date:20120815

#301: Translations Testing Day Proposal
---+---
  Reporter:  pycrash   |  Owner:
  Type:  task  | Status:  new
  Priority:  major |  Milestone:  Fedora 18
 Component:  Test Day  |Version:
Resolution:|   Keywords:
Blocked By:|   Blocking:
---+---
Changes (by tagoh):

 * cc: tagoh (added)


Comment:

 still no detailed page for both test days. I'm wondering who is
 responsible for that?

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Fedora QA 
Fedora Quality Assurance
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Preupgrade from F17 to F18 Branched

On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 17:29 -0400, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
> > > > From: Adam Williamson  
> > > 
> > > > This is probably a terrible time to try preupgrade. It gets no
> major
> > > > love until Beta, usually. If your goal is a working install of
> F18,
> > > your
> > > > best option at present is a yum update from F17, following the
> > > > directions at
> > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/
> > > > Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum#Fedora_17_-.3E_Fedora_18 . 
> > > 
> > > Oh, well that would be easier for me since it stays more in my
> > > familiar realm.  (Preupgrade looks neat, but my norm is fresh
> installs
> > > + puppet.)  Should this wisdom (both waiting until Beta and that
> link)
> > > be incorporated into
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/
> > Branched#Yum_update_from_previous_official_release? 
> > 
> > Probably not. Actually I should have written that a bit differently:
> > it's a *good* thing from a QA perspective that you're trying
> preupgrade
> > now and finding the bugs. We want them found early. It's only a bad
> > thing from the point of view that it has about 0% chance of
> succeeding.
> > =) Even if you get the preupgrade bit working, I believe newUI
> anaconda
> > does not actually implement upgrades yet, so there is no chance the
> > anaconda bit of the process will work.
> 
> > Cool. Let us know if you find any QA process documentation missing -
> I
> > think we cover it pretty well though :) 
> 
> It is covered pretty well.  For some reason though, when I first
> sought out pages telling me how to get on rawhide (because 18 hadn't
> been branched just yet), I never stumbled onto the
> Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum page.  I mostly got a rawhide box based on
> intuition, but that page clearly documents some things I hadn't
> thought about.  My suggestion for incorporating this link into the
> Releases/Branched page was primarily based on the impression that the
> former covered that specific topic more thoroughly.  Thus I kind of
> envisioned something akin to: 
> 
> """ 
> Yum update from previous official release 
> This method is available but generally not recommended. Anaconda can
> make changes that are outside what the packaging system can normally
> deal with. You may also run into dependency problems which could take
> time to untangle. You may also need to upgrade from the immediately
> previous release (e.g. install Fedora 12, then Fedora 14 Branched, not
> jump directly from Fedora 12 to Fedora 14 Branched). Be prepared to
> wipe your system and re-install from scratch if things do not go
> well. 
> 
> If you decide to go this route anyway, please see
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum 
> """ 
> 
> Also, that paragraph is just plain confusing (to me, at least).  After
> trying to parse it for a while, I think it's trying to say: You may
> *first* need to upgrade *to* the immediately previous release (e.g.
> install/upgrade to Fedora *13*, then Fedora 14 Branched, not jump
> directly from Fedora 12 to Fedora 14 Branched). 

Thanks for the feedback. I actually recently revised some very similar
text on the Releases/Rawhide page; I hope it's clearer now (please do
take a look and let me know what you think). I'll try and find a few
minutes to apply similar changes to the Releases/Branched page - I
wasn't aware it had similar text. Thanks!
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

[Test-Announce] Fedora 18 Alpha Test Compose 2 (TC2) Available Now!

2012-08-15 Thread Andre Robatino

As per the Fedora 18 schedule [1], Fedora 18 Alpha Test Compose 2 (TC2)
is now available for testing. (Lives are expected to be available
later.) Content information, including changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5284#comment:4 . Please see the
following pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and testing
instructions. Normally dl.fedoraproject.org should provide the fastest
download, but download-ib01.fedoraproject.org is available as a mirror
(with an approximately 1 hour lag) in case of trouble. To use it, just
replace "dl" with "download-ib01" in the download URL.

Installation:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test

Base:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Base_Test

Desktop:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Desktop_Test

Ideally, all Alpha priority test cases for Installation [2], Base [3],
and Desktop [4] should pass in order to meet the Alpha Release Criteria
[5]. Help is available on #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net [6], or on the
test list [7].

Create Fedora 18 Alpha test compose (TC) and release candidate (RC)
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5284

F18 Alpha Blocker tracker bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=752654

F18 Alpha Nice-To-Have tracker bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=752662

[1] http://rbergero.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-18/f-18-quality-tasks.html
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Installation_validation_testing
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Base_validation_testing
[4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Desktop_validation_testing
[5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Alpha_Release_Criteria
[6] irc://irc.freenode.net/fedora-qa
[7] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
test-announce mailing list
test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Fedora 18 updates-testing report

The following Fedora 18 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
   0  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11900/libotr-3.2.1-1.fc18
   0  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11962/phpMyAdmin-3.5.2.2-1.fc18
   0  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11963/glibc-2.16-8.fc18


The following builds have been pushed to Fedora 18 updates-testing

activemq-protobuf-1.1-2.fc18
anaconda-18.5-1.fc18
asterisk-gui-2.0-7.20120518svn5220.fc18
evolution-3.5.5-2.fc18
glibc-2.16-8.fc18
gstreamer1-0.11.93-1.fc18
gstreamer1-plugins-base-0.11.93-1.fc18
leechcraft-0.5.80-1.fc18
libguestfs-1.19.31-1.fc18
lorax-18.13-1.fc18
opensips-1.8.1-1.fc18
php-pear-XML-RPC-1.5.5-2.fc18
phpMyAdmin-3.5.2.2-1.fc18
qxmpp-dev-0.6.3.1-1.fc18
sugar-artwork-0.97.0-1.fc18
sugar-toolkit-gtk3-0.97.0-1.fc18
systemtap-2.0-0.2.git10c737f.fc18
vfrnav-20120815-1.fc18
votca-csg-1.2.1-5.fc18
xorg-x11-drv-intel-2.20.3-1.fc18

Details about builds:



 activemq-protobuf-1.1-2.fc18 (FEDORA-2012-11969)
 ActiveMQ Protocol Buffers

Update Information:

Initial import.

References:

  [ 1 ] Bug #822929 - Review Request: activemq-protobuf - ActiveMQ Protocol 
Buffers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822929




 anaconda-18.5-1.fc18 (FEDORA-2012-11964)
 Graphical system installer

Update Information:

This update fixes bugs in the anaconda dracut modules that affect
starting the installer and adds a preliminary text mode interface.

ChangeLog:

* Wed Aug 15 2012 Chris Lumens  - 18.5-1
- Mark/unmark some strings for translation, as appropriate. (clumens)
- Save the distro label into the right variable for retranslation. (clumens)
- Add custom widget files to POTFILES.in. (clumens)
- Fix attribution on common UI code. (clumens)
- don't set armMachine in class definition (bcl)
- libudev now has a version of .1 (hamzy)
- Load anaconda-lib.sh if necessary (jkeating)
- Use shell code to work around missing basename (jkeating)
- Enable text mode once again! (jkeating)
- Update text prompt to include c for continue (jkeating)
- Don't continue if incomplete spokes exist (jkeating)
- Return a bool for timezone completed property (jkeating)
- Add a text progress hub to do the install (jkeating)
- text based storage spoke. (jkeating)
- Allow updating tmux.conf via makeupdates. (clumens)
- Prevent yum messages from showing on tty (jkeating)
- Remove unused imports from the installclasses. (clumens)
- NoSuchGroup is provided by packaging now.  yuminstall is on the way out.
  (clumens)
- Set transaction color in case of multilib install. (clumens)
- Add selinux-specific RPM macro setup. (clumens)
- Add the user-agent to urlgrabber from the old yuminstall.py. (clumens)
- Fix inheritance problems with the gui *Spoke classes. (clumens)
- Only setup python-meh when doing graphical installs (jkeating)
- Call the correct method to schedule the screen (jkeating)
- Add a missing import of os (jkeating)
- Don't display indirect spokes in the hub (jkeating)
- Revert "Remove unncessary __init__ definition. (clumens)" (jkeating)
- Honor displayMode from kickstart files (jkeating)
- Merge master into newtui (jkeating)
- Remove the base_tests file for now (jkeating)
- Remove unused import of UIObject (jkeating)
- Fix up detailederror for new common UI code (jkeating)
- Translate the base text hub class (jkeating)
- Translate the base tui class strings (jkeating)
- Remove unncessary __init__ definition. (clumens) (jkeating)
- Translate some strings in the base tui spokes classes (jkeating)
- Always use collect directly from common (jkeating)
- Add comment headers to the new files (jkeating)
- Ad source files to POTFILES.in (msivak)
- Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into newtui (msivak)
- import localization stuff and use it to translate more strings (msivak)
- finish renaming _mainloop (msivak)
- Fix naming for data attribute and move the NormalSpoke.__init__ under the
  proper class (msivak)
- Improve documentation and add licensing headers (msivak)
- Add translations to the simpleline framework (msivak)
- Add translations to Password Spoke (msivak)
- Add elementary timezone spoke (msivak)
- Pass screen args argument to prompt and input methods + fix for run-text-
  spoke (msivak)
- Merge master into newtui (msivak)
- Add automake files for TUI (ms

Fedora 17 updates-testing report

The following Fedora 17 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
   1  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11876/emacs-24.1-4.fc17
  40  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-10269/revelation-0.4.14-1.fc17
   1  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11889/automake-1.12.2-2.fc17
   0  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11925/munin-2.0.5-1.fc17
   5  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11603/wireshark-1.6.9-1.fc17
   1  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11885/rubygem-actionpack-3.0.11-7.fc17
   1  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11888/rubygem-activesupport-3.0.11-6.fc17
   5  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11668/python-djblets-0.7.1-3.fc17
   0  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11927/glibc-2.15-56.fc17
   5  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11717/bacula-5.2.10-5.fc17
   0  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11957/libvirt-0.9.11.5-2.fc17
   0  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11959/libotr-3.2.1-1.fc17
  38  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-10391/bcfg2-1.2.3-1.fc17
   5  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11718/transfig-3.2.5d-7.fc17
  12  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11470/bind-dyndb-ldap-1.1.0-0.14.rc1.fc17
   2  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11762/ImageMagick-6.7.5.6-4.fc17
   2  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11755/xen-4.1.3-2.fc17
   2  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11756/openstack-nova-2012.1.1-15.fc17
  10  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11479/drupal6-og-2.4-1.fc17
  10  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11485/dokuwiki-0-0.12.20120125.b.fc17
   1  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11801/xfig-3.2.5-32.b.fc17
   6  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11566/calligra-l10n-2.5.0-2.fc17,calligra-2.5.0-2.fc17
   5  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11582/redeclipse-1.2-12.fc17


The following Fedora 17 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved:
 Age URL
   0  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11927/glibc-2.15-56.fc17
   0  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11955/bluez-4.99-2.fc17
   0  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11931/system-config-users-1.2.116-1.fc17
   0  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11923/libfm-1.0-1.fc17,pcmanfm-1.0-1.fc17
   1  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11873/libmx-1.4.7-1.fc17
   1  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11856/xz-5.1.2-1alpha.fc17
   1  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11808/phonon-backend-gstreamer-4.6.2-1.fc17
   1  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11822/evolution-ews-3.4.4-1.fc17,evolution-mapi-3.4.4-1.fc17,evolution-exchange-3.4.4-1.fc17,evolution-3.4.4-1.fc17,evolution-data-server-3.4.4-1.fc17,gtkhtml3-4.4.4-1.fc17
   5  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11716/openldap-2.4.32-1.fc17
   5  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11702/kde-settings-4.8-18.fc17
   5  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11727/pykickstart-1.99.15-1.fc17
   5  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11586/livecd-tools-17.14-1.fc17
   5  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11601/yajl-2.0.4-1.fc17
   5  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11609/openssh-5.9p1-26.fc17
   5  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11617/virtuoso-opensource-6.1.6-1.fc17
   5  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11529/abrt-2.0.11-2.fc17,libreport-2.0.12-5.fc17,btparser-0.18-2.fc17
  12  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11432/zlib-1.2.5-7.fc17
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora 17 updates-testing

bluez-4.99-2.fc17
cgnslib-3.1-3.r4.fc17
clean-extra-utils-0.1-2.fc17
createrepo_c-0.1.8-1.fc17
eigen3-3.0.6-1.fc17
erlang-riak_kv-1.1.4-1.fc17
exiv2-0.22-6.fc17
freeglut-2.8.0-6.fc17
ganyremote-6.0.1-1.fc17
glibc-2.15-56.fc17
haveged-1.5-1.fc17
iniparser-3.1-1.fc17
kanyremote-6.0.1-1.fc17
launchy-2.5-5.fc17
libfm-1.0-1.fc17
libotr-3.2.1-1.fc17
libvirt-0.9.11.5-2.fc17
msp430mcu-20120406-3.fc17
munin-2.0.5-1.fc17
okular-4.8.5-2.fc17
opensips-1.8.1-1.fc17
pcmanfm-1.0-1.fc17
perl-Starlet-0.15-1.fc17
perl-Web-Scraper-0.36-2.fc17
pyobd-0.9.2.2-1.fc17
python-virtualenv-1.7.2-1.fc17
rpmlint-1.4-8.fc17
rubygem-ruby-rc4-0.1.5-3.fc17
system-config-users-1.2.116-1.fc17

Details about builds:



 bluez-4.99-2.fc17 (FEDORA-2012-11955)
 Bluetooth utilities
--

Fedora 16 updates-testing report

The following Fedora 16 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
   1  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11813/xfig-3.2.5-32.b.fc16
   1  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11843/libvirt-0.9.6.2-1.fc16
   1  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11870/rubygem-actionpack-3.0.10-9.fc16
  40  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-10314/revelation-0.4.14-1.fc16
   5  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11737/transfig-3.2.5d-4.fc16
   1  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11880/rubygem-activesupport-3.0.10-4.fc16
   0  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11929/munin-2.0.5-1.fc16
   5  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11576/python-djblets-0.6.22-2.fc16
   1  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11872/emacs-23.3-10.fc16
   1  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11890/automake-1.12.2-2.fc16
   0  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11934/libotr-3.2.1-1.fc16
   0  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11928/glibc-2.14.90-24.fc16.9
  38  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-10402/bcfg2-1.2.3-1.fc16
   6  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11557/wireshark-1.6.9-1.fc16
  12  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11464/bind-dyndb-ldap-1.1.0-0.14.rc1.fc16
   2  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11746/ImageMagick-6.7.0.10-6.fc16
  10  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11476/drupal6-og-2.4-1.fc16
  10  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11526/dokuwiki-0-0.11.20120125.b.fc16
   2  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11785/xen-4.1.3-1.fc16
   5  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11648/mingw32-gdk-pixbuf-2.24.0-2.fc16
 111  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-6614/gdb-7.3.50.20110722-16.fc16


The following Fedora 16 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved:
 Age URL
   0  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11928/glibc-2.14.90-24.fc16.9
   0  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11947/system-config-users-1.2.116-1.fc16
   0  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11961/libfm-1.0-1.fc16,pcmanfm-1.0-1.fc16
   1  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11797/phonon-backend-gstreamer-4.6.2-1.fc16
   5  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11673/tar-1.26-5.fc16
   5  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11595/virtuoso-opensource-6.1.6-1.fc16
   5  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11669/mysql-5.5.27-1.fc16
   5  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11630/kde-l10n-4.8.5-2.fc16,analitza-4.8.5-1.fc16,ark-4.8.5-1.fc16,blinken-4.8.5-1.fc16,cantor-4.8.5-1.fc16,filelight-4.8.5-1.fc16,gwenview-4.8.5-1.fc16,jovie-4.8.5-1.fc16,kaccessible-4.8.5-1.fc16,kactivities-4.8.5-1.fc16,kalgebra-4.8.5-1.fc16,kalzium-4.8.5-1.fc16,kamera-4.8.5-1.fc16,kanagram-4.8.5-1.fc16,kate-4.8.5-1.fc16,kbruch-4.8.5-1.fc16,kcalc-4.8.5-1.fc16,kcharselect-4.8.5-1.fc16,kcolorchooser-4.8.5-1.fc16,kde-baseapps-4.8.5-1.fc16,kde-printer-applet-4.8.5-1.fc16,kde-runtime-4.8.5-1.fc16,kde-wallpapers-4.8.5-1.fc16,kde-workspace-4.8.5-2.fc16,kdeaccessibility-4.8.5-1.fc16,kdeartwork-4.8.5-1.fc16,kdebindings-4.8.5-1.fc16,kdeedu-4.8.5-1.fc16,kdegames-4.8.5-1.fc16,kdegraphics-4.8.5-1.fc16,kdegraphics-mobipocket-4.8.5-1.fc16,kdegraphics-strigi-analyzer-4.8.5-1.fc16,kdegraphics-thumbnailers-4.8.5-1.fc16,kdelibs-4.8.5-1.fc16,kdemultimedia-4.8.5-1.fc16,kdenetwork-4.8.5-1.fc16,kdepim-4.8.5-1.fc16,kdepim-runtime-4.8.5-1.fc16,kdepimlibs-4.8.5-1.fc16,kdeplasma-addons-4.8.5-1.fc16,kdesdk-4.8.5-1.fc16,kdetoys-4.8.5-1.fc16,kdeutils-4.8.5-1.fc16,kdf-4.8.5-1.fc16,kfloppy-4.8.5-1.fc16,kgamma-4.8.5-1.fc16,kgeography-4.8.5-1.fc16,kgpg-4.8.5-1.fc16,khangman-4.8.5-1.fc16,kig-4.8.5-1.fc16,kimono-4.8.5-1.fc16,kiten-4.8.5-1.fc16,klettres-4.8.5-1.fc16,kmag-4.8.5-1.fc16,kmousetool-4.8.5-1.fc16,kmouth-4.8.5-1.fc16,kmplot-4.8.5-1.fc16,kolourpaint-4.8.5-1.fc16,konsole-4.8.5-1.fc16,kremotecontrol-4.8.5-1.fc16,kross-interpreters-4.8.5-1.fc16,kruler-4.8.5-1.fc16,ksaneplugin-4.8.5-1.fc16,ksnapshot-4.8.5-1.fc16,kstars-4.8.5-1.fc16,ktimer-4.8.5-1.fc16,ktouch-4.8.5-1.fc16,kturtle-4.8.5-1.fc16,kwallet-4.8.5-1.fc16,kwordquiz-4.8.5-1.fc16,libkdcraw-4.8.5-1.fc16,libkdeedu-4.8.5-1.fc16,libkexiv2-4.8.5-1.fc16,libkipi-4.8.5-1.fc16,libksane-4.8.5-1.fc16,marble-4.8.5-1.fc16,okular-4.8.5-1.fc16,oxygen-icon-theme-4.8.5-1.fc16,parley-4.8.5-1.fc16,pykde4-4.8.5-1.fc16,qyoto-4.8.5-1.fc16,rocs-4.8.5-1.fc16,ruby-korundum-4.8.5-1.fc16,ruby-qt-4.8.5-1.fc16,smokegen-4.8.5-1.fc16,smokekde-4.8.5-1.fc16,smokeqt-4.8.5-1.fc16,step-4.8.5-1.fc16,superkaramba-4.8.5-1.fc16,svgpart-4.8.5-1.fc16,sweeper-4.8.5-1.fc16
  12  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11440/zlib-1.2.5-7.fc16
  13  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11411/s

Re: Preupgrade from F17 to F18 Branched

2012-08-15 Thread John . Florian

> > > From: Adam Williamson  
> > 
> > > This is probably a terrible time to try preupgrade. It gets no major
> > > love until Beta, usually. If your goal is a working install of F18,
> > your
> > > best option at present is a yum update from F17, following the
> > > directions at
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/
> > > Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum#Fedora_17_-.3E_Fedora_18 . 
> > 
> > Oh, well that would be easier for me since it stays more in my
> > familiar realm.  (Preupgrade looks neat, but my norm is fresh installs
> > + puppet.)  Should this wisdom (both waiting until Beta and that link)
> > be incorporated into
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/
> Branched#Yum_update_from_previous_official_release? 
> 
> Probably not. Actually I should have written that a bit differently:
> it's a *good* thing from a QA perspective that you're trying preupgrade
> now and finding the bugs. We want them found early. It's only a bad
> thing from the point of view that it has about 0% chance of succeeding.
> =) Even if you get the preupgrade bit working, I believe newUI anaconda
> does not actually implement upgrades yet, so there is no chance the
> anaconda bit of the process will work.
 
> Cool. Let us know if you find any QA process documentation missing - I
> think we cover it pretty well though :)

It is covered pretty well.  For some reason though, when I first sought 
out pages telling me how to get on rawhide (because 18 hadn't been 
branched just yet), I never stumbled onto the Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum 
page.  I mostly got a rawhide box based on intuition, but that page 
clearly documents some things I hadn't thought about.  My suggestion for 
incorporating this link into the Releases/Branched page was primarily 
based on the impression that the former covered that specific topic more 
thoroughly.  Thus I kind of envisioned something akin to:

"""
Yum update from previous official release
This method is available but generally not recommended. Anaconda can make 
changes that are outside what the packaging system can normally deal with. 
You may also run into dependency problems which could take time to 
untangle. You may also need to upgrade from the immediately previous 
release (e.g. install Fedora 12, then Fedora 14 Branched, not jump 
directly from Fedora 12 to Fedora 14 Branched). Be prepared to wipe your 
system and re-install from scratch if things do not go well.

If you decide to go this route anyway, please see 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum
"""

Also, that paragraph is just plain confusing (to me, at least).  After 
trying to parse it for a while, I think it's trying to say: You may 
*first* need to upgrade *to* the immediately previous release (e.g. 
install/upgrade to Fedora *13*, then Fedora 14 Branched, not jump directly 
from Fedora 12 to Fedora 14 Branched).

--
John Florian
Machine Data Collections Team
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Preupgrade from F17 to F18 Branched

On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 16:47 -0400, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
> > From: Adam Williamson  
> 
> > This is probably a terrible time to try preupgrade. It gets no major
> > love until Beta, usually. If your goal is a working install of F18,
> your
> > best option at present is a yum update from F17, following the
> > directions at
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/
> > Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum#Fedora_17_-.3E_Fedora_18 . 
> 
> Oh, well that would be easier for me since it stays more in my
> familiar realm.  (Preupgrade looks neat, but my norm is fresh installs
> + puppet.)  Should this wisdom (both waiting until Beta and that link)
> be incorporated into
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Branched#Yum_update_from_previous_official_release?
>  

Probably not. Actually I should have written that a bit differently:
it's a *good* thing from a QA perspective that you're trying preupgrade
now and finding the bugs. We want them found early. It's only a bad
thing from the point of view that it has about 0% chance of succeeding.
=) Even if you get the preupgrade bit working, I believe newUI anaconda
does not actually implement upgrades yet, so there is no chance the
anaconda bit of the process will work.

> Nice to know, thanks.  I'm having lots of fun seeing what it takes to
> get Fedora out the door since I'm making my own derived Live spins for
> internal company use on embedded systems.  I face many of the same
> challenges. 

Cool. Let us know if you find any QA process documentation missing - I
think we cover it pretty well though :)
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Preupgrade from F17 to F18 Branched

2012-08-15 Thread John . Florian

> From: Adam Williamson 

> This is probably a terrible time to try preupgrade. It gets no major
> love until Beta, usually. If your goal is a working install of F18, your
> best option at present is a yum update from F17, following the
> directions at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/
> Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum#Fedora_17_-.3E_Fedora_18 .

Oh, well that would be easier for me since it stays more in my familiar 
realm.  (Preupgrade looks neat, but my norm is fresh installs + puppet.) 
Should this wisdom (both waiting until Beta and that link) be incorporated 
into 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Branched#Yum_update_from_previous_official_release
 
?

> Or you can 
> wait a week or two and get the Alpha release when it comes out.

If I have to I will, but where's the fun in that?  ;-)

> > I grabbed a copy of
> > http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/releases.txt and didn't see any
> > mention of "Fedora 18 (Branched)" as indicated on the Wiki.  I edited
> > this copy to include my own  "Fedora 18 (Branched)" section that
> > referenced my local mirror and then got much further. 
> 
> It's probably a little early post-F18 for all this to be in place, but
> releases.txt does need updating.

Nice to know, thanks.  I'm having lots of fun seeing what it takes to get 
Fedora out the door since I'm making my own derived Live spins for 
internal company use on embedded systems.  I face many of the same 
challenges.


--
John Florian
Machine Data Collections Team
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Preupgrade from F17 to F18 Branched

On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 16:19 -0400, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
> Hi All, 
> 
> I'm new to preupgrade and playing with Fedora test builds (alpha,
> beta, TC, RC or otherwise), but hardly new to Fedora.  I'm hoping to
> do some early testing of F18 before it's released so I've built myself
> a F17 VM, fully updated it and have started the whole preupgrade
> process.  I think I've run into a bug or two, but ... as I said, I'm
> new to this. 

This is probably a terrible time to try preupgrade. It gets no major
love until Beta, usually. If your goal is a working install of F18, your
best option at present is a yum update from F17, following the
directions at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum#Fedora_17_-.3E_Fedora_18
 . Or you can wait a week or two and get the Alpha release when it comes out.

> I've got a local mirror of development/{18,rawhide} due to a mandated
> proxy and in general, the wish to reinstall fast many times, if
> needed.  I'm attempting preupgrade via ssh since I did a minimal
> install of F17 and have no X server installed on the VM.   
> 
> Issue #1: 
> According to
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Branched#Upgrade_from_any_previous_release_via_Preupgrade_and_Anaconda,
>  I should be able to select "Fedora 18 (Branched)".  Maybe that would work, 
> maybe not.  For my first few attempts preupgrade just hung: 
> 
> preupgrade-cli -d5 -v "Fedora 18 (Branched)" 
> Loaded plugins: blacklist, whiteout 
> No plugin match for: rpm-warm-cache 
> No plugin match for: remove-with-leaves 
> No plugin match for: auto-update-debuginfo 
> No plugin match for: refresh-packagekit 
> No plugin match for: presto 
> Not loading "blacklist" plugin, as it is disabled 
> Not loading "whiteout" plugin, as it is disabled 
> Config time: 0.007 
> ^C^C 
> Exiting. 
> 
> A debug message here would have been helpful.  Admittedly, I did not
> trying higher debug levels -- I didn't see any ranges documented so it
> just seemed a time waste to blindly poke around.  Figuring that I was
> waiting for a network timeout, I interrupted it and did some more
> reading about how to use a local mirror from
> here:http://oliver.net.au/?p=188.  I grabbed a copy of
> http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/releases.txt and didn't see any
> mention of "Fedora 18 (Branched)" as indicated on the Wiki.  I edited
> this copy to include my own  "Fedora 18 (Branched)" section that
> referenced my local mirror and then got much further. 

It's probably a little early post-F18 for all this to be in place, but
releases.txt does need updating.

> 
> Issue #2: 
> preupgrade got busy doing lots of stuff that looked reasonable, but
> then ended thusly: 
> 
> Preparing system to boot into installer 
> DEBUG /sbin/grubby --title="Upgrade to Fedora 18 (Branched)"
> --remove-kernel="/boot/upgrade/vmlinuz"
> --add-kernel="/boot/upgrade/vmlinuz"
> --initrd="/boot/upgrade/initrd.img" --args="preupgrade
> repo=hd::/var/cache/yum/preupgrade
>  ks=hd:UUID=6ed39ed0-5dab-472b-8aa0-e0c42e3264d6:/upgrade/ks.cfg
> stage2=hd:UUID=6ed39ed0-5dab-472b-8aa0-e0c42e3264d6:/upgrade/squashfs.img 
> ksdevice=link" 
> sh: /sbin/grub: No such file or directory 
> /bin/echo: write error: Broken pipe 
> All finished. The upgrade will begin when you reboot. 
> 
> Once the upgrade starts, a VNC server will open on port 5901. 
> Use it to monitor progress or fix problems that may arise. 
> 
> Are those errors to be expected? 

I think yes.

> 
> Issue #3: 
> I rebooted the VM, saw the new "Fedora 18 (Branched)" choice in grub's
> menu, but it was not the default and so the system booted back into
> F17.  Since I have a console to the VM, I can "assist" it along, but I
> suspect that shouldn't be required, right?

Yes, but this bug was actually present in F17 too and is apparently
rather hard to fix correctly. See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821739 .
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Preupgrade from F17 to F18 Branched

2012-08-15 Thread John . Florian

Hi All,

I'm new to preupgrade and playing with Fedora test builds (alpha, beta,
TC, RC or otherwise), but hardly new to Fedora. I'm hoping to do some
early testing of F18 before it's released so I've built myself a F17 VM,
fully updated it and have started the whole preupgrade process. I think
I've run into a bug or two, but ... as I said, I'm new to this.

I've got a local mirror of development/{18,rawhide} due to a mandated
proxy and in general, the wish to reinstall fast many times, if needed.
I'm attempting preupgrade via ssh since I did a minimal install of F17 and
have no X server installed on the VM.

Issue #1:
According to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Branched#Upgrade_from_any_previous_release_via_Preupgrade_and_Anaconda
, I should be able to select "Fedora 18 (Branched)". Maybe that would
work, maybe not. For my first few attempts preupgrade just hung:

preupgrade-cli -d5 -v "Fedora 18 (Branched)"
Loaded plugins: blacklist, whiteout
No plugin match for: rpm-warm-cache
No plugin match for: remove-with-leaves
No plugin match for: auto-update-debuginfo
No plugin match for: refresh-packagekit
No plugin match for: presto
Not loading "blacklist" plugin, as it is disabled
Not loading "whiteout" plugin, as it is disabled
Config time: 0.007
^C^C
Exiting.

A debug message here would have been helpful. Admittedly, I did not
trying higher debug levels -- I didn't see any ranges documented so it
just seemed a time waste to blindly poke around. Figuring that I was
waiting for a network timeout, I interrupted it and did some more reading
about how to use a local mirror from here: http://oliver.net.au/?p=188. I
grabbed a copy of http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/releases.txt and
didn't see any mention of "Fedora 18 (Branched)" as indicated on the Wiki.
I edited this copy to include my own "Fedora 18 (Branched)" section that
referenced my local mirror and then got much further.

Issue #2:
preupgrade got busy doing lots of stuff that looked reasonable, but then
ended thusly:

Preparing system to boot into installer
DEBUG /sbin/grubby --title="Upgrade to Fedora 18 (Branched)"
--remove-kernel="/boot/upgrade/vmlinuz"
--add-kernel="/boot/upgrade/vmlinuz" --initrd="/boot/upgrade/initrd.img"
--args="preupgrade repo=hd::/var/cache/yum/preupgrade
ks=hd:UUID=6ed39ed0-5dab-472b-8aa0-e0c42e3264d6:/upgrade/ks.cfg
stage2=hd:UUID=6ed39ed0-5dab-472b-8aa0-e0c42e3264d6:/upgrade/squashfs.img
ksdevice=link"
sh: /sbin/grub: No such file or directory
/bin/echo: write error: Broken pipe
All finished. The upgrade will begin when you reboot.

Once the upgrade starts, a VNC server will open on port 5901.
Use it to monitor progress or fix problems that may arise.

Are those errors to be expected?

Issue #3:
I rebooted the VM, saw the new "Fedora 18 (Branched)" choice in grub's
menu, but it was not the default and so the system booted back into F17.
Since I have a console to the VM, I can "assist" it along, but I suspect
that shouldn't be required, right?
--
John Florian
Machine Data Collections Team--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: First experience with F18-ALPHA-TC1

On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 11:20 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 9:09 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > 
> > Calling test composes something with "alpha" in the name is also a problem.
> 
> The word "alpha" describes the test compose because TC1 by itself could apply 
> to either the pre-alpha, pre-beta, or pre-final releases. So if alpha isn't 
> used as a descriptor, then you need to come up with something equally 
> unambiguous to replace the current naming scheme, which I find unambiguous.
> 
> Are you proposing something like:
> 
> ATest1, ATest2, ATest3, and then once alpha release criteria are met, the 
> last test is renamed to Alpha? And likewise there would be BTest1, BTest2, 
> BTest3, and the last one, which meats beta release criteria, it is renamed to 
> Beta?
> 
> *shrug* OK. I am however confused on the distinction between TC's and RC's.

The difference is described in the candidate build request SOP:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_compose_request

"A test compose is defined as a set of Fedora images built, from the
current Branched tree, shortly prior to the Change Deadline (freeze) for
one of the three Fedora release phases (Alpha, Beta and Final), for the
purposes of performing release validation testing. It differs from a
release candidate in that it is built before, not after, the Change
Deadline and hence there is no possibility of its being declared gold
and released as the Alpha, Beta or Final release."

"A release candidate is defined as a set of Fedora images built, from
the current Branched tree, after the Change Deadline (freeze) for one of
the three Fedora release phases (Alpha, Beta and Final) and using a
package set which is not known to contain any blocker bugs, for the
purposes of performing release validation testing. It differs from a
test compose in that it is built after the Change Deadline and may be
declared gold and released as the Alpha, Beta or Final release if it
passes all validation tests."

So, this actually brings up a problem with the general idea of adjusting
the TC/RC naming process; we could really name TCs whatever the hell we
like, but that doesn't apply to RCs. Fedora RCs are true 'release
candidates': they are built precisely as if they were going to be the
actual released image. RC images don't have Alpha-RC1 or Alpha-RC2 or
Beta-RC3 or whatever in their filenames and so on: they just say 'Alpha'
or 'Beta'. When one of the builds passes validation we simply declare
that build to be the official build and release it as-is: the build
itself does not get changed in any way, we don't have to do a new
'proper' build from the same base or rename any files, we literally take
the 'approved RC' images and release them.

There are obviously good reasons for doing things this way - it's the
most foolproof system for ensuring that what we actually release,
actually works, because what we actually release is precisely what we
tested. Not a rebuild, not a rename, the precise same thing.

We could refer to them as something different in discussion and
announcement emails, I guess, but the thing is...they really _are_
release candidates. This is precisely the right name for them. I'm not
sure any other name actually makes sense. Though if anyone has a smart
idea, please...
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: First experience with F18-ALPHA-TC1

2012-08-15 Thread Bruno Wolff III


On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:20:43 -0600,
  Chris Murphy  wrote:


*shrug* OK. I am however confused on the distinction between TC's and RC's.


TCs can be built when there are still blockers. In theory we shouldn't even 
be trying to compose RCs without believing all blockers are resolved.


I think TCs have been less advertised than RCs in the past. Though recently 
it seems they are geting announced pretty similarly. (Though probably less 
people look at TCs.)

--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: First experience with F18-ALPHA-TC1

2012-08-15 Thread Chris Murphy

On Aug 15, 2012, at 9:09 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> 
> Calling test composes something with "alpha" in the name is also a problem.

The word "alpha" describes the test compose because TC1 by itself could apply 
to either the pre-alpha, pre-beta, or pre-final releases. So if alpha isn't 
used as a descriptor, then you need to come up with something equally 
unambiguous to replace the current naming scheme, which I find unambiguous.

Are you proposing something like:

ATest1, ATest2, ATest3, and then once alpha release criteria are met, the last 
test is renamed to Alpha? And likewise there would be BTest1, BTest2, BTest3, 
and the last one, which meats beta release criteria, it is renamed to Beta?

*shrug* OK. I am however confused on the distinction between TC's and RC's.

Chris Murphy
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: [Fedora QA] #311: Bug #847644 does not show up as a proposed blocker in the new blocker tracker

#311: Bug #847644 does not show up as a proposed blocker in the new blocker
tracker
---+---
  Reporter:  adamwill  |  Owner:  tflink
  Type:  defect| Status:  new
  Priority:  critical  |  Milestone:  Fedora 18
 Component:  Blocker bug tracker page  |Version:
Resolution:|   Keywords:
Blocked By:|   Blocking:
---+---

Comment (by tflink):

 I started looking through what logs I do have and something jumps out at
 me from the sync that should have caught 847644:

 {{{
 [20120813-04:30AM] [bugzilla] [DEBUG] Calling query with: {'status':
 ['NEW', 'ASSIGNED', 'ON_DEV',
  'MODIFIED', 'POST', 'ON_QA ', 'FAILS_QA', 'PASSES_QA', 'REOPENED',
 'VERIFIED', 'RELEASE_PENDING'],
 'f1': 'blocked', 'f2': 'OP', 'f3': 'blocked', 'f4': 'status_whiteboard',
 'f5': 'bug_status',
 'j2': 'OR', 'v1': '752654', 'v3':  '2012-08-13 08:00 GMT', 'v4':
 '2012-08-13 08:00 GMT ', 'v5':
 '2012-08-13 08:00 GMT', 'query_format': 'advanced', 'o5': 'changedafter',
 'o4': 'changedafter',
 'o3': 'changedafter', 'o1': 'anywords'}
 }}}

 No wonder it didn't find anything - that is a malformed query that would
 never have worked. Now to figure out why the query was mangled ...

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Fedora QA 
Fedora Quality Assurance
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: [Fedora QA] #311: Bug #847644 does not show up as a proposed blocker in the new blocker tracker

#311: Bug #847644 does not show up as a proposed blocker in the new blocker
tracker
---+---
  Reporter:  adamwill  |  Owner:  tflink
  Type:  defect| Status:  new
  Priority:  critical  |  Milestone:  Fedora 18
 Component:  Blocker bug tracker page  |Version:
Resolution:|   Keywords:
Blocked By:|   Blocking:
---+---

Comment (by tflink):

 No, I looked through the database entries and there wasn't even a record
 for 847644. I think that something went wrong with a sync and 847644 was
 never even considered.

 This is exactly why I need to push code somewhere but the algorithm
 basically works like:

  * Look for anything blocking the tracker that has changed since the last
 sync
  * !Add/Remove/Update as needed, including dependencies

 If the bug wasn't added to the db initially, the algorithm will never pick
 it up because all changed prior to the last sync are filtered out.

 Unfortunately, I don't think there is any way to figure this out without
 better logs - if I can't figure out why it wasn't considered at first, I
 don't think that I can figure out what's going on here.

 I'd like to keep this open, though since I'm willing to bet that it's
 going to happen again :-/

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Fedora QA 
Fedora Quality Assurance
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: [Fedora QA] #310: Proposed Test Day - realmd/sssd/AD

#310: Proposed Test Day - realmd/sssd/AD
---+---
  Reporter:  stefw |  Owner:
  Type:  task  | Status:  new
  Priority:  major |  Milestone:  Fedora 18
 Component:  Test Day  |Version:
Resolution:|   Keywords:
Blocked By:|   Blocking:
---+---

Comment (by adamwill):

 Sounds great, thanks for the proposal! Added to the schedule.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Fedora QA 
Fedora Quality Assurance
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: [Fedora QA] #311: Bug #847644 does not show up as a proposed blocker in the new blocker tracker

#311: Bug #847644 does not show up as a proposed blocker in the new blocker
tracker
---+---
  Reporter:  adamwill  |  Owner:  tflink
  Type:  defect| Status:  new
  Priority:  critical  |  Milestone:  Fedora 18
 Component:  Blocker bug tracker page  |Version:
Resolution:|   Keywords:
Blocked By:|   Blocking:
---+---

Comment (by adamwill):

 Well...the most obvious possibility, if the algorithm properly categorizes
 it as a proposed blocker when it sees it, is that for some reason the
 script never _considered_ it until you forced a full resync. How does it
 pick what bugs to look at? Could there be something wrong in that
 mechanism?

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Fedora QA 
Fedora Quality Assurance
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

[Test-Announce] 2012-08-16 @ 16:00 UTC (Different Time - Just Once) - F18 Alpha Blocker Bug Review #3

2012-08-15 Thread Tim Flink

# F18 Alpha Blocker Review meeting #3
# Date: 2012-08-16
# Time: 16:00 UTC [1] (12:00 EDT, 09:00 PDT)
# Location: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net

I'm too used to the meetings being on Fridays. Despite my notice that
future meetings will be on Wednesdays, I forgot to send out an
announcement before the meeting and thus, this week's meeting will be
on Thursday (tomorrow).

We'll be running through the beta blockers and nice-to-haves. The
current list of blocker bugs is available at:
  http://supermegawaffle.com/blockerbugs/current

We'll be reviewing the bugs to determine ...

1. Whether they meet the Alpha release criteria [1] and should stay
 on the list
2. Whether they are getting the attention they need

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Alpha_Release_Criteria

For guidance on Blocker and Nice-to-have (NTH) bugs, please refer to
 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process
 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_nth_bug_process 

For the blocker review meeting protocol, see
 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting

Tim


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
test-announce mailing list
test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: [Fedora QA] #311: Bug #847644 does not show up as a proposed blocker in the new blocker tracker

#311: Bug #847644 does not show up as a proposed blocker in the new blocker
tracker
---+---
  Reporter:  adamwill  |  Owner:  tflink
  Type:  defect| Status:  new
  Priority:  critical  |  Milestone:  Fedora 18
 Component:  Blocker bug tracker page  |Version:
Resolution:|   Keywords:
Blocked By:|   Blocking:
---+---

Comment (by tflink):

 Hrm, I'm not seeing any problems in the few logs that I have.

 I forced a full resync with bugzilla and the bug is showing up as a
 proposed blocker now but I'd still like to figure out why it never showed
 up in the first place.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Fedora QA 
Fedora Quality Assurance
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

[Fedora QA] #311: Bug #847644 does not show up as a proposed blocker in the new blocker tracker

#311: Bug #847644 does not show up as a proposed blocker in the new blocker
tracker
--+
 Reporter:  adamwill  |   Owner:  tflink
 Type:  defect|  Status:  new
 Priority:  critical  |   Milestone:  Fedora 18
Component:  Blocker bug tracker page  | Version:
 Keywords:|  Blocked By:
 Blocking:|
--+
 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847644 is marked 'F18Alpha' in
 the 'Blocks:' field, and nothing in the Whiteboard field (no
 AcceptedBlocker or RejectedBlocker). That makes it a proposed blocker. It
 doesn't show up in http://supermegawaffle.com/blockerbugs/current at all,
 though.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Fedora QA 
Fedora Quality Assurance
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Fedora 18 updates-testing report