Re: Installation interfaces criterion proposal
On Út, 2012-03-13 at 22:14 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: Ack! Since we had a solid consensus on the meeting I think we should just go ahead and put this in the Beta criteria. The new criterion is right on the place. So from now, non-functional serial console interface is beta (and final) blocker. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Installation interfaces criterion proposal
On St, 2012-03-07 at 18:04 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 08:21 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote: Because there are some objections for serial interface being in final criterion, I'd like to start discussion again. There was discussion on blocker bug meeting [1] (17:40) and it didn't end with unanimous decision. So, let the flame war begin. Do you want serial interface in beta criterion? I asked anaconda team for suggestion and here is their answer [2]. What is your opinion? [1] http://goo.gl/921Vo [2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2012-February/msg00144.html My view is that having it Final is easier and having it Beta is more beneficial. Serial console is used a lot for various VM setups and automated testing. If we have it in Final, we might not get as much bug reports received from general public, because in Beta it will be broken. The QA team uses TCs and RCs, but still, this issue might get fixed just soon before Final if the requirement is Final. That makes all tests based on serial console useless, because they will pass only at the end of development cycle. Here's an example of such a test: http://autoqa-stg.fedoraproject.org/resultsdb/frontend/search?type=Testcaseterms=rats_install So it hurts both us and the bug reports from public. I don't know how hard is to maintain serial console for Anaconda team. Maybe it's a nightmare. But if it is doable, I would prefer having it in Beta. I think that's pretty strong reasoning, and it makes me lean towards Beta as well. Hi, because no one had objections against it and we decided on blocker bug meeting, that serial console is blocker, I propose to add criterion: The installer must be able to complete an installation using the serial console interface. So we would have text, VNC and graphical in alpha, serial console in beta and the rest (if any) in final. Is it right? Petr Schindler -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Installation interfaces criterion proposal
On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 08:54 +0100, Petr Schindler wrote: Hi, because no one had objections against it and we decided on blocker bug meeting, that serial console is blocker, I propose to add criterion: The installer must be able to complete an installation using the serial console interface. So we would have text, VNC and graphical in alpha, serial console in beta and the rest (if any) in final. Is it right? Ack! Since we had a solid consensus on the meeting I think we should just go ahead and put this in the Beta criteria. -- 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: Installation interfaces criterion proposal
Because there are some objections for serial interface being in final criterion, I'd like to start discussion again. There was discussion on blocker bug meeting [1] (17:40) and it didn't end with unanimous decision. So, let the flame war begin. Do you want serial interface in beta criterion? I asked anaconda team for suggestion and here is their answer [2]. What is your opinion? [1] http://goo.gl/921Vo [2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2012-February/msg00144.html My view is that having it Final is easier and having it Beta is more beneficial. Serial console is used a lot for various VM setups and automated testing. If we have it in Final, we might not get as much bug reports received from general public, because in Beta it will be broken. The QA team uses TCs and RCs, but still, this issue might get fixed just soon before Final if the requirement is Final. That makes all tests based on serial console useless, because they will pass only at the end of development cycle. Here's an example of such a test: http://autoqa-stg.fedoraproject.org/resultsdb/frontend/search?type=Testcaseterms=rats_install So it hurts both us and the bug reports from public. I don't know how hard is to maintain serial console for Anaconda team. Maybe it's a nightmare. But if it is doable, I would prefer having it in Beta. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Installation interfaces criterion proposal
On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 08:21 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote: Because there are some objections for serial interface being in final criterion, I'd like to start discussion again. There was discussion on blocker bug meeting [1] (17:40) and it didn't end with unanimous decision. So, let the flame war begin. Do you want serial interface in beta criterion? I asked anaconda team for suggestion and here is their answer [2]. What is your opinion? [1] http://goo.gl/921Vo [2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2012-February/msg00144.html My view is that having it Final is easier and having it Beta is more beneficial. Serial console is used a lot for various VM setups and automated testing. If we have it in Final, we might not get as much bug reports received from general public, because in Beta it will be broken. The QA team uses TCs and RCs, but still, this issue might get fixed just soon before Final if the requirement is Final. That makes all tests based on serial console useless, because they will pass only at the end of development cycle. Here's an example of such a test: http://autoqa-stg.fedoraproject.org/resultsdb/frontend/search?type=Testcaseterms=rats_install So it hurts both us and the bug reports from public. I don't know how hard is to maintain serial console for Anaconda team. Maybe it's a nightmare. But if it is doable, I would prefer having it in Beta. I think that's pretty strong reasoning, and it makes me lean towards Beta as well. -- 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: Installation interfaces criterion proposal
Serial is definitely needed and is a beta blocker. I am with Adam. Dan On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 08:21 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote: Because there are some objections for serial interface being in final criterion, I'd like to start discussion again. There was discussion on blocker bug meeting [1] (17:40) and it didn't end with unanimous decision. So, let the flame war begin. Do you want serial interface in beta criterion? I asked anaconda team for suggestion and here is their answer [2]. What is your opinion? [1] http://goo.gl/921Vo [2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2012-February/msg00144.html My view is that having it Final is easier and having it Beta is more beneficial. Serial console is used a lot for various VM setups and automated testing. If we have it in Final, we might not get as much bug reports received from general public, because in Beta it will be broken. The QA team uses TCs and RCs, but still, this issue might get fixed just soon before Final if the requirement is Final. That makes all tests based on serial console useless, because they will pass only at the end of development cycle. Here's an example of such a test: http://autoqa-stg.fedoraproject.org/resultsdb/frontend/search?type=Testcaseterms=rats_install So it hurts both us and the bug reports from public. I don't know how hard is to maintain serial console for Anaconda team. Maybe it's a nightmare. But if it is doable, I would prefer having it in Beta. I think that's pretty strong reasoning, and it makes me lean towards Beta as well. -- 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 mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Installation interfaces criterion proposal
Because there are some objections for serial interface being in final criterion, I'd like to start discussion again. There was discussion on blocker bug meeting [1] (17:40) and it didn't end with unanimous decision. So, let the flame war begin. Do you want serial interface in beta criterion? I asked anaconda team for suggestion and here is their answer [2]. What is your opinion? [1] http://goo.gl/921Vo [2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2012-February/msg00144.html On Po, 2012-02-13 at 14:11 +0100, Petr Schindler wrote: Because nobody had any objections, I've added new criterion to [1] and I've changed release level of [2] to final. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Final_Release_Criteria [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_User_Interface_Cmdline On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 09:55 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 17:39 +0100, Petr Schindler wrote: I propose new final criterion: The installer must be able to complete an installation using all supported interfaces Serial port is covered by this one. As I've seen some discussion on anaconda-devel list, it's still supported. I'm still waiting for anaconda opinion of cmdline interface [1]. They should say what they want to support. This criterion ensures that all supported interfaces will work in final release. There is another question. Do we still need text interface?? There is an alpha criterion The installer must be able to complete an installation using the text, graphical and VNC installation interfaces, so it should work. +1, looks good. I don't think there's any intent to drop the text installer, anaconda team has already discussed how to implement a text installer with the UI re-design, so it looks like it's sticking around. -- 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: Installation interfaces criterion proposal
Because nobody had any objections, I've added new criterion to [1] and I've changed release level of [2] to final. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Final_Release_Criteria [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_User_Interface_Cmdline On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 09:55 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 17:39 +0100, Petr Schindler wrote: I propose new final criterion: The installer must be able to complete an installation using all supported interfaces Serial port is covered by this one. As I've seen some discussion on anaconda-devel list, it's still supported. I'm still waiting for anaconda opinion of cmdline interface [1]. They should say what they want to support. This criterion ensures that all supported interfaces will work in final release. There is another question. Do we still need text interface?? There is an alpha criterion The installer must be able to complete an installation using the text, graphical and VNC installation interfaces, so it should work. +1, looks good. I don't think there's any intent to drop the text installer, anaconda team has already discussed how to implement a text installer with the UI re-design, so it looks like it's sticking around. -- 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: Installation interfaces criterion proposal
I forgot to mention that if this criterion will be accepted, we should move test case [2] to final release level. And I forgot to give a link to anaconda-devel thread about supported interfaces [1] [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2012-January/msg00207.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_User_Interface_Cmdline On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 17:39 +0100, Petr Schindler wrote: I propose new final criterion: The installer must be able to complete an installation using all supported interfaces Serial port is covered by this one. As I've seen some discussion on anaconda-devel list, it's still supported. I'm still waiting for anaconda opinion of cmdline interface [1]. They should say what they want to support. This criterion ensures that all supported interfaces will work in final release. There is another question. Do we still need text interface?? There is an alpha criterion The installer must be able to complete an installation using the text, graphical and VNC installation interfaces, so it should work. Regards Petr Schindler -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Installation interfaces criterion proposal
On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 17:39 +0100, Petr Schindler wrote: I propose new final criterion: The installer must be able to complete an installation using all supported interfaces Serial port is covered by this one. As I've seen some discussion on anaconda-devel list, it's still supported. I'm still waiting for anaconda opinion of cmdline interface [1]. They should say what they want to support. This criterion ensures that all supported interfaces will work in final release. There is another question. Do we still need text interface?? There is an alpha criterion The installer must be able to complete an installation using the text, graphical and VNC installation interfaces, so it should work. +1, looks good. I don't think there's any intent to drop the text installer, anaconda team has already discussed how to implement a text installer with the UI re-design, so it looks like it's sticking around. -- 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
