FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-09-2008, 09:48 AM
Till Maas
 
Default Fedora QA ? - What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

On Tue December 9 2008, Michael Schwendt wrote:

> I'm also surprised to find discrepancies between Rawhide (just 1-2 weeks
> before F10 release) and F10 final. Such as a non-working PulseAudio.
> After every reboot, the mixer settings get messed up. Sometimes the
> PulseAudio mixer is not available at all. And worse, simple playback of
> audio files in Rhythmbox and Audacious (or even previews on the desktop)
> suffer from interruptions.

This is something that hit me, too. While F10 was not released, I booted a
live medium several times and sound worked there better than with F8 (A
soundcard I considered dead started working again), but then after I install
F10 Gold, I experience the same problems as you.

Regards,
Till


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-09-2008, 10:25 AM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Fedora QA ? - What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:02:30 +0100, Patrice wrote:

> > Fedora has a serious problem with updates that are pushed out to "stable"
> > directly. Originally we've had a guideline to use updates-testing for
> > a few days.
>
> Sometime it is better to push directly to stable, when the package is
> already broken, when it is a security fix,

... and if you find out that dependencies are broken because of a rushed
update, you need to wait a day before the problem can be corrected with
the next time-consuming push. It's better to prevent issues like that. We
currently can check remote repositories. Contrary to the FUD spread by
some people, plain repoclosure doesn't run for hours. For stuff released
into the "stable" repo it would be too late, however.

> or for packages with few users.

... which have even less reason to be pushed to "stable" quickly rather
than spending a few days in updates-testing first. Even such packages
can cause chaos and disturb SONAME Provides, for example. Recently, we've
had a case where an update accidentally obsoleted packages in a different
namespace. Or watch this one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/473182

I know you'd like to be able to push to repositories immediately
without any release management, but for Fedora's users that would be
one step closer to the infamous dumping ground of packages.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-09-2008, 12:06 PM
"Jˇhann B. Gu­mundsson"
 
Default Fedora QA ? - What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

Sven Lankes wrote:

On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 11:02:30AM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:



Sometime it is better to push directly to stable, when the package is
already broken, when it is a security fix, or for packages with few
users.



Which then leads to the question, why a broken package was pushed to
stable in the first place.

We should try to get the bohdi-karma-mechanism more popular. I have
updates-testing activated on both my F10 machines but I haven't set a
single karma-point yet. The reason is that it's not easy after a day or
two to review that last updates and send a +1 on them if I have used
them and they didn't break.

Maybe a small gui tool showing the latest testing-updates and allowing
to send (positive) bohdi-karma would encourage more people to actually
send the karma which in turn would encourage developers to use
updates-testing more.



First of all this falls on to testers...

Developers should spend their time developing.
Testers should spend their time testing that's what we are here for.

And please developers redirect all QA/Test related mail to that
"accidentally" falls on to this list
to the test-list where testers and QA resides ( Developers should be
subscribed to that list to ).


Secondly a small bodhi voting gui does not cut it.
Testers need know what to test to ensure that the component behaves as
it should

so you need an application that...

A) Fetches the test case for a component and
B) Has the ability to log in and vote in bodhi.

I suppose I can add that to my TODO list since i'm going to developer
( and hopefully others as well ) the "Fedora-Bug-Reporting" application
( Would not be surprised if it ends up being a full blown
fedora-test-suite. )
Let's see how easy to learn python really is


This all hangs on the "QA namespace" where each component will be listed
with info how to test what to report etc.. More on this will be posted
to this list

( and ofcourse the test-list ) when we have working examples on the wiki.

There is work on the way to address several QA issues.
( Mostly in the implementation discussion stage at this point )

Expected results 2+ releases from now.

For those that did not know this is our wiki page..
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA

Will Woods ( wwoods ) is the "Commander in chief"
of QA and the Bug Hunters squad ( we should form a band )

The fedora-test list is "our" mailing list.

We hang on #fedora-qa

We usually hold meetings 1600 UTC on Wednesdays .

Previous meetings info can be found here

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings
and here
http://wwoods.fedorapeople.org/fedora-qa/

JBG
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-09-2008, 01:21 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Fedora QA ? - What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

Jˇhann B. Gu­mundsson wrote:


First of all this falls on to testers...

Developers should spend their time developing.
Testers should spend their time testing that's what we are here for.


There is no such clear separation possible. Developers should be testing
their code and their packages as well. Handing this entirely off to
another set of people, whether it is a QA team or somebody else, is just
shifting blame. QA team or a additional set of people are just
complimenting the testing that the developers themselves should have done.


Rahul

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-09-2008, 02:20 PM
"Jˇhann B. Gu­mundsson"
 
Default Fedora QA ? - What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

Rahul Sundaram wrote:

Jˇhann B. Gu­mundsson wrote:


First of all this falls on to testers...

Developers should spend their time developing.
Testers should spend their time testing that's what we are here for.


There is no such clear separation possible. Developers should be
testing their code and their packages as well. Handing this entirely
off to another set of people, whether it is a QA team or somebody
else, is just shifting blame. QA team or a additional set of people
are just complimenting the testing that the developers themselves
should have done.


Rahul


Rahul you do see the flaw in this logic right?

For a developer to be able to test his code he needs to test on all
possible scenarios
hw and sw related repeated times the n option ( if any ) his application
can do.


Even in the perfect "my little pony" world
where there are million developers around a single component
with all the time in the world at their disposal which they then could

Document their code ( since him/they are the only one truly qualified to
do so )

Triage and respond to the reports
( Well there should not be any but if so unlikely it were, he/they are
the only one truly qualified to do so )

Test before release to the end user(s)

It STILL would fall into the hands of the QA to double check if he/they
missed something..


If the blame belongs somewhere than it is with the QA to have released
it to the end user in
the first place and THAT'S what I'm aiming at improving taking the QA on
the QA

but it will take time!.

But I do agree with you that it would help if he/they have
updates-testing enabled to test their
component that is if they are actually developing and using it on Fedora
GA release..


In reality we need more devs..

JBG

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-09-2008, 02:43 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Fedora QA ? - What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

Jˇhann B. Gu­mundsson wrote:

For a developer to be able to test his code he needs to test on all
possible scenarios
hw and sw related repeated times the n option ( if any ) his application
can do.


That's too idealistic. Developers should develop as well as test to the
extend it is feasible.


It STILL would fall into the hands of the QA to double check if he/they
missed something..


Sure but like I said, this is a complimentary effort.

If the blame belongs somewhere than it is with the QA to have released
it to the end user in > the first place and THAT'S what I'm aiming at improving taking the QA on
the QA > but it will take time!.


The responsibility isn't just with the QA team. It is primarily with the
developers. QA is just helping. I applaud your efforts to improve that
team but don't assume blame for everything.


But I do agree with you that it would help if he/they have
updates-testing enabled to test their
component that is if they are actually developing and using it on Fedora
GA release..


It would also help, if people didn't just bypass the testing repository
altogether even for security updates as the dbus security update fiasco
has just taught us, yet again.



In reality we need more devs..


Yeah, we need more of everything.

Rahul

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-10-2008, 09:58 AM
Matej Cepl
 
Default Fedora QA ? - What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

On 2008-12-09, 12:03 GMT, Sven Lankes wrote:
> We should try to get the bohdi-karma-mechanism more popular.

IMNSHO we should get rid of it -- there is already one very good
mechanism for registering bugs in the software and it is
bugzilla. Trying to develop another bugzilla in bodhi is asking
for failure. Even worse would be if you succeed and somebody
would actually start to use it, because they would expect
maintainers to take it into account.

Yes, there should be some mechanism how Bodhi should stop package
from entering updates, but I guess bodhi developers will have to
work a little bit harder than putting yet another stupid form on
the website somewhere, which doesn't integrate with anything than
with itself.

Sorry, for being offensive, but rewriting in the polished tone
would take too much time (and I would have to cool down myself
first ;-)). Bodhi developers, don't take this personally please.

Best,

Mat─Ťj

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-11-2008, 02:40 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Fedora QA ? - What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 09:27 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Matej Cepl wrote:
>
> > On 2008-12-09, 12:03 GMT, Sven Lankes wrote:
> >> We should try to get the bohdi-karma-mechanism more popular.
> >
> > IMNSHO we should get rid of it

+1. It's superfluous.

> -- there is already one very good
> > mechanism for registering bugs in the software and it is
> > bugzilla.
Agreed. Bug reporters report success/failure through bugzilla.

> Bodhi feedback is a *complement* to bugzilla, not a replacement.

Feedback has nothing to do with "bodhi's karma counters".

Ralf



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-11-2008, 03:52 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Fedora QA ? - What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 17:08 +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:58:51AM +0100, Matej Cepl wrote:
>
> >> We should try to get the bohdi-karma-mechanism more popular.
>
> > IMNSHO we should get rid of it -- there is already one very good
> > mechanism for registering bugs in the software and it is
> > bugzilla.
>
> Which can cater for negative feedback. I don't think most people would
> be too happy with bz-entries created just containing 'works for me'.
But this is exactly what is happening.

Cf. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475943
for a real world case.

... no matter which karma a package would get, it would still be the
maintainer who overrules.

Ralf


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-11-2008, 03:56 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Fedora QA ? - What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 09:55 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> >> Bodhi feedback is a *complement* to bugzilla, not a replacement.
> >
> > Feedback has nothing to do with "bodhi's karma counters".
>
> Shrug, karma is optional. Many maintainers appreciate it (I do), if
> you don't, then don't use it.
Well, I don't care about them, because
* hardly anybody uses them,
* it requires maintainers to explicitly redirect BZ reporters to them.
* they are questionable wealth.

Ralf



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:48 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ę2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org