Re: Draft meeting SOP
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 10:03 -0400, James Laska wrote: Greetings folks, To better facilitate self-hosting our weekly QA meeting, I documented the process I follow to prepare, host and recap the meeting. There are some aspects where I diverge from the documented behave. For example, I simplified the meeting recap process. So long as the #chair make use of plenty of meetbot commands, that shouldn't be a problem at all. I also documented sending out a meeting agenda draft at least a day in advance. I don't always (okay rarely) do this now, but it certainly would be a good practice to adopt. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_IRC_meeting_process Thanks for the feedback, I've moved the page into [[Category:QA SOPs]]. Thanks, James signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: 2011-07-18 @ 15:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting - call for topics
On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 00:57 +0100, Athmane Madjoudj wrote: On 07/18/2011 12:37 AM, James Laska wrote: # Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting # Date: 2011-07-18 # Time: 15:00 UTC (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto) # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net Greetings testers! This is a reminder of the upcoming QA meeting tomorrow. Please add any topic suggestions to meeting wiki page at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20110717. A proposed meeting agenda is included below. Please respond to this email, or update the meeting wiki page with suggested topics. If no additional topics are suggested, the meeting will be canceled. == Proposed Agenda Topics == 1. Previous meeting follow-up 2. Open Discussion -your topic here I've updated the wiki page with (correction: /wiki/QA/Meetings/20110718) Thanks, copy'n'paste fail on my part. I've setup a #REDIRECT in case anyone clicks the incorrect link. === Cloud SIG - Fedora 15 on Amazon EC2 === # Fedora 15 on Amazon EC2 test day is scheduled this TUESDAY (2011-07-19) # Athmane has copied the draft page and categorized it: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-07-19_Cloud_SIG_Fedora_EC2 # TODO: Athmane is waiting for Fedora 15 AMI ID to update the wiki page. # Cloud SIG Meeting Minutes - 2011-07-15: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/cloud/2011-July/000670.html Thanks for the meeting topic! Thanks, James signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
rawhide report: 20110718 changes
Compose started at Mon Jul 18 08:15:54 UTC 2011 Broken deps for x86_64 -- acheck-0.5.1-4.fc15.noarch requires perl(Text::Aspell) almanah-0.7.3-12.fc16.x86_64 requires libedataserverui-3.0.so.0()(64bit) almanah-0.7.3-12.fc16.x86_64 requires libcamel-1.2.so.26()(64bit) 1:anerley-0.2.14-7.fc16.i686 requires libcamel-1.2.so.26 1:anerley-0.2.14-7.fc16.x86_64 requires libcamel-1.2.so.26()(64bit) apvlv-0.0.9.8-4.fc16.x86_64 requires libpoppler.so.13()(64bit) apvlv-0.0.9.8-4.fc16.x86_64 requires libpoppler-glib.so.6()(64bit) bibletime-2.8.1-1.fc16.x86_64 requires libclucene.so.0()(64bit) camcardsync-0.1.1-4.fc15.x86_64 requires libhal.so.1()(64bit) cluster-snmp-0.18.7-1.fc16.x86_64 requires libnetsnmp.so.25()(64bit) deskbar-applet-2.32.0-4.fc15.x86_64 requires gnome-python2-applet deskbar-applet-2.32.0-4.fc15.x86_64 requires libebook-1.2.so.10()(64bit) deskbar-applet-2.32.0-4.fc15.x86_64 requires libcamel-1.2.so.23()(64bit) dh-make-0.55-3.fc15.noarch requires debhelper ekiga-3.3.0-10.fc16.x86_64 requires libopal.so.3.8.3()(64bit) ekiga-3.3.0-10.fc16.x86_64 requires libpt.so.2.8.3()(64bit) ekiga-3.3.0-10.fc16.x86_64 requires libcamel-1.2.so.26()(64bit) em8300-0.18.0-3.fc15.x86_64 requires /etc/security/console.perms.d evolution-couchdb-0.5.90-2.fc16.x86_64 requires libcamel-provider-1.2.so.26()(64bit) evolution-couchdb-0.5.90-2.fc16.x86_64 requires libcamel-1.2.so.26()(64bit) evolution-sharp-0.21.1-14.fc16.x86_64 requires libcamel-1.2.so.26()(64bit) exaile-0.3.2.1-1.fc16.noarch requires hal fawkes-guis-0.4.2-4.fc16.i686 requires libgraph.so.4 fawkes-guis-0.4.2-4.fc16.i686 requires libcdt.so.4 fawkes-guis-0.4.2-4.fc16.i686 requires libgvc.so.5 fawkes-guis-0.4.2-4.fc16.x86_64 requires libgraph.so.4()(64bit) fawkes-guis-0.4.2-4.fc16.x86_64 requires libcdt.so.4()(64bit) fawkes-guis-0.4.2-4.fc16.x86_64 requires libgvc.so.5()(64bit) fawkes-plugin-player-0.4.2-4.fc16.x86_64 requires libgeos-3.2.1.so()(64bit) file-browser-applet-0.6.6-1.fc15.x86_64 requires libpanel-applet-2.so.0()(64bit) flaw-1.2.4-2.fc15.x86_64 requires libSDL_gfx.so.0()(64bit) fldigi-3.21.7-1.fc16.x86_64 requires libfltk_images.so.1.1()(64bit) fldigi-3.21.7-1.fc16.x86_64 requires libfltk.so.1.1()(64bit) freedink-engine-1.08.20101114-2.fc15.x86_64 requires libSDL_gfx.so.0()(64bit) gambas2-gb-pdf-2.23.1-1.fc16.x86_64 requires libpoppler.so.13()(64bit) garden-1.0.8-3.fc15.x86_64 requires liballeg.so.4.2()(64bit) gdb-heap-0.5-5.fc16.x86_64 requires glibc(x86-64) = 0:2.13.90 gdcm-2.0.17-3.fc16.i686 requires libpoppler.so.13 gdcm-2.0.17-3.fc16.x86_64 requires libpoppler.so.13()(64bit) gedit-valencia-0.3.0-6.20110701git808152718e3ab.fc16.x86_64 requires libvala-0.12.so.0()(64bit) ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16.i686 requires libHSarray-0.3.0.2-ghc7.0.2.so ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16.i686 requires libHSdirectory-1.1.0.0-ghc7.0.2.so ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16.i686 requires libHSghc-prim-0.2.0.0-ghc7.0.2.so ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16.i686 requires libHSold-time-1.0.0.6-ghc7.0.2.so ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16.i686 requires libHSold-locale-1.0.0.2-ghc7.0.2.so ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16.i686 requires libHSunix-2.4.2.0-ghc7.0.2.so ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16.i686 requires libHSfilepath-1.2.0.0-ghc7.0.2.so ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16.i686 requires libHSbase-4.3.1.0-ghc7.0.2.so ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16.i686 requires libHSinteger-gmp-0.2.0.3-ghc7.0.2.so ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16.i686 requires libHScontainers-0.4.0.0-ghc7.0.2.so ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16.x86_64 requires libHSghc-prim-0.2.0.0-ghc7.0.2.so()(64bit) ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16.x86_64 requires libHSold-time-1.0.0.6-ghc7.0.2.so()(64bit) ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16.x86_64 requires libHSbase-4.3.1.0-ghc7.0.2.so()(64bit) ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16.x86_64 requires libHSinteger-gmp-0.2.0.3-ghc7.0.2.so()(64bit) ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16.x86_64 requires libHSold-locale-1.0.0.2-ghc7.0.2.so()(64bit) ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16.x86_64 requires libHSfilepath-1.2.0.0-ghc7.0.2.so()(64bit) ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16.x86_64 requires ghc(base-4.3.1.0) = 0:c33a1741503ded8a0170884e8a2e4fa2 ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16.x86_64 requires libHScontainers-0.4.0.0-ghc7.0.2.so()(64bit) ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16.x86_64 requires libHSarray-0.3.0.2-ghc7.0.2.so()(64bit) ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16.x86_64 requires libHSunix-2.4.2.0-ghc7.0.2.so()(64bit) ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16.x86_64 requires libHSdirectory-1.1.0.0-ghc7.0.2.so()(64bit) ghc-hinotify-devel-0.3.1-9.fc16.i686 requires ghc = 0:7.0.2
RE: FESCo: Feature process and release blocker process
-Original Message- From: test-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:test- boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Adam Williamson Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 22:36 To: de...@lists.fedoraproject.org; test@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: FESCo: Feature process and release blocker process SNIP There have been a few occasions in recent releases in which bugs that can essentially be characterized as 'the proposed feature XX is not complete' have been marked as release blockers. When these have come up for review as part of the release blocker process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - we have been consistent in not accepting them as blocker bugs. Our rationale for this builds from these premises: * The release blocker process is designed to ensure a given release or pre-release's compliance with the Fedora quality standards, as codified in the release criteria - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria * A feature being incomplete does not necessarily, or even commonly, constitute an infringement of these quality standards We - QA - would like to formalize this position by writing it into the blocker bug process / release criteria (I haven't yet looked at precisely where it'd fit best). We feel that it's best to keep the release blocker process and the feature process separate. SNIP I am pretty much out of the fedora process, but the wording above leaves me a bit more queasy for using the downstream products. I assume you(QA) are at least doing a cursory review to see if it does constitute an infringement of these quality standards, so that IF the feature is still present at the release(a choice of FESCo), then the quality(a choice of QA) will still be at the level we expect. i.e. *just* because the bug is on a feature XX, QA is not just pitching it back to FESCo, and when final release comes the bug gets missed (from a QA perspective) because it was part of a feature that FESCo is accepting. Just looking for some more clarity on this concept, thanks. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: oVirt Node Fedora 16 Spin
On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 20:43 -0400, Joey Boggs wrote: On 07/13/2011 01:19 PM, Joey Boggs wrote: It seems there are some issues with the current Spins approval process, but to workaround I've been asked to contact each of your lists to get acks for approval to keep the ball rolling. The spins feature page in question is located at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ovirt_Node_Spin For the test plan we are awaiting an upstream commit to virt-manager to add in a tui version of virt-manager. We plan to showcase that in the spin as well. This means the test plan will be updated from its current state. (updated tentatively today) For the artwork we have a boot splash screen in the unofficial spins that we release ourselves on new builds, in the case of a spin this was an item we are not allowed to change. We'll also be providing screenshots of the new virt-manager-tui and standalone mode installation. If you have any questions please contact me or ape...@redhat.com Thanks, Joey The test plan has been updated on the wiki along with frequency as requested. Please review and ACK if approved. Thanks Joey, The instructions look good. As for how the testing will be documented, have you given any thought on how to document/track that process? Unless you have other ideas, I'd recommend creating a test matrix that lists the tests you outline on the wiki, and allows testers to post results against different milestones. You can find a similar SPIN example recently from Athmane at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Athmane/Draft_Security_Lab_validation_matrix Using that (or similar) style test matrix, we can include that wiki page in official Alpha/Beta/Final test run announcements. Any thoughts/comments on that particular format? Thanks, James signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: oVirt Node Fedora 16 Spin
On 07/18/2011 04:00 PM, James Laska wrote: On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 20:43 -0400, Joey Boggs wrote: On 07/13/2011 01:19 PM, Joey Boggs wrote: snip Using that (or similar) style test matrix, we can include that wiki page in official Alpha/Beta/Final test run announcements. Any thoughts/comments on that particular format? OK, I'll create a test matrix based on the new information you provided on the wiki page, though it may not be official until it integrated into Fedora's Release Engineering. -- Athmane Madjoudj -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
RE: FESCo: Feature process and release blocker process
On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 09:42 -0400, Denniston, Todd A CIV NAVSURFWARCENDIV Crane wrote: I am pretty much out of the fedora process, but the wording above leaves me a bit more queasy for using the downstream products. I assume you(QA) are at least doing a cursory review to see if it does constitute an infringement of these quality standards, so that IF the feature is still present at the release(a choice of FESCo), then the quality(a choice of QA) will still be at the level we expect. i.e. *just* because the bug is on a feature XX, QA is not just pitching it back to FESCo, and when final release comes the bug gets missed (from a QA perspective) because it was part of a feature that FESCo is accepting. Just looking for some more clarity on this concept, thanks. Yes, that's correct. The way I look at it is that the feature process just isn't really reelvant to the release validation process at all. The release validation process takes the code in the pre-release to be tested and makes sure it meets the quality standards - the release criteria. It doesn't matter if that code happens to be part of an 'Official Feature' or not. If a bug in a Feature infringes the release criteria, it's a release blocker. The issue here is just that we shouldn't have 'feature XX is not complete' as a release blocker. 'feature XX causes the system not to boot' would certainly be a blocker. =) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
re- Back to F14
So, you don't like KDE's Classic Style menu...which gives you a tree structure? Switching KDE to use traditional menu seems to work fine under Scientific Linux 6xx. Under Fedora 15, the traditional menu lacks add/remove software and services is broken. For example, it couldn't enable httpd. -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R c...@omen.com www.omen.com Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications Omen Technology Inc The High Reliability Software 10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231 503-614-0430 -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Fedora QA] #223: F16 Graphics Test Week
#223: F16 Graphics Test Week --+- Reporter: adamwill | Owner: adamwill Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 16 Component: Test Day | Version: Keywords:| --+- It's Graphics Test Week time again... pencilling in for August 30th, 31st and September 1st. I will organize and put up wiki pages shortly. -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/223 Fedora QA http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa Fedora Quality Assurance -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: FESCo: Feature process and release blocker process
On Sat, 2011-07-16 at 12:48 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:36:10 -0700 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: ...snip... We wanted to check that this was okay with FESCo and the feature wrangler and the project in general before going ahead, so here we are =) Please let us know if anyone is worried about this. Thanks! Speaking only for myself (I suspect we should have FESCo discuss at their next meeting), this sounds completely reasonable to me. Each of the groups involved in a release should have a say (and does at the go/no go meeting). QA should focus on their testing and QA efforts to decide if they are go or no-go. Other groups may have their own criteria. Thanks. For the record, we brought this up at today's FESCo meeting, everyone agreed it sounded reasonable, and so I have added the following paragraph to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Template:Release_criteria_definition : A Fedora feature being incomplete, in and of itself, does not constitute a blocker bug. The feature process is separate from this process. Features are required to meet certain standards at certain points of the release cycle, but this is part of the feature process and managed, tracked and enforced separately from this process. However, if a proposed feature being incomplete causes any of the above criteria to be met, then the bug is a release blocker. (various of those words are hyperlinks to other bits of the wiki, to make it easier to see what the 'feature process' is and so on). This template is transcluded in the release criteria pages for each phase: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_16_Alpha_Release_Criteria https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_16_Beta_Release_Criteria https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_16_Final_Release_Criteria I hope this is a clear and concise way to formalize the distinction between the release validation and feature processes. Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [Fedora QA] #222: L10N Test Day
#222: L10N Test Day ---+ Reporter: noriko| Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 16 Component: Test Day | Version: Resolution:|Keywords: ---+ Comment (by igor): I have created the draft test days wiki pages as suggested by Rui. Feel free to add your names and improve the pages. I'll add the links for downloading the images when we have them. -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/222#comment:11 Fedora QA http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa Fedora Quality Assurance -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Fedora 14 updates-testing report
The following Fedora 14 Security updates need testing: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xml-security-c-1.5.1-4.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/NetworkManager-0.8.4-2.git20110622.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libpng10-1.0.55-1.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cifs-utils-4.8.1-6.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/squirrelmail-1.4.22-2.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libvirt-0.8.3-10.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bind-9.7.4-0.3.b1.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libsndfile-1.0.25-1.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libpng-1.2.46-1.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ruby-1.8.7.352-1.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xmms-1.2.11-15.20071117cvs.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tomcat6-6.0.26-21.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openldap-2.4.23-10.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/oprofile-0.9.6-21.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gdk-pixbuf2-2.22.0-2.fc14 The following Fedora 14 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mdadm-3.1.3-0.git20100804.3.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libsndfile-1.0.25-1.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ModemManager-0.4.998-1.git20110706.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/acl-2.2.49-9.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/unique-1.1.6-3.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xorg-x11-drv-savage-2.3.2-3.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cronie-1.4.8-2.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mash-0.5.22-1.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-slip-0.2.17-1.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gdk-pixbuf2-2.22.0-2.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/NetworkManager-0.8.4-2.git20110622.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-5.12.4-146.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/policycoreutils-2.0.85-30.2.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/system-config-keyboard-1.3.1-5.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fedora-logos-14.0.2-1.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xorg-x11-drv-openchrome-0.2.904-8.fc14.2 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xorg-x11-drv-qxl-0.0.21-3.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/evolution-exchange-2.32.3-1.fc14,evolution-data-server-2.32.3-1.fc14,evolution-2.32.3-1.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xorg-x11-drv-nouveau-0.0.16-14.20101010git8c8f15c.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libconcord-0.23-5.fc14,udev-161-9.fc14,concordance-0.23-2.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openldap-2.4.23-10.fc14 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora 14 updates-testing OpenNL-3.2.1-5.fc14 ballz-1.0.2-1.fc14 dnstop-20110502-1.fc14 drbdlinks-1.19-2.fc14 drupal6-features-1.1-3.fc14 duplicity-0.6.14-1.fc14 emacs-goodies-34.2-1.fc14 ethtool-2.6.39-1.fc14 gget-0.0.4-16.fc14 gnome-do-0.8.5-3.fc14 gnome-do-plugins-0.8.4-2.fc14 josm-0-0.21.4223svn.fc14 libguestfs-1.8.9-1.fc14 lxappearance-obconf-0.1.0-0.1.20110714git3a0fd02d.fc14 mysql-5.1.58-1.fc14 perl-Fedora-Rebuild-0.7.0-1.fc14 perl-File-Remove-1.50-1.fc14 perl-HTML-Format-2.09-1.fc14 php-PHPMailer-5.1-4.fc14 php-ZendFramework-1.11.9-1.fc14 plowshare-0.9.4-0.8.svn1591.fc14 python-celery-2.2.7-3.fc14 qwtpolar-0.1.0-5.fc14 rubygem-rhc-0.71.2-2.fc14 spatialite-tools-2.4.0-0.4.RC4.fc14 v4l-utils-0.8.5-1.fc14 xml-security-c-1.5.1-4.fc14 Details about builds: OpenNL-3.2.1-5.fc14 (FEDORA-2011-9463) A library for solving sparse linear systems Update Information: * Initial rpm import * A library for solving sparse linear systems References: [ 1 ] Bug #720998 - Review Request: OpenNL - A library for solving sparse linear systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=720998 ballz-1.0.2-1.fc14 (FEDORA-2011-9499) Platform game with some puzzle elements Update Information: Update to upstream 1.0.2 minor bugfix release. ChangeLog: * Sat Jul 16 2011 Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to 1.0.2-1 - Update to upstream 1.0.2 - Minor bug fixes
