On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 18:11 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 23.01.13 22:17, Adam Williamson (awilliam(a)redhat.com) wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 19:47 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 22:47:18 +0000,
> > "\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" <johannbg(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >b)
> > >
> > >We QA have alot of QA community members testing this so this does NOT
> > >require any additional effort or cause additional LOAD on the QA
> > >community.
> >
> > Aren't they just testing an upgrade of the default install?
>
> Correct:
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_upgrade_fedup_cli_previous_des... is the
only current upgrade test case.
>
> We could plausibly extend the range somewhat to cover common package
> loadouts (GNOME, KDE, minimal perhaps) and common configuration wrinkles
> (non-US keyboard layout, encryption, a couple of different partition
> schemes), for _one_ upgrade method. Anything beyond that would be a bit
> of a stretch, I think.
Wouldn't it make sense to test the "full install"? In contrast to other
distributions it should be possible to install all our RPMs at once
(modulo arch specific ones that is). If that thing upgrades properly,
then you have a pretty good chance it will work for most subsets too?
It's probably a useful test case to add, yeah, but I can think of
several scenarios where it wouldn't cover things (by definition it
probably wouldn't catch cases where a necessary dependency was missing
in an upgraded package, for instance :>). It helps to some degree to
cover against issues in the package set, but it still doesn't innoculate
us against configuration differences - hardware borking between kernel
releases, different partition layouts etc.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net