From Fedora Project Wiki

< FWN‎ | Beats

(create fwn 216 qa beat)
(create fwn 288 draft)
 
(70 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
== QualityAssurance ==
== 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]]
Contributing Writer: [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]]
Line 10: Line 12:
=== Test Days ===
=== Test Days ===


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.
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.


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.
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>.
 
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>.


<references/>
<references/>


=== Weekly meetings ===
=== Fedora 16 preparation ===


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.
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.


[[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.
<references/>


[[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.
=== Release criteria updates ===


[[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.
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>.


[[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.
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>.


[[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: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>.


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


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.
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>.


<references/>
<references/>


=== Fedora 13 Alpha ===
=== Update policy changes ===
 
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>.


[[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.
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 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/>
<references/>


=== Fedora 12 update problems ===
=== Update candidate notification ===


[[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.
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/>
<references/>


=== yum-langpack Test Day recap ===
=== 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>.


[[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.
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/>
<references/>


=== Updates-testing karma reporting script - fedora-easy-karma ===
=== QA group representation at FUDCon Pune ===


[[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.
[[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/>
<references/>

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

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

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].

  1. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-06_Nouveau
  2. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-15_Virtualization
  3. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-22_I18n_Desktop
  4. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-26_ABRT
  5. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-29_PowerManagement
  6. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-10-06_Printing
  7. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-10-13_Fedora_Packager_for_Eclipse
  8. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-10-20_Cloud_SIG_Test_Day
  9. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/SOP_Test_Day_management
  10. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days/Create

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].

  1. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102599.html
  2. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102600.html
  3. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102601.html
  4. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102636.html
  5. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103680.html
  6. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/103127.html
  7. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103678.html
  8. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103557.html
  9. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103588.html
  10. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103679.html

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.

  1. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102493.html
  2. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102497.html
  3. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102503.html
  4. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102502.html
  5. ↑ http://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/664
  6. ↑ http://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/667
  7. ↑ http://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/642
  8. ↑ http://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/667#comment:26
  9. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20111107

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].

  1. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102981.html
  2. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102982.html
  3. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102992.html

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.

  1. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102869.html
  2. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/103000.html
  3. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103341.html
  4. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103585.html
  5. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103840.html
  6. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/104043.html
  7. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/103163.html

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. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103712.html
  2. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103728.html
  3. ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103739.html
  4. ↑ http://fudcon.in/sessions/fedora-testing
Retrieved from "https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=FWN/Beats/QualityAssurance&oldid=261435"