test June 2012

test@lists.fedoraproject.org

71 participants
234 discussions

[Fedora QA] #296: Fix blocker bug tracker page and replace it with a static HTML page
by fedora-badges 04 Mar '13

04 Mar '13

#296: Fix blocker bug tracker page and replace it with a static HTML page ----------------------+------------------------ Reporter: adamwill | Owner: tflink Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 18 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | ----------------------+------------------------ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Current_Release_Blockers - which generates a useful view of blocker bugs from Bugzilla - has been broken since the recent Bugzilla upgrade. At minimum we need to fix up the script that generates it, and have it run by something other than jlaska's personal wiki account. We decided the best approach is probably to make it a standalone page (hosted on fedoraproject somewhere) rather than a wiki page; being a wiki page isn't giving us any advantages and just makes things more complicated. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/296> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 9

[Fedora QA] #135: Proposed Test Day - TOPIC How about a consideration of the dual boot issues from Fedora 13?
by fedora-badges 25 Feb '13

25 Feb '13

#135: Proposed Test Day - TOPIC How about a consideration of the dual boot issues from Fedora 13? -----------------------+---------------------------------------------------- Reporter: dramsey | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 14 Component: Test Day | Version: Keywords: dual boot | -----------------------+---------------------------------------------------- How about a consideration of the dual boot issues from Fedora 13? I remember from the Fedora 13 timeframe, there were dual boot issues. Would it be advantageous to reconsider a subset of this as well as other lessons learned from the Fedora 13 which may be a good peruse for historical impact and reflection. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/135> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

2 10

[Fedora QA] #151: Tests consistent with Criterion
by fedora-badges 13 Feb '13

13 Feb '13

#151: Tests consistent with Criterion ---------------------------+------------------------------------------------ Reporter: rhe | Owner: rhe Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 15 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: retrospective | ---------------------------+------------------------------------------------ = problem = Criteria was kept changing during F-14 test cycle, but some installation tests didn't update accordingly. On the other hand, the criterion should be modified to include preupgrade_from_older_release test and new tests created for F-15. = enhancement recommendation = Installation tests need be reviewed and updated to fit for the criterion. Criterion for preupgrade_from_older_release test is required. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/151> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 26

[Fedora QA] #289: Howto: debug kernel
by fedora-badges 20 Sep '12

20 Sep '12

#289: Howto: debug kernel --------------------+------------------------ Reporter: kparal | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 17 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | --------------------+------------------------ I have seen a lot of discussions about kernel with debugging options enabled in this cycle. The questions repeat itself and I have them sometimes as well (I tend to forget these information). I think we should create a wiki page describing: 1. That our current policy is to use debug kernels in all composes prior to Branched Beta (is that true? maybe just Beta RC1?). 2. The problems that debug kernels may cause (mainly performance problems). 3. The exceptions in this process (regularly there is a non-debug kernel built). 4. How to know whether you are currently running a debug kernel (I never remember this one). 5. How to find latest debug/non-debug kernel in Koji. 6. How to install this kernel from Koji. Then we can link this page e.g. in our Alpha announcements, so that we save a lot of question for many people (and maybe a lot of troubles as well, if they have some troubles and they just don't know about debug kernels at all). Good idea? Volunteer? -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/289> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 4

[Fedora QA] #284: Create advisory installation validation test cases for VirtualBox
by fedora-badges 03 Aug '12

03 Aug '12

#284: Create advisory installation validation test cases for VirtualBox ----------------------+------------------ Reporter: adamwill | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | ----------------------+------------------ Although kernel team (and the rest of the development team) specifically don't want to commit to supporting VirtualBox, the practical fact is that a lot of people like to run Fedora in VirtualBox, and we don't at present have formal testing in place to find out if it's actually working during release validation. In practice, we usually find out about any bugs via people trying it and then posting their results to test@ or the forums, but this is pretty rough and ready and it's easy to lose the information. If we add formal VBox testing to the release validation process we'll probably find out about VBox fails sooner and do a better job of tracking them for possible fixes or at least documentation at release time. So, ideally, we should write test cases for deploying Fedora as a VBox guest (and possibly using it as a VBox host), and add these to the installation validation matrix as 'advisory' tests (tests not associated with Alpha, Beta or Final release phases, and without a corresponding release criterion). Dan Mashal, who I hope I've added to CC, is interested in this topic and may choose to be an awesome rock star and contribute the test cases :) -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/284> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 12

[Fedora QA] #180: Create Package Specific Test Cases for Design Suite
by fedora-badges 03 Aug '12

03 Aug '12

#180: Create Package Specific Test Cases for Design Suite ---------------------------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: sdz | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Fedora 15 Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: design suite, package test plan | ---------------------------------------------+------------------------------ The Design Suite has been promoted at SXSW and other conferences. We want to make sure that the included applications are all working and in a good state. Adam introduced package specific test cases at FUDCon in Tempe. We should consider creating test cases for the most important tools, such as blender, gimp, inkscape and shotwell. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/180> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 2

[Fedora QA] #287: Add Bodhi testing guidelines to Bodhi?
by fedora-badges 03 Aug '12

03 Aug '12

#287: Add Bodhi testing guidelines to Bodhi? -------------------------+------------------ Reporter: kparal | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Wiki | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | -------------------------+------------------ My thinking process: 1. I was about to test https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/NetworkManager-0.9.3.997-0.7.fc17 2. I realized I don't know what karma to post when NM works in general, but I haven't tested the linked bug fixes 3. I know we have some karma guidelines somewhere on the wiki 4. I couldn't find the page 5. I found the page at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Proven_tester#Feedback_procedures after some time 6. My use case doesn't seem to be mentioned anyway. But that's not important. The question is - shouldn't we link these instructions directly from the bodhi page? No one will find it otherwise. That wiki page is proven tester specific, but the "Feedback procedures" chapter is not. I think it would be really worth the effort to create a new wiki page containing just guidelines for correct karma posting and then ask Bodhi maintainers to link that page directly from the Bodhi page. I imagine it could be displayed besides the "Add a comment" text are, named something like "Karma posting guidelines". What do you think? Does anyone feel like volunteering for creating this separate wiki page? I'll gladly create a ticket for Bodhi afterwards. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/287> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 4

[Fedora QA] #235: request: add tests for new grub2 stage2 device types
by fedora-badges 03 Aug '12

03 Aug '12

#235: request: add tests for new grub2 stage2 device types -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- Reporter: dlehman | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Proventester Mentor Request | Version: Keywords: | -----------------------------------------+---------------------------------- = phenomenon = GRUB2 supports several new md raid levels (0,4,5,6,10) and also lvm logical volumes as the /boot device. It would be nice to get some testing coverage for this, including combinations like root on lvm (no separate /boot) w/ md raid pvs. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/235> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 3

[Fedora QA] #286: gnome-shell + soft rendering test day
by fedora-badges 12 Jul '12

12 Jul '12

#286: gnome-shell + soft rendering test day ----------------------+------------------ Reporter: vbenes | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Test Day | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | ----------------------+------------------ please create a test day for software rendering to 2012-03-29 instead of gnome-boxes which will be moved to 04/19 thanks, Vladimir -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/286> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 2

[Fedora QA] #280: Request for F17 firewalld test day on 2012-03-15
by fedora-badges 12 Jul '12

12 Jul '12

#280: Request for F17 firewalld test day on 2012-03-15 -----------------------------------------+------------------ Reporter: twoerner | Owner: Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Proventester Mentor Request | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | -----------------------------------------+------------------ I'd like to run a firewalld test day on 2012-03-15. firewalld is the new firewall solution in Fedora with network zones support. The tests should cover interaction with NetworkManager, libvirt and printer configuration/discovery. Maybe more tests are possible for other projects. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/280> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 6

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
24
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

test June 2012