Comment 23 for bug 1722411

@andersk The requirement has been around either since always or at least since a very long time, please see SRU acceptance comment #18:

"(...)
If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug, mentioning the version of the package you tested and change the tag from verification-needed-trusty to verification-done-trusty.
(...)"

It's been multiple times where people were testing versions from PPAs instead of the -proposed pocket. Also, the SRU team by accepting a package validation needs to have some level of certainty that the tester actually performed the required tests on the package. We had countless cases of testers just marking packages as verified without doing anything, or not going through all the required test cases. Having a version number at least gives us some information and a better sense that the test result can be trusted. Of course, people can just copy-paste and cheat anyway, but that's one additional step they need to perform at least.

In most cases we're not even accepting test results without mentioning what specific tests have been performed. The more verbosity the better, since we have more proof. If we'd believe blindly in whatever anyone just says we'd have more broken packages for no reason. Anyone can say "works for me", and many people do, but then subtle things like: "whoops, I actually tested the wrong version" pop up here and there because the tested PPA-built package that seemingly had the same contents could be busted in the -proposed archives due to different package dependencies being available.