Re: [Fedora QA] #393: Revise release criteria for ARM as primary arch
#393: Revise release criteria for ARM as primary arch ---+--- Reporter: adamwill | Owner: adamwill Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 20 Component: Release criteria |Version: Resolution:| Keywords: Blocked By:| Blocking: ---+--- Changes (by pwhalen): * cc: pwhalen@… (added) -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/393#comment:9 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: [Fedora QA] #394: Revise validation process / templates for ARM as primary arch
#394: Revise validation process / templates for ARM as primary arch ---+--- Reporter: adamwill | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 20 Component: Wiki |Version: Resolution:| Keywords: Blocked By:| Blocking: ---+--- Changes (by pwhalen): * cc: pwhalen@… (added) -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/394#comment:2 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: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, Jonathan Kamens wrote: I filed another defect about the same package because one of its dialogs provided several pieces of incorrect information about a particular configuration setting and how to change it. He responded, Oh, that screen is wrong, we don't actually use that configuration setting. Here's the setting you actually need to use, and how to examine or change it from the command line. Then he closed the defect with NOTABUG. I responded and WONTFIX I filed another defect about the same page explaining exactly what I had done to cause the issue I was reporting. He closed the bug with INSUFFICIENT_DATA, without any comment about what exactly he found lacking in my reproduction steps. I didn't try to argue with him, because, well, I'd seen by this point how much good that would do. On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, Jonathan Kamens wrote: I have little interest in wasting my time engaging in pointless mediation that is just going to boil down to he-said, she-said, i.e., me saying, This There is at least one objective test that can be made: Someone should try to repoduce the problem from your bug report. Cannot do it myself. Cannot get past F14. -- Michael henne...@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu Nothing says it like words if you know how to use them. -- the Professional Organization of English Majors -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
On 07/23/2013 11:43 AM, Michael Hennebry wrote: There is at least one objective test that can be made: Someone should try to repoduce the problem from your bug report. Cannot do it myself. Cannot get past F14. ABRT bugs are often intermittent. As I noted in an earlier email message in this thread: ...reproduction steps are not the only way that a bug can be tracked down. ABRT bugs, for example, include a stack trace and a bunch of other information intended to allow the maintainer to try to track down the bug even if the user doesn't know exactly what caused the crash. This is, after all, the whole point of all that data that ABRT uploads. The maintainer we're talking about closed an ABRT bug with INSUFFICIENT_DATA seemingly without bothering to look at any of the ABRT data. Then when I added information to the defect about what caused that same crash for ME, he ignored it and did not reopen the bug. The other reason why it's a bad idea to close ABRT bugs with INSUFFICIENT_DATA is because ABRT doesn't add CC's to closed bugs, so it's impossible to find out how many people are being impacted by a crash bug if you close it. jik -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 15:05 -0400, Fernando Cassia wrote: It seems to me like you don't know how to report bugs. Bug reports should include STEPS TO REPRODUCE, ALWAYS, it is not OPTIONAL. [voice=droll] So is is your stated position that intermittent or hard to reproduce bugs are 'someone else's problem' or are you asserting they they don't exist? Either it sounds kinda retarded, sir.[1] If the reporter knows how to reproduce a bug, of course they should report that. But an unexplainable failure is still a failure, and a report at least begins a conversation and provides an entry point for future reporters to search on and add to, eventually the hope being to collect enough clues to point to a solution. In a perfect world every bug report would include a complete breakdown of the problem. Or heck, if we are wishing we could just assume every user is a skilled developer who can code in every language, understand the OO.o, Firefox codebases AND troubleshoot ACPI bugs in the kernel and every bug report could be expected to include a patch as well. Or why not assume that every user is a registered Fedora dev and can just contribute a fixed package and we could eliminate bugzilla entirely. In reality even a bad bug report is better than silence, at least a bad report indicates that there is likely to be a real problem, even if it can't be solved yet. [1] Those not following recent U.S. news probably won't get the cultural reference. It's just a bad joke, not a flame. (A pot, kettle sorta gag.) 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: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
On 07/23/2013 04:00 PM, Michael Hennebry wrote: Are all the bugs under discussion ABRT bugs? All of the bugs which prompted me to start this thread on the test list fall into one of two categories: reproducible bugs where reproduction steps were provided, and ABRT bugs. There are no bugs in the set which are neither reproducible nor generated by ABRT. Having said that, I agree with John Morris https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2013-July/117110.html that just because neither came from ABRT nor has reproduction steps included is not /ipso facto/ justification for the maintainer closing the bug with INSUFFICIENT_DATA without making any effort to obtain the additional data necessary to further pursue the bug. Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, the bug status workflow document https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2013-July/117095.html agrees with me and John as well. jik -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: What does one do about a package maintainer with an attitude problem?
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Jonathan Kamens wrote: On 07/23/2013 04:00 PM, Michael Hennebry wrote: Are all the bugs under discussion ABRT bugs? All of the bugs which prompted me to start this thread on the test list fall into one of two categories: reproducible bugs where reproduction steps were provided, and ABRT bugs. There are no bugs in the set which are neither reproducible nor generated by ABRT. Having said that, I agree with John Morris https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2013-July/117110.html that just because neither came from ABRT nor has reproduction steps included is not /ipso facto/ justification for the maintainer closing the bug with INSUFFICIENT_DATA without making any effort to obtain the additional data necessary to further pursue the bug. Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, the bug status workflow document https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2013-July/117095.html agrees with me and John as well. I'm not suggesting that either you or the maintainer behaved correctly or otherwise. I am suggesting that there might be one more bit of objective data available. If the steps to reproduce (children leave the room) are there now, you might re-open the bug and put in a comment asking others (plural) to reproduce the bug and report. If you get a report of successful reproduction, that would be objective evidence that the maintainer has the informaion he needs. -- Michael henne...@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu 25 And the Lord spake unto the Angel that guarded the gate, saying Where is the flaming sword which was given unto thee? 26 And the Angel said, I had it here a moment ago, must have put it down somewhere, forget my own head next. 27 And the Lord did not ask again.” -— Genesis, 3:25-27-- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Criteria revision proposal: Expected installed system boot behavior (Alpha)
On Fri, 2013-07-19 at 07:32 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote: A working mechanism to create a user account must be clearly presented during installation and/or first boot of the installed system. A system installed with a release-blocking desktop must boot to a log in screen where it is possible to log in to a working desktop using a user account created during installation or a 'first boot' utility. The third criterion, A system installed without a graphical package set must boot to a state where it is possible to log in through at least one of the default virtual consoles., remains unchanged. We add one more 'footnote': On the first boot after installation, a utility for creating user accounts and other configuration may run prior to a log in screen appearing. Sounds good. Any more feedback on this one before I throw it into production? Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
NetworkManager - rawhide
Hi, It seems that you've all gone on vacation, happy campers. :) Are we going to upgrade, it's been almost a month since you released NetworkManager-0.9.9.0-5.git20130603.fc20, and moreover it is faulty, in the least i686. I managed to build and drive nicely 0.9.10.0-1.git20130723.fc20. Fedora now flying as a kite, wheee! poma -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
GNOME Online Miners - rawhide
Hi, Apparently repo doesn't like it a lot. ;) € dnf install gnome-documents gnome-photos Setting up Install Process Resolving Dependencies -- Starting dependency resolution -- Finished dependency resolution Error: nothing provides gnome-online-miners needed by gnome-documents-3.9.4-1.fc20.i686 Error: nothing provides gnome-online-miners needed by gnome-photos-3.9.4-1.fc20.i686 € yum install gnome-documents gnome-photos Loaded plugins: langpacks, refresh-packagekit Resolving Dependencies -- Running transaction check --- Package gnome-documents.i686 0:3.9.4-1.fc20 will be installed -- Processing Dependency: gnome-online-miners for package: gnome-documents-3.9.4-1.fc20.i686 --- Package gnome-photos.i686 0:3.9.4-1.fc20 will be installed -- Processing Dependency: gnome-online-miners for package: gnome-photos-3.9.4-1.fc20.i686 -- Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Package: gnome-documents-3.9.4-1.fc20.i686 (rawhide) Requires: gnome-online-miners Error: Package: gnome-photos-3.9.4-1.fc20.i686 (rawhide) Requires: gnome-online-miners You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest poma -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: GNOME Online Miners - rawhide
On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 01:59 +0200, poma wrote: Hi, Apparently repo doesn't like it a lot. ;) It's fixed in today's Rawhide, should sync to mirrors tomorrow I guess. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: NetworkManager - rawhide
On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 01:40 +0200, poma wrote: Hi, It seems that you've all gone on vacation, happy campers. :) Are we going to upgrade, it's been almost a month since you released NetworkManager-0.9.9.0-5.git20130603.fc20, and moreover it is faulty, in the least i686. I managed to build and drive nicely 0.9.10.0-1.git20130723.fc20. Fedora now flying as a kite, wheee! When you say 'faulty', do you mean https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=985627 ? And current git snapshot fixes it? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
