test September 2011

test@lists.fedoraproject.org

124 participants
364 discussions

[Fedora QA] #145: Request to join ProvenTester
by fedora-badges 07 Dec '11

07 Dec '11

#145: Request to join ProvenTester -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- Reporter: dbhole | Owner: Type: proventester request | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Proventester Mentor Request | Version: Keywords: | -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- OpenJDK is a widely used package, and has quarterly security updates (at the very least). While we (devel and qe) team test it, there is no way for us to set a +1 karma as a proven-tester. To that end, I would like to apply for proven tester status. In addition to OpenJDK, this will also allow me to test and set the proper Karma for other packages our team owns. I'd be happy to follow and training guidelines laid out by a Proventester Mentor. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/145> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 3

[Fedora QA] #98: Request for a Mentor
by fedora-badges 07 Dec '11

07 Dec '11

#98: Request for a Mentor -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- Reporter: jdulaney | Owner: Type: proventester request | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Proventester Mentor Request | Version: Keywords: | -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- I would like to now formally request a Proven Tester Mentor. I have been running Fedora since FC1, generally updating every other release (I skipped 9 and went straight to 10). I have several boxes so as to get different hardware involved. Thanks, John H. Dulaney https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jdulaney -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/98> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 2

[Fedora QA] #60: Devise a better location for critpath.txt
by fedora-badges 07 Dec '11

07 Dec '11

#60: Devise a better location for critpath.txt -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Reporter: kparal | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- critpath.txt lists critical path packages [1]. Currently it is referenced as {{{ http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mash/rawhide-<<CURRENT DATE>>/logs/critpath.txt }}} or {{{ http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mash/rawhide-<<YESTERDAY DATE>>/logs/critpath.txt }}} depending on which page. Similarly for branched releases. This is not optimal. Very often the url just doesn't work. For example at the time of writing critpath.txt on F13 Alpha Release Criteria page [2] references rawhide-20100407/ directory, where critpath.txt is not available. Nor it is available in rawhide-20100406/ directory. Only in rawhide-20100405/ it is finally available. The very page Critical Path Packages [1] references critpath.txt for Branched release, which is available ATM, but also references critpath.txt for Rawhide, which is again not available. Let's imagine other use case - some automated tool must decide whether package in the critical path. It can't rely on path which are constantly changing and sometimes are not available. critpath.txt is created dynamically, so we probably must have the contents created every day or so. But we should devise such mechanism that the location is stable and the file is always available (if new contents fails to create, the old contents is still available). That will also allow third-party tools to rely on it. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_Path_Packages [[BR]] [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Alpha_Release_Criteria -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/60> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 2

[Fedora QA] #236: No qa test for making sure that the boot.iso is hybridised
by fedora-badges 07 Dec '11

07 Dec '11

#236: No qa test for making sure that the boot.iso is hybridised --------------------+------------------------------------------------------- Reporter: ausil | Owner: adamw Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Trac | Version: Keywords: | --------------------+------------------------------------------------------- = bug description = F-16 alpha shipped witha boot.iso that did not have isohybrid run on it, this means you can not just dd it to a usb drive and boot it. = bug analysis = slipped though as there was no test case = fix recommendation = lorax has been fixed, but we should make sure we cover it in testing. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/236> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 5

[Fedora QA] #170: Request for F15 Power Management test day
by fedora-badges 07 Dec '11

07 Dec '11

#170: Request for F15 Power Management test day -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- Reporter: jskarvad | Owner: Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Proventester Mentor Request | Version: Keywords: | -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- We would like to have the Power Management test day on 2011-03-24 (or maybe later). Such event would help us to test the PM functionality (especially suspend / hibernate and tuned profiles) across wide HW configurations. We are able to prepare detailed test instructions and scripts for test semi-automation. Feature page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PowerManagementF15 -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/170> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 11

2011-07-11 @ **15:00 UTC** - Fedora QA Meeting - proposed agenda
by James Laska 15 Nov '11

15 Nov '11

# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting # Date: 2011-07-11 # Time: 15:00 UTC (11:00 EDT, 17:00 CEST) [1] # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net Greetings testers! Quite a few topics to discuss today. Many of them are quick updates, so I don't anticipate going longer than our time slot. As always, feel free to respond to this mail with additional topics/suggestions/concerns. == Proposed Agenda Topics == https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20110711 1. Desktop duplicate application names 2. Fedora 16 RATS! 3. AutoQA update 4. R^3 - Retrospective recommendation tasks available 5. Cloud SIG Testing update - https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/212 6. Security Lab SPIN matrix - https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/207 7. Open Discussion - <your topic here> Thanks, James [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto

2 2

Release criteria: virtualization tweak
by Adam Williamson 14 Oct '11

14 Oct '11

Hey, all. pjones pointed out at a recent blocker review meeting that the Beta virt criterion: "The release must boot successfully as a virtual guest in a situation where the virtual host is running the same release (using Fedora's current preferred virtualization technology)" doesn't really imply that virtual host functionality must work; only that _if_ virtual host functionality is working, then virtual guest functionality must work. This was not really our intent with the criterion, we intended to require both to work at Beta stage. So here's a proposed improvement: "The release must be able to self-host using Fedora's current preferred virtualization technology: that is, the release must be able to act as a virtual host, and must also successfully install and boot as a virtual guest when running on a host which is also running the release" I'm still not super happy with the wording, but I guess it's clearer. Any better ideas? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net

7 14

Final Release Criterion for Xen DomU
by Tim Flink 13 Oct '11

13 Oct '11

During the discussion around Xen DomU support as a beta release criterion in the Fedora QA meeting today, the question of blocking for DomU came up. Specifically, do we want to have Xen DomU support as a final release criteria? I can think of two arguments for making it a release criterion: 1. If install as DomU doesn't work at final release, it becomes much more difficult to install as DomU for that release without spinning custom install media. 2. Amazon EC2 is based on Xen, DomU support could affect our ability to release on EC2. Another thought is that Fedora 16 is going to be the first release in a while that supports running as Xen Dom0. It seems a bit silly to have support for Dom0 and not have the ability to run as DomU. Anyhow, thoughts around making DomU support a final release criterion? Tim

8 16

[Fedora QA] #243: redefine stages and update test cases
by fedora-badges 10 Oct '11

10 Oct '11

#243: redefine stages and update test cases -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Reporter: hongqing | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 16 Component: Test Review | Version: Keywords: | -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- = phenomenon = The F16 installation GUI and output are different with the test cases = background analysis = since the systemd is used and anaconda is updated, the output is different with previous. = implementation recommendation = the installation stages should be redefined and test cases should be updated, these include: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Kernel_simple_boot_test_case http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Anaconda_stage2_fetch_test_case -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/243> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 3

fedora 16 dvd or network install ?
by cornel panceac 05 Oct '11

05 Oct '11

i've downloaded de x86 fedora 16 dvd install iso so that i'll no longer need the network. during the install, i was asked to configure a wired network interface (which i did), then proceeded to the install. later i've seen that the usb stick from which i started the install (which contains the files from dvd) is not used but instead the ethernet connection is the install source. i've never tell anaconda to install from the internet (but maybe the network repos were autoamgically selected). is this by design? on the other hand, i've noticed that the 3.x kernel freezes often on my x40 thinkpad. is this a known issue? (i'll test the hardware anyway, after install.)

4 6

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
37
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

test September 2011