FWN/Beats/QualityAssurance: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 05:10, 17 November 2011

QualityAssurance

In this section, we cover the activities of the QA team^[1]. For more information on the work of the QA team and how you can get involved, see the Joining page^[2].

We apologize for the lack of a QA section for the last few issues of FWN: the QA team was very busy with Fedora 16 validation testing. This issue catches up with the QA team news from the last several weeks.

Contributing Writer: Adam Williamson

Test Days

In the past few weeks, we finished up the Fedora 16 Test Day schedule, with Graphics Test Week taking place at the start of September^[1] ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-07_Radeon</ref> ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-07_Radeon</ref>, virtualization test day taking place on 2011-09-15^[2], another i18n desktop test day on 2011-09-22^[3], an ABRT test day on 2011-09-26^[4], a power management test day on 2011-09-29^[5], printing test day on 2011-10-06^[6], Fedora packager plugin for Eclipse test day on 2011-10-13^[7], and Cloud SIG test day on 2011-10-20^[8]. Most of these test days passed off successfully with the work of the developers behind them, despite the QA team being very busy, so many thanks to those who organized and carried out these events, and those who turned up to do the testing.

The Fedora 17 Test Day cycle has not yet started. We welcome proposals for test days for the Fedora 17 cycle, and we usually accept all the proposals that are made. You can propose a test day for almost anything, and organize it yourself following the handy guide we provide^[9], or alternatively we can help out with the organization of the event. Information on how to propose a test day is available on the Wiki^[10].

Fedora 16 preparation

As mentioned above, Fedora 16 release validation took up almost all of the QA team's time during the last few months, with very challenging Beta and Final releases. There were a total of 12 candidate builds for Beta and Final combined, and the whole team put in tireless work running the set of validation tests against each build and then investigating and verifying the large number of blocker bugs identified. The team was able to contribute to the release eventually going ahead with only a one week slip to the Beta schedule and no slip of the Final schedule, a considerable achievement in the light of the many complex changes in the Fedora 16 feature list.

Release criteria updates

Largely as a result of the Fedora 16 validation process, there were several adjustments and additions to the release criteria in recent weeks. After discussion of the proposed kickstart / unattended installation release criterion concluded, Adam Williamson reported that he had committed his proposed modifications^[1]. He also committed a change to reflect the increased priority of EFI installations from Fedora 17 onwards^[2].

Adam also passed on a suggestion from Peter Jones to improve the clarity of the virtualization criteria^[3]. After an extensive discussion, an elegant wording suggestion from Albert Graham^[4] was eventually accepted and committed^[5].

Tim Flink raised the question to what extent support for Xen virtualization should be included in the release criteria^[6]. After a similarly enthusiastic discussion, it was eventually agreed that Xen DomU support - effectively, the ability to install successfully as a Xen guest - should be a Final release criterion^[7].

Adam also proposed downgrading some rarely-used kickstart deployment methods from Beta to Final in the criteria, requiring only the most commonly-used to be working at Beta stage^[8].

Finally, Adam proposed a criterion for i18n (translation) issues^[9]. After discussion, the proposal was agreed upon at a blocker review meeting later in the week^[10].

Update policy changes

In September, Karsten Hopp raised the issue of a security update for Fedora 14 which had been languishing in the updates-testing repository for some time^[1]. Adam Williamson explained that the amount of testers working on older releases was limited, and that the actual karma requirements for updates to be accepted were controlled by FESCo (the Fedora engineering steering committee), not the QA group^[2]. Chuck Anderson noted that he had the update in question installed, but was struggling for lack of information on how to test it properly^[3]. Rahul Sundaram suggested that Karsten file a ticket with FESCo to raise the issue^[4], and Karsten did^[5].

That ticket was merged with another similar one reported by Doug Ledford^[6], which became a topic of concern to FESCo. After several rounds of discussions, FESCo first decided to relax the requirements for critical path updates somewhat by allowing them to be sent through to the stable repository without the 'required' karma after a period of two weeks had elapsed^[7], and later proposed removing the requirement for critical path updates to receive positive karma from a proven tester^[8], effectively a proposal to end the proven tester system, as this is the only function it serves.

The QA group discussed this proposal at the weekly meeting of 2011-11-07^[9], agreeing that, while they had some reservations about the proposal, they were not definitely opposed to it, and recognized that critical path updates not receiving the currently-required karma is a significant problem.

Update candidate notification

Samuel Greenfeld asked if there was any system to notify testers of new candidate updates for specific packages, and to determine what packages are being actively used on a system^[1]. There were no takers for the second question, but for the first, Adam Williamson suggested using yum parameters that would allow one to specify only certain packages be pulled from the updates-testing repository^[2], and Till Maas pointed out that Bodhi can actually provide per-package RSS notifications^[3].

Proven tester meetings

As a response to the concerns about candidate updates not receiving enough karma, Kevin Fenzi ran a series of weekly proven tester meetups^[1] from 2011-09-21 to 2011-10-26. Recaps of these meetings are available in the mailing list archives^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6].

Kevin also proposed an updates-testing-info mailing list, containing only the mails about new packages in updates-testing^[7]. However, the consensus was against the idea, as it was felt that it was easy enough to simply filter the desired mails from the test mailing list for those who did not want to read the other traffic.

QA group representation at FUDCon Pune

Ankur Sinha asked whether anyone from the QA team would be present at the upcoming FUDCon in Pune, India and able to do a presentation on the group's activities^[1]. Adam Williamson replied that unfortunately none of the Red Hat team would be at the conference, but encouraged Ankur to take a shot at giving a presentation himself^[2]. A S Alam then stepped up to volunteer to lead a QA session^[3]. His session was scheduled for 2011-11-04^[4], but we have no report on the event - if you were present, please write to the mailing list and let us know how it went!

[1] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA

[2] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Join

[3] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-06_Nouveau

[4] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-15_Virtualization

[5] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-22_I18n_Desktop

[6] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-26_ABRT

[7] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-29_PowerManagement

[8] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-10-06_Printing

[9] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-10-13_Fedora_Packager_for_Eclipse

[10] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-10-20_Cloud_SIG_Test_Day

[11] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/SOP_Test_Day_management

[12] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days/Create

[13] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102599.html

[14] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102600.html

[15] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102601.html

[16] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102636.html

[17] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103680.html

[18] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/103127.html

[19] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103678.html

[20] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103557.html

[21] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103588.html

[22] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103679.html

[23] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102493.html

[24] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102497.html

[25] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102503.html

[26] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102502.html

[27] ttp://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/664

[28] ttp://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/667

[29] ttp://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/642

[30] ttp://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/667#comment:26

[31] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20111107

[32] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102981.html

[33] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102982.html

[34] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102992.html

[35] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102869.html

[36] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/103000.html

[37] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103341.html

[38] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103585.html

[39] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103840.html

[40] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/104043.html

[41] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/103163.html

[42] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103712.html

[43] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103728.html

[44] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103739.html

[45] ttp://fudcon.in/sessions/fedora-testing

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 == QualityAssurance ==
-In this section, we cover the activities of the QA team<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA</ref>.
+In this section, we cover the activities of the QA team<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA</ref>. For more information on the work of the QA team and how you can get involved, see the Joining page<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Join</ref>.
+We apologize for the lack of a QA section for the last few issues of FWN: the QA team was very busy with Fedora 16 validation testing. This issue catches up with the QA team news from the last several weeks.
 Contributing Writer: [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]]
@@ Line 10: / Line 12: @@
 === Test Days ===
-There was no Test Day last week, and no Test Day is currently planned for this week. 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>.
+In the past few weeks, we finished up the Fedora 16 Test Day schedule, with Graphics Test Week taking place at the start of September<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-06_Nouveau</ref> ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-07_Radeon</ref> ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-07_Radeon</ref>, virtualization test day taking place on 2011-09-15<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-15_Virtualization</ref>, another i18n desktop test day on 2011-09-22<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-22_I18n_Desktop</ref>, an ABRT test day on 2011-09-26<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-26_ABRT</ref>, a power management test day on 2011-09-29<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-29_PowerManagement</ref>, printing test day on 2011-10-06<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-10-06_Printing</ref>, Fedora packager plugin for Eclipse test day on 2011-10-13<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-10-13_Fedora_Packager_for_Eclipse</ref>, and Cloud SIG test day on 2011-10-20<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-10-20_Cloud_SIG_Test_Day</ref>. Most of these test days passed off successfully with the work of the developers behind them, despite the QA team being very busy, so many thanks to those who organized and carried out these events, and those who turned up to do the testing.
+The Fedora 17 Test Day cycle has not yet started. We welcome proposals for test days for the Fedora 17 cycle, and we usually accept all the proposals that are made. You can propose a test day for almost anything, and organize it yourself following the handy guide we provide<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/SOP_Test_Day_management</ref>, or alternatively we can help out with the organization of the event. Information on how to propose a test day is available on the Wiki<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days/Create</ref>.
 <references/>
-=== Weekly meetings ===
+=== Fedora 16 preparation ===
+As mentioned above, Fedora 16 release validation took up almost all of the QA team's time during the last few months, with very challenging Beta and Final releases. There were a total of 12 candidate builds for Beta and Final combined, and the whole team put in tireless work running the set of validation tests against each build and then investigating and verifying the large number of blocker bugs identified. The team was able to contribute to the release eventually going ahead with only a one week slip to the Beta schedule and no slip of the Final schedule, a considerable achievement in the light of the many complex changes in the Fedora 16 feature list.
+<references/>
+=== Release criteria updates ===
+Largely as a result of the Fedora 16 validation process, there were several adjustments and additions to the release criteria in recent weeks. After discussion of the proposed kickstart / unattended installation release criterion concluded, [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] reported that he had committed his proposed modifications<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102599.html</ref>. He also committed a change to reflect the increased priority of EFI installations from Fedora 17 onwards<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102600.html</ref>.
+Adam also passed on a suggestion from [[User:Pjones|Peter Jones]] to improve the clarity of the virtualization criteria<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102601.html</ref>. After an extensive discussion, an elegant wording suggestion from Albert Graham<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102636.html</ref> was eventually accepted and committed<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103680.html</ref>.
-The QA group weekly meeting<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings</ref> was held on 2009-12-14. The full log is available<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20091214</ref>. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] reported that the note on hardware-dependent issues as relating to the release criteria which he had promised to write was done, and added to the blocker bug FAQ<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Blocker_Bug_FAQ#What_about_hardware_and_local_configuration_dependent_issues.3F</ref>.
+[[User:Tflink|Tim Flink]] raised the question to what extent support for Xen virtualization should be included in the release criteria<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/103127.html</ref>. After a similarly enthusiastic discussion, it was eventually agreed that Xen DomU support - effectively, the ability to install successfully as a Xen guest - should be a Final release criterion<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103678.html</ref>.
-[[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] reported that he was still working on a list of recommendations based on the Fedora 12 retrospective, but expected to have it finished within the next few days.
+Adam also proposed downgrading some rarely-used kickstart deployment methods from Beta to Final in the criteria, requiring only the most commonly-used to be working at Beta stage<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103557.html</ref>.
-[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] gave an update on the release criteria improvement process. As planned, a group had gathered to finalize work on the new criteria at FUDCon, and the new criteria were now officially in place<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria</ref>. No-one felt there was significant additional work to do on the criteria themselves for the Fedora 13 cycle.
+Finally, Adam proposed a criterion for i18n (translation) issues<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103588.html</ref>. After discussion, the proposal was agreed upon at a blocker review meeting later in the week<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103679.html</ref>.
-[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] gave an update on the privilege escalation policy topic. He had not received any practical feedback or suggestions from the Red Hat security group, so intended to escalate the issue to FESCo without an actual proposed policy. [[User:Wwoods|Will Woods]] noted that he had had some discussions at FUDCon about how to implement AutoQA tests for builds which added or removed setuid binaries, consolehelper configuration files, or PolicyKit policies.
+<references/>
-[[User:Wwoods|Will Woods]] and [[User:Kparal|Kamil Paral]] reported on the progress of the AutoQA project. Will mentioned that he had given a talk on AutoQA at FUDCon, and pointed to the slides<ref>http://wwoods.fedorapeople.org/files/AutoQA-FUDCon-Toronto-2009.odp</ref>. He had returned with several good ideas for future improvements to AutoQA suggested by other participants, and a clearer plan for implementing the much-needed dependency checking test. Kamil said that he had been working on integrating rpmguard as an AutoQA test, and this initial work was available in the 'kparal/rpmguard-integration' git branch. He had posted an email announcement<ref>http://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/autoqa-devel/2009-December/000047.html</ref> of this, containing some example output.
+=== Update policy changes ===
-[[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] noted the work [User:Rhe|Rui He]] and [[User:Liam|Liam Li]] had been doing on the 'is anaconda broken?' proposal<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Is_anaconda_broken_proposal</ref>. He also said he was planning a release sprint to revise the release validation test plans for the new release criteria.
+In September, [[User:Karsten|Karsten Hopp]] raised the issue of a security update for Fedora 14 which had been languishing in the updates-testing repository for some time<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102493.html</ref>. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] explained that the amount of testers working on older releases was limited, and that the actual karma requirements for updates to be accepted were controlled by FESCo (the Fedora engineering steering committee), not the QA group<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102497.html</ref>. [[User:Cra|Chuck Anderson]] noted that he had the update in question installed, but was struggling for lack of information on how to test it properly<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102503.html</ref>. [[User:Sundaram|Rahul Sundaram]] suggested that Karsten file a ticket with FESCo to raise the issue<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102502.html</ref>, and Karsten did<ref>http://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/664</ref>.
-The Bugzappers group weekly meeting<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/Meetings</ref> was held on 2009-12-15. The full log is available<ref>http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-12-15/fedora-meeting.2009-12-15-15.18.log.html</ref>. [[User:Mcepl|Matej Cepl]] reported that he was planning to replace the current GreaseMonkey script used to enhance Bugzilla pages for the benefit of triagers with Jetpacks<ref>http://jetpack.mozillalabs.com/</ref>. He asked for volunteers to test the initial versions of the Jetpacks, available from his space<ref>http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/scripts/install.html</ref>.
+That ticket was merged with another similar one reported by Doug Ledford<ref>http://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/667</ref>, which became a topic of concern to FESCo. After several rounds of discussions, FESCo first decided to relax the requirements for critical path updates somewhat by allowing them to be sent through to the stable repository without the 'required' karma after a period of two weeks had elapsed<ref>http://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/642</ref>, and later proposed removing the requirement for critical path updates to receive positive karma from a proven tester<ref>http://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/667#comment:26</ref>, effectively a proposal to end the proven tester system, as this is the only function it serves.
-The next QA weekly meeting will be held on 2009-12-21 at 1600 UTC in #fedora-meeting. The next Bugzappers weekly meeting will be held on 2009-12-22 at 1500 UTC in #fedora-meeting.
+The QA group discussed this proposal at the weekly meeting of 2011-11-07<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20111107</ref>, agreeing that, while they had some reservations about the proposal, they were not definitely opposed to it, and recognized that critical path updates not receiving the currently-required karma is a significant problem.
 <references/>
-=== Increasing the grub timeout ===
+=== Update candidate notification ===
+Samuel Greenfeld asked if there was any system to notify testers of new candidate updates for specific packages, and to determine what packages are being actively used on a system<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102981.html</ref>. There were no takers for the second question, but for the first, [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] suggested using yum parameters that would allow one to specify only certain packages be pulled from the updates-testing repository<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102982.html</ref>, and [[User:till|Till Maas]] pointed out that Bodhi can actually provide per-package RSS notifications<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102992.html</ref>.
+<references/>
+=== Proven tester meetings ===
+As a response to the concerns about candidate updates not receiving enough karma, [[User:Kevin|Kevin Fenzi]] ran a series of weekly proven tester meetups<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102869.html</ref> from 2011-09-21 to 2011-10-26. Recaps of these meetings are available in the mailing list archives<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/103000.html</ref> <ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103341.html</ref> <ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103585.html</ref> <ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103840.html</ref> <ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/104043.html</ref>.
-Scott Robbins started a long thread<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-November/msg01012.html</ref> with the suggestion to increase the default timeout for the Fedora boot loader from its current default setting of 0 (which causes the boot loader menu never to be shown at all). There were many opinions on this idea, but the general response was positive enough for Scott to file a feature request<ref>http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=541315</ref> on the idea, where some compromises were suggested. Richard Ryniker suggested having the system detect unclean shutdowns and force the boot menu to be displayed on the next boot (much as Windows does). Stewart Adam suggested having grub initially installed with a non-zero timeout, and have firstboot change it to zero on the assumption that a system that can get to firstboot must have a properly configured bootloader.
+Kevin also proposed an updates-testing-info mailing list, containing only the mails about new packages in updates-testing<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/103163.html</ref>. However, the consensus was against the idea, as it was felt that it was easy enough to simply filter the desired mails from the test mailing list for those who did not want to read the other traffic.
 <references/>
-=== X.org server testing ===
+=== QA group representation at FUDCon Pune ===
-[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] posted a request<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-December/msg00278.html</ref> for group members to test a recent Fedora 12 X.org server build provided by the Fedora X development team, to provide some assurance that it worked acceptably before it would be submitted as a candidate update. Many members submitted useful reports in response, with a generally positive character. However, one potential issue with the nouveau driver emerged thanks to the report of Mike Chambers<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-December/msg00305.html</ref>, and was passed back to the developers for investigation.
+[[User:Ankursinha|Ankur Sinha]] asked whether anyone from the QA team would be present at the upcoming FUDCon in Pune, India and able to do a presentation on the group's activities<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103712.html</ref>. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] replied that unfortunately none of the Red Hat team would be at the conference, but encouraged Ankur to take a shot at giving a presentation himself<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103728.html</ref>. A S Alam then stepped up to volunteer to lead a QA session<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103739.html</ref>. His session was scheduled for 2011-11-04<ref>http://fudcon.in/sessions/fedora-testing</ref>, but we have no report on the event - if you were present, please write to the mailing list and let us know how it went!
 <references/>

Search