Unless there is something that I've missed, I don't think that we have a whole lot of bugs to fix in the 0.5 release series and I was wondering what people were thinking about planning for 0.6.
How about proposals for features by Tuesday and do another phone meeting on Thursday?
Tim
Unless there is something that I've missed, I don't think that we have a whole lot of bugs to fix in the 0.5 release series and I was wondering what people were thinking about planning for 0.6.
Today 2 new interns joined (or one of them joined, one of them re-joined) in Brno, they'll surely introduce themselves shortly. That means we will have some figer-food work-force ready, but on the other hand we'll spend new new weeks mentoring. I would like to have 0.6 release light.
My ideas: * #330 upgradepath: improve behavior when pushing update to multiple releases This is often requested and has direct impact on satisfaction with our tests. I intend to implement this.
* #347 Test results are sometimes linked incorrectly in Bodhi We need to provide clickable links for our tests, high priority. But unless we decide for character swapping, this doesn't look like a hotfix ticket.
* #349 Depcheck - prefilter the list of packages passed to yum instance's rpmdb Josef claims this should be a simple change that fixes some problems encountered with depcheck (and he's willing to get his hands dirty with that:)).
How about proposals for features by Tuesday and do another phone meeting on Thursday?
Tuesday's deadline met. If you want to have a phone meeting on Thursday, I have no objections.
On 07/11/2011 08:15 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
Unless there is something that I've missed, I don't think that we have a whole lot of bugs to fix in the 0.5 release series and I was wondering what people were thinking about planning for 0.6.
Today 2 new interns joined (or one of them joined, one of them re-joined) in Brno, they'll surely introduce themselves shortly. That means we will have some figer-food work-force ready, but on the other hand we'll spend new new weeks mentoring. I would like to have 0.6 release light.
OK, I didn't know about new interns. The plan for keeping the release light and smaller tickets sounds like a good idea to me.
How about proposals for features by Tuesday and do another phone meeting on Thursday?
Tuesday's deadline met. If you want to have a phone meeting on Thursday, I have no objections.
OK, I'll add my proposals to the list of things to consider later today and start getting stuff set up for Thursday.
Tim
How about proposals for features by Tuesday and do another phone meeting on Thursday?
Tuesday's deadline met. If you want to have a phone meeting on Thursday, I have no objections.
OK, I'll add my proposals to the list of things to consider later today and start getting stuff set up for Thursday.
I'd like to add pingou's request for making the Test Passed line clearer. Maybe smaller, or gone since it is slightly redundant? Nice piece of finger food to implement, /me thinks.
John
Ticket in trac created. IMHO it's reasonable to get rid of it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Dulaney" j_dulaney@live.com To: autoqa-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 5:37:33 PM Subject: RE: 0.6 Planning
How about proposals for features by Tuesday and do another phone meeting on Thursday?
Tuesday's deadline met. If you want to have a phone meeting on Thursday, I have no objections.
OK, I'll add my proposals to the list of things to consider later today and start getting stuff set up for Thursday.
I'd like to add pingou's request for making the Test Passed line clearer. Maybe smaller, or gone since it is slightly redundant? Nice piece of finger food to implement, /me thinks.
John
autoqa-devel mailing list autoqa-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/autoqa-devel
I'd like to add pingou's request for making the Test Passed line clearer. Maybe smaller, or gone since it is slightly redundant? Nice piece of finger food to implement, /me thinks.
John
Which line do you mean exactly?
Do you mean "Result PASSED" line as seen as e.g. at http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/results/140560-autotest/172.16.0.19/depcheck... ?
I'd like to add pingou's request for making the Test Passed line clearer. Maybe smaller, or gone since it is slightly redundant? Nice piece of finger food to implement, /me thinks.
John
Which line do you mean exactly?
Do you mean "Result PASSED" line as seen as e.g. at http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/results/140560-autotest/172.16.0.19/depcheck... ?
Indeed, as per discussed in IRC.
John
I'd like to add pingou's request for making the Test Passed line clearer. Maybe smaller, or gone since it is slightly redundant? Nice piece of finger food to implement, /me thinks.
John
Which line do you mean exactly?
Do you mean "Result PASSED" line as seen as e.g. at http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/results/140560-autotest/172.16.0.19/depcheck... ?
Indeed, as per discussed in IRC.
John
John,
I need you to do several things:
1. Please write your emails in plaintext instead of HTML, thank you.
2. Please clearly indicate which line you are referring to (use this report as a sample [1]) and tell me what's wrong about it. I still don't get it. You confirmed you had talked about "Result PASSED" line (third line in the report). I don't understand what's wrong about it. And Josef created ticket about line "ACCEPT: glaxium-0.5-10.fc15.i686" (last line in Detailed Results) [2]. And that's something completely different.
Thanks, Kamil
[1] http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/results/140560-autotest/172.16.0.19/depcheck... [2] https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/351
I'd like to add pingou's request for making the Test Passed line clearer. Maybe smaller, or gone since it is slightly redundant? Nice piece of finger food to implement, /me thinks.
John
Which line do you mean exactly?
Do you mean "Result PASSED" line as seen as e.g. at http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/results/140560-autotest/172.16.0.19/depcheck... ?
Indeed, as per discussed in IRC.
John
John,
I need you to do several things:
Please write your emails in plaintext instead of HTML, thank you.
Please clearly indicate which line you are referring to (use this report as a sample [1]) and tell me what's wrong about it. I still don't get it. You confirmed you had talked about "Result PASSED" line (third line in the report). I don't understand what's wrong about it. And Josef created ticket about line "ACCEPT: glaxium-0.5-10.fc15.i686" (last line in Detailed Results) [2]. And that's something completely different.
Thanks, Kamil
I apologize on the HTML bit, that was an oversight on my part. I usually try to set it to plain text, but forgot in this case.
And, yes, I meant the ACCEPT line. This is what happens when one doesn't pay attention to what one is writing. I shall try do do better.
Apologies for the confusion and mayhem, John
[1] http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/results/140560-autotest/172.16.0.19/depcheck... [2] https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/351 _______________________________________________ autoqa-devel mailing list autoqa-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/autoqa-devel
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:29:15 -0600 Tim Flink tflink@redhat.com wrote:
OK, I'll add my proposals to the list of things to consider later today and start getting stuff set up for Thursday.
The features that I would like to propose for 0.6.0 are:
#353 - Create Mockups for AutoQA External Dependencies - This would help us to test AutoQA without changing anything internal. Once we can test better, we can be more confident of our releases.
#352 - Determine AutoQA Functional Self Test Cases - A system for running tests needs tests to run. Finding potential test cases might also be a good introduction to AutoQA, how its supposed to function and how it might fail.
Tim
autoqa-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
-
John Dulaney -
Josef Skladanka -
Kamil Paral -
Tim Flink