thank you for your work!

- -- 
Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE	(http://geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team	(http://www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy)
Mondo DevTeam		(www.mondorescue.org)
GPG Public Key		(http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)

Was I helpful?  Let others know:
 http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFADhZv4v2HLvE71NURAhE7AJ9/l9fEr33nYSDNMw3W/rGJ2mSTRwCePJlW
AUa2WtyCTzaU7QqMc0IZMss=
=p7tM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----