On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 16:33 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
I have some additions:
7. fixes bug X, but does not claim to fix it
This can often happen with hardware related bugs, e.g. with the kernel
where something starts to work again
Oh, yes, I like that. Then the update text could be updated to claim a
fix for that bug, is what you're thinking, right?
8. The package updated sucessfully, but was not used intentionally.
This shows, that at least on the test machine, there are no broken deps,
conflicts or broken scriptlets.
In my head I sort of had this wrapped up with 'no regressions', but you
might be right that it's best to split it out as a choice.
Also it would be nice to provide hardware testing feedback, e.g. for
updates to say "Works with nouveau, Geforce XY, using VGA out and XV",
which then shows that e.g. 3D support, DVI out or multi screen support
was not tested. This is kind of related to testing with a test plan, but
having this data available in a format that can be easily parsed, would
be nice, too. Maybe this could be done with adding smolt information in
the feedback and the tested features (XV, VGA, DVI, 3D, ...) and the
update needs to have some meta data, which kind of devices are supported
(e.g. only Geforce devices for the nouveau driver package).
I sort of agree, but it's quite a complex topic and probably would
require some serious design and thinking about of its own, so I was
kinda leaving it out at this stage :)
The infrastructure team is already working along these lines following
Doug's earlier proposal, BTW, so I hope they'll pick up your
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org