From Fedora Project Wiki

< FWN‎ | Beats

(create fwn 215 qa beat)
(create fwn 216 qa beat)
Line 10: Line 10:
=== Test Days ===
=== Test Days ===


Last week's Test Day<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2010-02-25_YumLangpackPlugin</ref> was on the langpack plugin for yum<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/YumLangpackPlugin</ref>. The event suffered a little from falling in the same week as the Alpha candidate testing process, but testing did result in the identification of two bugs. Thanks to those who came out to test.
Last week's planned Test Day on the use of SSSD by default<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SSSDByDefault</ref> unfortunately had to be postponed. The new date will be announced in FWN when it is decided.


Next week's Test Day<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2010-03-04_SSSDByDefault</ref> will be on the use of SSSD by default<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SSSDByDefault</ref>. As the page says, "The prime benefit of the System Security Services Daemon is support for offline logins. Above and beyond the traditional pam_ldap or pam_krb5 approaches, the SSSD would remove the need for laptop users of Fedora to maintain a local account, separate from their centrally-managed account, to work offline or disconnected from the central servers." This is a significant feature for many people, so please come out and help us test it! The Test Day will run all day on Thursday 2010-03-04 in the #fedora-test-day IRC channel.
Next week's Test Day<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2010-03-11_webcams</ref> will be on webcams. Well, that's simple! We like webcams. We want them to work. If your webcam works, we would like to know this so we can celebrate and bask in the warm, contented glow. If your webcam does not work, this makes us very sad and we would like to make it work. So, if you have a webcam, please come along, run a few simple tests, and if it doesn't work, we'll do our best to change that! Testing will be very easy and you'll be able to use a live CD or an installed Fedora system to test. The Test Day will run all day on Thursday 2010-03-11 in the #fedora-test-day IRC channel.


If you would like to propose a main track Test Day for the Fedora 13 cycle, please contact the QA team via email or IRC, or file a ticket in QA Trac<ref>http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/</ref>.
If you would like to propose a main track Test Day for the Fedora 13 cycle, please contact the QA team via email or IRC, or file a ticket in QA Trac<ref>http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/</ref>.
Line 20: Line 20:
=== Weekly meetings ===
=== Weekly meetings ===


The QA group weekly meeting<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings</ref> was held on 2010-02-22. The full logs are available<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20100222</ref>. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] noted that the privilege escalation policy<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Privilege_escalation_policy</ref> the group had helped to create had been approved by FESco and was now an official policy.
The QA group weekly meeting<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings</ref> was held on 2010-03-01. The full logs are available<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20100301</ref>. [[User:maxamillion|Adam Miller]] reported back on his proposal for managing membership of the QA group in FAS. He had created a draft proposal<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/JoinCriticalPathWranglers:Draft</ref> and started a mailing list thread<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-February/088824.html</ref> on the topic. [[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] thanked him for his work. [[User:Tk009|Edward Kirk]] wondered about the mentoring proposal, asking if mentors were already lined up. Adam said that was not yet arranged. He thought that any existing member of the group could be a potential mentor, and new members could be handled on a case-by-case basis. James asked if some groups document mentor responsibilities; Adam replied that he was not sure. They agreed to revisit the topic next week after further follow-up discussion on the mailing list.


[[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] noted that the first Alpha release candidate was now available for testing<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test-announce/2010-February/000023.html</ref>. [[User:jkeating|Jesse Keating]] mentioned that it had turned out to be quite broken. James pointed out the test result matrix<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_13_Alpha_RC1_Install#Test_Matrix</ref> as the best summary of exactly how broken. The group briefly discussed the causes for the regressions from the second test compose, with the X server input switch from HAL to dbus being one of the major causes, and some errors in anaconda changes the other. [[User:Kparal|Kamil Paral]] pointed out that an SELinux bug was impeding desktop validation testing. After some discussion, the group agreed testing could go ahead with SELinux disabled and negative results recorded, but not positive results (as it was impossible to be sure if the result would also be positive with SELinux enabled). The group also discussed the best approach to testing to try and get all critical issues fixed without having to delay the Alpha release, and agreed to focus on closing as many open bugs as possible even with the known-bad RC1 images and then testing RC2 quickly once it was made available.
[[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] reported that he and [[User:maxamillion|Adam Miller]] had forgotten to contact the sectool team regarding the security spin QA proposal, but would do so immediately following the meeting.


[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] briefly mentioned that he would be putting the topicof Fedora 13 bug procedures up for discussion at the next day's Bugzappers meeting.
[[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] noted that the fourth Alpha release candidate build was now available for testing, and linked to the test matrices<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_13_Alpha_RC4_Install</ref> <ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_13_Alpha_RC4_Desktop</ref>. [[User:maxamillion|Adam Miller]] said he would try to run the desktop tests for Xfce. The group discussed the two potential blocker bugs that testing had so far uncovered, an update installation issue #567346<ref>http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567346</ref> and a traditional CD installer disc swapping issue #569377<ref>http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569377</ref>. They agreed that testing should continue to isolate the conditions that would trigger 567346, and that 569377 should be moved to blocking the Beta. The group also discussed two dependency issues [[User:Kparal|Kamil Paral]] had noticed during installation validation but had not yet nominated as blockers, and agreed they did not need to block the release as they did not affect the packages on the physical media.


The group discussed the question of membership of the QA group in FAS for a while. This has historically been unimportant as it was not used for anything, but in future, positive feedback in Bodhi for critical path packages will be required from members of QA or Release Engineering before the update can be pushed, so the question of group membership becomes important. [[User:maxamillion|Adam Miller]] volunteered to write an initial draft of a policy / procedure on group membership.
[[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] reviewed a topic from the Bugzappers group, where a decision had been taken to rebase open Rawhide bugs to Fedora 13.


[[User:maxamillion|Adam Miller]] recapped his call for help with QA brainstorming for the new security spin<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SecuritySpin:QA_Brainstorm</ref>. [[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] pointed out that there had recently been a test day for sectool, and suggested those involved with that may be interested in helping.
[[User:Wwoods|Will Woods]] and [[User:Kparal|Kamil Paral]] gave an update on the AutoQA project. Will noted that he had sent some proposed development guidelines to the mailing list, emphasizing the use of git and suggesting small patches be submitted to the list using git-send-email. He also suggesting creating personal branches in the main public repository for anyone wanting to work on large changes. The plan had been broadly accepted, and Will planned to codify it on the AutoQA wiki soon. Will reported no progress on the dependency checker test this week, as he had been working on other things. He recapped that a working depcheck script was already available<ref>http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=autoqa.git;a=blob;f=tests/depcheck/depcheck</ref> and just needed some basic testing, but the next step was to work out exactly what the test subjects should be: testing individual updates is not useful, rather some way to discover which group of updates will be pushed as a set is needed so that the set can be tested. He would work on this and report back to the next meeting. Kamil reported that the group had held another design discussion<ref>http://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/autoqa-devel/2010-February/000234.html>/ref> for the planned results database, and he was working on some use cases which would be available<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AutoQA_resultsdb_use_cases</ref> later. [[User:Jskladan|Josef Skladanka]] had provided a draft visualization<ref>http://jskladan.fedorapeople.org/dbschema.png</ref> of the system. [[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] noted [[User:Liam|Liam Li's]] progress on automated DVD installation<ref>https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/107#comment:4</ref>, using dogtail to pass kernel parameters into the installation. He was also looking into having the automated installation set up the necessary environment for subsequent automated GUI testing.


The Bugzappers group weekly meeting<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/Meetings</ref> was held on 2010-02-23. The full log is available<ref>http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-02-23/fedora-meeting.2010-02-23-15.04.log.html</ref>. The group discussed Jon Stanley's suggestions<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-February/088644.html</ref>. No-one could immediately think of any extra resources the project in general could be providing that would help the Bugzappers' work. The question of sending out updates regarding the project's work became a discussion of the long-pending triage statistics project. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] said that Brennan Ashton had been discussing incorporating the project into the Fedora Community system at FUDCon. [[User:Tk009|Edward Kirk]] said he had blogged in the last couple of weeks about starting work on this. After the meeting, Brennan contacted the group to let them know he was working actively on the Fedora Community system and had been posting about his work on the infrastructure SIG mailing list. He also granted [[User:Mcepl|Matej Cepl]] administrator access to the triage section on fedorahosted.
[[User:Kparal|Kamil Paral]] asked how a serious bug in an accepted feature<ref>http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569352</ref> should be considered in regard to the release criteria. [[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] did not have a definitive answer, but for now recommended documenting it as a common bug.


[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] introduced the topic of what to do with bugs reported against Rawhide between the Fedora 12 release and the early branch of Fedora 13 under the new 'no frozen Rawhide' system. After some discussion, the group agreed in principle that these bugs should be rebased to Fedora 13, and Adam volunteered to talk to [[User:poelstra|John Poelstra]] and Dave Lawrence about this.
No Bugzappers group weekly meeting was held on 2010-03-02 as there were no items needing discussion.


The next QA weekly meeting will be held on 2010-03-01 at 1600 UTC in #fedora-meeting. The next Bugzappers weekly meeting will be held on 2010-03-02 at 1500 UTC in #fedora-meeting.
The next QA weekly meeting will be held on 2010-03-08 at 1600 UTC in #fedora-meeting. The next Bugzappers weekly meeting will be held (if necessary) on 2010-03-09 at 1500 UTC in #fedora-meeting.


<references/>
<references/>


=== Fedora 13 Alpha validation testing and delay ===
=== Fedora 13 Alpha ===


It was a busy week for Alpha validation testing for QA and release engineering, with four Alpha release candidate builds being built and (to some extent) tested. As discussed at the meeting, the first release candidate had significant problems rendering it almost unusable. The second fixed some issues but was still had major problems. The third fixed most of the outstanding issues but introduced a regression which broke x86-64 installation, and could also not be installed from the live image. Despite great effort on the part of the release engineering team, It was not possible to build a fourth release candidate in time to be properly tested before the project-wide release readiness meeting, so QA and release engineering had to vote to delay the Alpha release. As announced<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-February/131315.html</ref> by [[User:jkeating|Jesse Keating]], the Alpha release would be delayed by one week, but the Beta and Final schedules would not be changed. The fourth release candidate build was announced<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test-announce/2010-February/000030.html</ref> by [[User:Rhe|Rui He]] on 2010-02-26, and validation testing results looked positive at the time of writing. Andre Robatino announced<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-February/088807.html</ref>DeltaISOs for RC2 -> RC3, and RC3 -> RC4.
[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] represented QA at the Alpha go/no-go meeting<ref>http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-03-04/f-13-alpha-eng-readiness.2010-03-04-01.00.log.html</ref> held on 2010-03-04 and also attended by release engineering and development representatives. The group agreed that Alpha RC4 passed the release criteria<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Alpha_Release_Criteria</ref> and could be released as Fedora 13 Alpha.


<references/>
<references/>


=== Dealing with old Target bugs ===
=== Fedora 12 update problems ===


[[User:Beland|Christopher Beland]] asked<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-February/088788.html</ref> what should be done with open bugs that were on the Target lists for previous releases. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] replied to agree that this was an unsettled question, and pointed out that practically speaking, neither QA nor development teams had paid much attention to the Target lists for several releases. He suggested the system should be either revised or abandoned.
[[MatthiasClasen|Matthias Clasen]] started a discussion<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-March/088922.html</ref> about the known PackageKit bug<ref>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553115</ref> which has caused some Fedora 12 users to have problems attempting to do the first post-install update with PackageKit, asking what could be done to ensure the problem did not occur in Fedora 13. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] tried to explain<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-March/088934.html</ref> that it was currently difficult to absolutely protect against this type of problem, as there is a catch-22 involved: if PackageKit has a bug which prevents update installation working for some reason, shipping an update for PackageKit cannot resolve the problem as it will be impossible to install the update. Matthias explained<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-March/088935.html</ref> that he was in this case considering the symptom rather than the cause, and was asking if potential updates could be tested in batches via AutoQA before being released.


<references/>
<references/>


=== Critical Path Wranglers proposal ===
=== yum-langpack Test Day recap ===


[[User:maxamillion|Adam Miller]] presented<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-February/088824.html</ref> an outline<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/JoinCriticalPathWranglers:Draft</ref> of a policy for membership of the QA group in FAS (as initially discussed during the weekly meeting). He asked for the group to comment on the proposal and suggest possible refinements and improvements.
[[User:Rhe|Rui He]] posted a recap<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-March/088966.html</ref> of the 2010-02-25 yum-langpack Test Day<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2010-02-25_YumLangpackPlugin</ref>, thanking those who had attended and listing the bugs that had been uncovered by the testing. [[User:Petersen|Jens Petersen]] thanked her<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-March/088968.html</ref> for her work on the event.
 
<references/>
 
=== Updates-testing karma reporting script - fedora-easy-karma ===
 
[[User:till|Till Maas]] announced<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-March/088978.html</ref> his new tool fedora-easy-karma<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Easy_Karma</ref>, which greatly asssists in the process of filing feedback on packages in updates-testing via Bodhi<ref>http://bodhi.fedoraproject.org</ref>. Many group members thanked Till for the script and reported success in using it. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] documented the tool on the QA Tools wiki page<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Tools</ref> and the page on updates-testing<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Updates_Testing</ref>. Some testers reported bugs in the script, which Till promptly addressed. Till also noted<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-March/089018.html</ref> that he had built a package for the script and filed a review request<ref>http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570771</ref> to have it added to the repositories.


<references/>
<references/>

Revision as of 22:05, 5 March 2010

QualityAssurance

In this section, we cover the activities of the QA team[1].

Contributing Writer: Adam Williamson

  1. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA

Test Days

Last week's planned Test Day on the use of SSSD by default[1] unfortunately had to be postponed. The new date will be announced in FWN when it is decided.

Next week's Test Day[2] will be on webcams. Well, that's simple! We like webcams. We want them to work. If your webcam works, we would like to know this so we can celebrate and bask in the warm, contented glow. If your webcam does not work, this makes us very sad and we would like to make it work. So, if you have a webcam, please come along, run a few simple tests, and if it doesn't work, we'll do our best to change that! Testing will be very easy and you'll be able to use a live CD or an installed Fedora system to test. The Test Day will run all day on Thursday 2010-03-11 in the #fedora-test-day IRC channel.

If you would like to propose a main track Test Day for the Fedora 13 cycle, please contact the QA team via email or IRC, or file a ticket in QA Trac[3].

  1. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SSSDByDefault
  2. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2010-03-11_webcams
  3. ↑ http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/

Weekly meetings

The QA group weekly meeting[1] was held on 2010-03-01. The full logs are available[2]. Adam Miller reported back on his proposal for managing membership of the QA group in FAS. He had created a draft proposal[3] and started a mailing list thread[4] on the topic. James Laska thanked him for his work. Edward Kirk wondered about the mentoring proposal, asking if mentors were already lined up. Adam said that was not yet arranged. He thought that any existing member of the group could be a potential mentor, and new members could be handled on a case-by-case basis. James asked if some groups document mentor responsibilities; Adam replied that he was not sure. They agreed to revisit the topic next week after further follow-up discussion on the mailing list.

James Laska reported that he and Adam Miller had forgotten to contact the sectool team regarding the security spin QA proposal, but would do so immediately following the meeting.

James Laska noted that the fourth Alpha release candidate build was now available for testing, and linked to the test matrices[5] [6]. Adam Miller said he would try to run the desktop tests for Xfce. The group discussed the two potential blocker bugs that testing had so far uncovered, an update installation issue #567346[7] and a traditional CD installer disc swapping issue #569377[8]. They agreed that testing should continue to isolate the conditions that would trigger 567346, and that 569377 should be moved to blocking the Beta. The group also discussed two dependency issues Kamil Paral had noticed during installation validation but had not yet nominated as blockers, and agreed they did not need to block the release as they did not affect the packages on the physical media.

James Laska reviewed a topic from the Bugzappers group, where a decision had been taken to rebase open Rawhide bugs to Fedora 13.

Will Woods and Kamil Paral gave an update on the AutoQA project. Will noted that he had sent some proposed development guidelines to the mailing list, emphasizing the use of git and suggesting small patches be submitted to the list using git-send-email. He also suggesting creating personal branches in the main public repository for anyone wanting to work on large changes. The plan had been broadly accepted, and Will planned to codify it on the AutoQA wiki soon. Will reported no progress on the dependency checker test this week, as he had been working on other things. He recapped that a working depcheck script was already available[9] and just needed some basic testing, but the next step was to work out exactly what the test subjects should be: testing individual updates is not useful, rather some way to discover which group of updates will be pushed as a set is needed so that the set can be tested. He would work on this and report back to the next meeting. Kamil reported that the group had held another design discussionCite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag later. Josef Skladanka had provided a draft visualization[10] of the system. James Laska noted Liam Li's progress on automated DVD installation[11], using dogtail to pass kernel parameters into the installation. He was also looking into having the automated installation set up the necessary environment for subsequent automated GUI testing.

Kamil Paral asked how a serious bug in an accepted feature[12] should be considered in regard to the release criteria. James Laska did not have a definitive answer, but for now recommended documenting it as a common bug.

No Bugzappers group weekly meeting was held on 2010-03-02 as there were no items needing discussion.

The next QA weekly meeting will be held on 2010-03-08 at 1600 UTC in #fedora-meeting. The next Bugzappers weekly meeting will be held (if necessary) on 2010-03-09 at 1500 UTC in #fedora-meeting.

  1. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings
  2. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20100301
  3. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/JoinCriticalPathWranglers:Draft
  4. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-February/088824.html
  5. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_13_Alpha_RC4_Install
  6. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_13_Alpha_RC4_Desktop
  7. ↑ http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567346
  8. ↑ http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569377
  9. ↑ http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=autoqa.git;a=blob;f=tests/depcheck/depcheck
  10. ↑ http://jskladan.fedorapeople.org/dbschema.png
  11. ↑ https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/107#comment:4
  12. ↑ http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569352

Fedora 13 Alpha

Adam Williamson represented QA at the Alpha go/no-go meeting[1] held on 2010-03-04 and also attended by release engineering and development representatives. The group agreed that Alpha RC4 passed the release criteria[2] and could be released as Fedora 13 Alpha.

  1. ↑ http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-03-04/f-13-alpha-eng-readiness.2010-03-04-01.00.log.html
  2. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Alpha_Release_Criteria

Fedora 12 update problems

Matthias Clasen started a discussion[1] about the known PackageKit bug[2] which has caused some Fedora 12 users to have problems attempting to do the first post-install update with PackageKit, asking what could be done to ensure the problem did not occur in Fedora 13. Adam Williamson tried to explain[3] that it was currently difficult to absolutely protect against this type of problem, as there is a catch-22 involved: if PackageKit has a bug which prevents update installation working for some reason, shipping an update for PackageKit cannot resolve the problem as it will be impossible to install the update. Matthias explained[4] that he was in this case considering the symptom rather than the cause, and was asking if potential updates could be tested in batches via AutoQA before being released.

  1. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-March/088922.html
  2. ↑ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553115
  3. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-March/088934.html
  4. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-March/088935.html

yum-langpack Test Day recap

Rui He posted a recap[1] of the 2010-02-25 yum-langpack Test Day[2], thanking those who had attended and listing the bugs that had been uncovered by the testing. Jens Petersen thanked her[3] for her work on the event.

  1. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-March/088966.html
  2. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2010-02-25_YumLangpackPlugin
  3. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-March/088968.html

Updates-testing karma reporting script - fedora-easy-karma

Till Maas announced[1] his new tool fedora-easy-karma[2], which greatly asssists in the process of filing feedback on packages in updates-testing via Bodhi[3]. Many group members thanked Till for the script and reported success in using it. Adam Williamson documented the tool on the QA Tools wiki page[4] and the page on updates-testing[5]. Some testers reported bugs in the script, which Till promptly addressed. Till also noted[6] that he had built a package for the script and filed a review request[7] to have it added to the repositories.

  1. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-March/088978.html
  2. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Easy_Karma
  3. ↑ http://bodhi.fedoraproject.org
  4. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Tools
  5. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Updates_Testing
  6. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-March/089018.html
  7. ↑ http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570771
Retrieved from "https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=FWN/Beats/QualityAssurance&oldid=157710"