Re: Package-specific test case and critical path test case project: drafts for review

2011-01-04 Thread James Laska
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 17:57 +, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 10:52 -0500, James Laska wrote: > > > Agreed ... I think it makes sense to keep Category:Test_Cases as just a > > container for sub-categories if possible. Mainly for the reasons you > > note around *trying* to keep

Re: Package-specific test case and critical path test case project: drafts for review

2011-01-04 Thread Adam Williamson
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 10:58 -0500, James Laska wrote: > > So, see: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_xorg-x11-drv-ati_test_cases > > > > and note that one of the test cases is also in: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Critical_path_test_cases > > Nice examp

Re: Package-specific test case and critical path test case project: drafts for review

2011-01-04 Thread Adam Williamson
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 10:52 -0500, James Laska wrote: > Agreed ... I think it makes sense to keep Category:Test_Cases as just a > container for sub-categories if possible. Mainly for the reasons you > note around *trying* to keep content organized. OK. I think I actually went ahead and changed t

Re: Package-specific test case and critical path test case project: drafts for review

2011-01-03 Thread James Laska
On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 14:35 +, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 17:11 +, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Hi, everyone. So, in the recent debate about the update process it again > > became clear that we were lacking a good process for providing > > package-specific test instruction

Re: Package-specific test case and critical path test case project: drafts for review

2011-01-03 Thread James Laska
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 17:29 +, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 18:12 -0500, James Laska wrote: > > > > the first isn't particularly specific to this, but it was a prerequisite > > > that I discovered was missing: it's a guide to test case creation in > > > general, explaining th

Re: Package-specific test case and critical path test case project: drafts for review

2010-12-23 Thread Adam Williamson
On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 14:35 +, Adam Williamson wrote: > thanks! I'm planning to work on a mockup for the f-e-k and bodhi > integration this afternoon to show how we envision this all being used > to kick ass, I think that'll make it clearer. Bodhi mockup post: http://www.happyassassin.net/20

Re: Package-specific test case and critical path test case project: drafts for review

2010-12-23 Thread Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 17:11 +, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi, everyone. So, in the recent debate about the update process it again > became clear that we were lacking a good process for providing > package-specific test instructions, and particularly specific > instructions for testing critical p

Re: Package-specific test case and critical path test case project: drafts for review

2010-12-22 Thread Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 17:11 +, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi, everyone. So, in the recent debate about the update process it again > became clear that we were lacking a good process for providing > package-specific test instructions, and particularly specific > instructions for testing critical p

Re: Package-specific test case and critical path test case project: drafts for review

2010-12-22 Thread Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 18:12 -0500, James Laska wrote: > > the first isn't particularly specific to this, but it was a prerequisite > > that I discovered was missing: it's a guide to test case creation in > > general, explaining the actual practical process of how you create a > > test case, and th

Re: Package-specific test case and critical path test case project: drafts for review

2010-12-22 Thread Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 15:53 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > From a quick glance over this looks good to me, and I would be happy to > start trying to make test cases. A few random things: > > * Would it be worth noting that anyone can make a test case, it doesn't > need to be the maintainer, right

Re: Package-specific test case and critical path test case project: drafts for review

2010-12-21 Thread James Laska
On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 15:53 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 17:11:15 + > Adam Williamson wrote: > > > Hi, everyone. So, in the recent debate about the update process it > > again became clear that we were lacking a good process for providing > > package-specific test instructi

Re: Package-specific test case and critical path test case project: drafts for review

2010-12-21 Thread James Laska
Thanks Adam for getting the ball rolling on this topic. On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 17:11 +, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi, everyone. So, in the recent debate about the update process it again > became clear that we were lacking a good process for providing > package-specific test instructions, and p

Re: Package-specific test case and critical path test case project: drafts for review

2010-12-21 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 17:11:15 + Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi, everyone. So, in the recent debate about the update process it > again became clear that we were lacking a good process for providing > package-specific test instructions, and particularly specific > instructions for testing critical

Package-specific test case and critical path test case project: drafts for review

2010-12-21 Thread Adam Williamson
Hi, everyone. So, in the recent debate about the update process it again became clear that we were lacking a good process for providing package-specific test instructions, and particularly specific instructions for testing critical path functions. I've been working on a process for this, and now h