F17 QA schedule modification proposal

2011-11-29 Thread Adam Williamson
Hi, Robyn. As discussed on the test list this week and at our meeting, we'd like to propose the schedule modification described in https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-November/104583.html to the F17 QA schedule. Could you put that in there? Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA

2011-11-28 - Fedora QA Meeting - recap

2011-11-29 Thread Adam Williamson
As always, minutes and IRC transcript available on the wiki at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/2028 Next meeting is 2011-12-05 at 1600 UTC in #fedora-meeting. Please add any proposed agenda items to the Wiki page at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20111205 . Thanks!

[Fedora QA] #261: Revise upgrade test case set

2011-11-29 Thread Fedora QA
#261: Revise upgrade test case set -+-- Reporter: adamwill | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major|

Is there a need for more Xen test cases for Fedora?

2011-11-29 Thread Adam Williamson
Hey, folks. I'm working through the f16 QA retrospective, and one of the suggestions is: might need improved / more Xen test cases I wanted to reach out particularly to those who've been involved with the Xen support and testing, but also the group in general, and see if this is correct - should

Re: Is there a need for more Xen test cases for Fedora?

2011-11-29 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On 29 November 2011 17:40, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: Hey, folks. I'm working through the f16 QA retrospective, and one of the suggestions is: might need improved / more Xen test cases Does this mean various DomU tests or Dom0 tests? -- Stephen J Smoogen. The core skill of

Re: Is there a need for more Xen test cases for Fedora?

2011-11-29 Thread Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 17:47 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On 29 November 2011 17:40, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: Hey, folks. I'm working through the f16 QA retrospective, and one of the suggestions is: might need improved / more Xen test cases Does this mean

proposal for naming blocker and NTH bugs

2011-11-29 Thread Andre Robatino
The current naming scheme for naming blocker and NTH bugs is irregular - for example, F17Alpha F17Alpha-accepted F17Beta F17Beta-accepted F17Blocker F17-accepted The word Blocker is in only one of the three blocker bugs. I also personally find accepted more confusing than NTH (assuming one

Re: proposal for naming blocker and NTH bugs

2011-11-29 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On 29 November 2011 18:51, Andre Robatino robat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: The current naming scheme for naming blocker and NTH bugs is irregular - for example, F17Alpha F17Alpha-accepted F17Beta F17Beta-accepted F17Blocker F17-accepted The word Blocker is in only one of the three

Fedora 15 updates-testing report

2011-11-29 Thread updates
The following Fedora 15 Security updates need testing: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-15560/nss-3.12.10-7.fc15 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-16476/psi-0.14-7.fc15 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-14753/hardlink-1.0-12.fc15

Fedora 14 updates-testing report

2011-11-29 Thread updates
The following Fedora 14 Security updates need testing: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-14737/hardlink-1.0-12.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-14202/xmlrpc3-3.0-6.fc14

Re: proposal for naming blocker and NTH bugs

2011-11-29 Thread Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 18:57 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On 29 November 2011 18:51, Andre Robatino robat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: The current naming scheme for naming blocker and NTH bugs is irregular - for example, F17Alpha F17Alpha-accepted F17Beta F17Beta-accepted

[Test-Announce] Fedora 16 QA Retrospective: recommendations filed, tickets up for grabs!

2011-11-29 Thread Adam Williamson
Hi, folks. I wanted to let everyone know that I've gone through all the issues raised in the Fedora 16 QA Retrospective: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_16_QA_Retrospective and taken action on each item where possible. For most items I've added a recommendation to the Recommendations

[Fedora QA] #262: Create a release criterion to cover removal of betanag in Final

2011-11-29 Thread Fedora QA
#262: Create a release criterion to cover removal of betanag in Final --+- Reporter: adamwill | Owner: adamwill Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 17

Release criterion proposal: betanag removal

2011-11-29 Thread Adam Williamson
A straightforward release criterion proposal: we should have a criterion just to specify that the anaconda betanag screen (and any others we put in) should be removed for final. Right now this is one of those things that's just obvious but that we ought to write down somewhere. How about, in the

Re: [Fedora QA] #262: Create a release criterion to cover removal of betanag in Final

2011-11-29 Thread Fedora QA
#262: Create a release criterion to cover removal of betanag in Final ---+ Reporter: adamwill | Owner: adamwill Type: task | Status: assigned Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 17

Re: proposal for naming blocker and NTH bugs

2011-11-29 Thread Sandro red Mathys
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 02:51, Andre Robatino robat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: 17Alpha 17AlphaNTH 17Beta 17BetaNTH 17Final (or alternatively 17) 17FinalNTH (or alternatively 17NTH) Why not: 17AlphaBlocker 17AlphaNTH 17BetaBlocker 17BetaNTH 17FinalBlocker 17FinalNTH ... verbosity can be

[Test-Announce] Fedora 16 QA Retrospective: recommendations filed, tickets up for grabs!

2011-11-29 Thread Adam Williamson
Hi, folks. I wanted to let everyone know that I've gone through all the issues raised in the Fedora 16 QA Retrospective: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_16_QA_Retrospective and taken action on each item where possible. For most items I've added a recommendation to the Recommendations