Mel, Please check with me FIRST - I'm in the office.
Thanks, Joe ----------- At 04:04 PM 9/26/2008, Mel Chua wrote: >Oh. Maybe I shouldn't flash all the XOs with 765 tonight, then... >I'm en route to the office now, and will check in with Ed and >Michael first, but unless I hear otherwise from someone I'll install >the latest candidate that's out when my train gets to Kendall. > >PS: Any objections to me lining the edge of the Patmos with testing >XOs for Saturday and Sunday? There's not much choice for space to do this in. > >Kimberley Quirk wrote: >>The only issue I see is that 765 is probably not the final release >>and we are going to need to 'cram' test the final release more than >>spending a lot of time with 765. >> >>Copying Ed and Michael on this as well as they will help figure out >>what release is our final one and they need to know that you (and >>others) are geared up to test... we just need to know what to test! >> >>Thanks, Mel, >>Kim >> >> >>On Sep 26, 2008, at 3:28 PM, Mel Chua wrote: >> >>>(Joe, please feel free to trump me on this - I'll keep plugging on >>>this unless somebody tells me otherwise.) >>> >>>Greg, by Monday at 11 I can get you and the testing list a >>>breakdown of the bugs in report 28 sorted by the following: >>> >>>1) Verified as closed - celebrate! >>>2) Verified as not-closed (reopened), add to release notes >>>3) We have no idea (probably treat the same as #2) - I hope this >>>list will be empty. >>> >>>Plan for producing that email: (please revise/suggest as needed, >>>partial strawman) >>> >>>* I've been writing test cases and procedures in the last few days >>>for everything in report 33; I'll expand that to include the >>>tickets in 28, which is a superset of 33. >>> >>>* You'll see me back at 1cc this afternoon installing 765 on the >>>20 XOs we got from Richard. I'm going to use those as the in-1cc >>>8.2.0 blockers test pool since our other testbeds are being used >>>for connectivity tests (I think- Joe?) that require all 30 XOs >>>running full-tilt on that. >>> >>>* This weekend: running tests. And running tests. And running >>>tests. And - this is why I've spent so long on how-to-test >>>tutorials and test cases - getting the visiting volunteers >>>(+whoever I can pull in over IRC) on Saturday (MassXO comes in >>>Sat. morning) and Sunday (support-gang) to run tests. I've been >>>trying to build our capacity to run a lot of tests in parallel, >>>and the bottleneck (imo) was people with XOs who were able to, >>>with the given instructions, run all these tests. I hope I've >>>fixed the "with the given instructions" part. You'll see this when >>>I revise the [[Testing]] page later tonight. >>> >>>* Monday morning: Sit down and write up those 3 lists for Greg. >>> >>>How does this sound? >>> >>>-Mel >>> >>>Greg Smith wrote: >>>>Hi Mel, Joe and team, >>>> >>>>I am writing the 8.2 release notes and I see a number of bugs >>>>which are marked Test In Release, Test in Build or QA Signoff. >>>> >>>>If they really are fixed then I don't need to document them. >>>>However, if they fail final test then I should document them. >>>> >>>>I believe the relevant list is at: >>>>http://dev.laptop.org/report/28 >>>> >>>>Can you give me an ETA when you think you can have all of those >>>>verified or sent back for more work? >>>> >>>>For now I will assume that they are fixed and I will not document >>>>them. If you find one that is not fixed, please cc me on the bug >>>>or let me know and I will add it to the release notes later. >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>> >>>>Greg S > _______________________________________________ Testing mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/testing
