On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 13:02 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote: > > I didn't really mean to preclude the use of a minimal package set, I'm > > just trying to exclude the problems we've been having whereby the test > > cases and criteria are kind of getting 'gamed' with odd choices =) I'll > > see if I can find a happy medium... > > I think a general sentence like this could work fine: > "Please try not to adjust any installation settings that could make a > potential bug in the tested area go unnoticed." > > Which means, if you combine too many stuff, maybe it'll blow up and you'll > never know why, or maybe it will behave quite differently than in > 'expected/usual' case. > > I don't think we need to counter criteria gaming inside test cases. We have > the meetings to decide that.
The very long and messy meetings... The initial goal of the criteria was to allow for very clear-cut and justifiable blocker decisions, rather than us having to make subjective calls after arguments about every bug. I'd like to restore/preserve/improve on that direction, myself. I like the case where a bug's discussion in the meeting goes: 01:00 topic change 01:01 five +1s 01:02 proposed #agreed 01:03 five acks 01:04 next bug not the case where we argue about how workaroundable it is for fifteen minutes... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
