Hi,
Someone should write a response. Feel free to brainstorm here.
http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20080519&mode=67#news
" Fedora 9 was released last week. As many users have discovered since then, the latest version of Red Hat's community distribution is a rather adventurous mix of bleeding-edge packages and experimental features. The development version of X.Org 1.5 does not work well with any of the proprietary NVIDIA graphics drivers, which were promptly left out from the stable Livna.org repositories. Similarly, Firefox 3.0b5 is a beta build, lacking support for many popular add-ons. And there is KDE 4.0.3, another experimental, buggy and feature-lacking desktop package that is forced onto Fedora's KDE users without an alternative. No wonder that many users are unhappy about some of the choices Fedora developers made prior to the release. But as is always the case with this popular distribution, things are bound to improve in the coming weeks. The first major batch of package updates has already entered the testing directory, so it shouldn't be long before they are pushed on to the end users"
Rahul
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi,
Someone should write a response. Feel free to brainstorm here.
"Dear Distrowatch, you're completely correct in your analysis."
I mean, aren't they? I'm not sure what kind of response is required.
--g
http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20080519&mode=67#news
" Fedora 9 was released last week. As many users have discovered since then, the latest version of Red Hat's community distribution is a rather adventurous mix of bleeding-edge packages and experimental features. The development version of X.Org 1.5 does not work well with any of the proprietary NVIDIA graphics drivers, which were promptly left out from the stable Livna.org repositories. Similarly, Firefox 3.0b5 is a beta build, lacking support for many popular add-ons. And there is KDE 4.0.3, another experimental, buggy and feature-lacking desktop package that is forced onto Fedora's KDE users without an alternative. No wonder that many users are unhappy about some of the choices Fedora developers made prior to the release. But as is always the case with this popular distribution, things are bound to improve in the coming weeks. The first major batch of package updates has already entered the testing directory, so it shouldn't be long before they are pushed on to the end users"
Rahul
Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi,
Someone should write a response. Feel free to brainstorm here.
"Dear Distrowatch, you're completely correct in your analysis."
I mean, aren't they? I'm not sure what kind of response is required.
". If you are a Fedora fan, but would prefer your Linux desktop to have fewer experimental software packages, you might want to postpone the upgrade for a month or two, or investigate one of the distributions with a policy of shipping stable and well-tested software only."
... implies we don't test our packages. If you agree with analysis, fine but I do think our choices can be explained further.
Rahul
On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 19:40 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi,
Someone should write a response. Feel free to brainstorm here.
"Dear Distrowatch, you're completely correct in your analysis."
I mean, aren't they? I'm not sure what kind of response is required.
". If you are a Fedora fan, but would prefer your Linux desktop to have fewer experimental software packages, you might want to postpone the upgrade for a month or two, or investigate one of the distributions with a policy of shipping stable and well-tested software only."
... implies we don't test our packages. If you agree with analysis, fine but I do think our choices can be explained further.
It doesnt really implies that, it only means that fedora is bleeding edge, which doesnt mean we dont test our packages but that our software isnt necesary as stable (as its really new) as a Red Hat Enterpries Linux or Debian Stable which are known for their well tested over a great period of time software.
Juan Camilo Prada wrote:
It doesnt really implies that, it only means that fedora is bleeding edge, which doesnt mean we dont test our packages.
We have to disagree on what that means. There are good reason for us providing a pre-release of Xorg for example. Those choices can still be explained better to everyone. If you don't feel the need. I will just do it myself since I am writing a release specific FAQ to answer some of the other questions anyway. Thanks.
Rahul
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
". If you are a Fedora fan, but would prefer your Linux desktop to have fewer experimental software packages, you might want to postpone the upgrade for a month or two, or investigate one of the distributions with a policy of shipping stable and well-tested software only."
... implies we don't test our packages. If you agree with analysis, fine but I do think our choices can be explained further.
To be perfectly honest, I *do* agree with the analysis. I think that comprehensive testing, right now, is the biggest weakness we have. Some of the bugs we shipped with are pretty ugly.
My current circumstance is a great example.
I'm writing this from an F9 USB key I burned using Luke's Windows USB tool on my mother-in-law's Windows computer. Excellent!
But I'm using it because when I upgraded to F9 and then tried to use hibernate, it bricked my laptop. Bummer!
Some of these bugs could have been found with simple test suites -- but we haven't managed to get that work done. It's a real problem.
Look, we're getting *really* favorable coverage for F9. I expect that coverage will continue. I think this is a case of taking criticism graciously, admitting our imperfections, and working to do better next time.
--g
Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
. I think that
comprehensive testing, right now, is the biggest weakness we have. Some of the bugs we shipped with are pretty ugly.
Absolutely. We make a pretty big effort on testing what we ship however and that should still be recognized.
Some of these bugs could have been found with simple test suites -- but we haven't managed to get that work done. It's a real problem.
Releasing parts of a automated testing framework without any tests to go along with that wasn't a very useful decision. We can't build a testing community with just that. I am still talking to folks to fix that.
Rahul
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Absolutely. We make a pretty big effort on testing what we ship however and that should still be recognized.
. Recognized? Sure. But we *cannot* simply sit back and rest on our laurels of producing a quality distribution. Our QA right now is ""passable". It must be SUPERIOR. Working on documentation, which is lacking, in order to build a community around QA is one of my personal short-term goals.
Releasing parts of a automated testing framework without any tests to go along with that wasn't a very useful decision. We can't build a testing community with just that. I am still talking to folks to fix that.
Stay tuned for FUDCon.
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
". If you are a Fedora fan, but would prefer your Linux desktop to have fewer experimental software packages, you might want to postpone the upgrade for a month or two, or investigate one of the distributions with a policy of shipping stable and well-tested software only."
... implies we don't test our packages. If you agree with analysis, fine but I do think our choices can be explained further.
To be perfectly honest, I *do* agree with the analysis. I think that comprehensive testing, right now, is the biggest weakness we have. Some of the bugs we shipped with are pretty ugly.
My current circumstance is a great example.
I'm writing this from an F9 USB key I burned using Luke's Windows USB tool on my mother-in-law's Windows computer. Excellent!
But I'm using it because when I upgraded to F9 and then tried to use hibernate, it bricked my laptop. Bummer!
Some of these bugs could have been found with simple test suites -- but we haven't managed to get that work done. It's a real problem.
Side note about this... Does anyone know if we have a public list of what our test matrix is? I'd be happy to test and sign off on some things but I don't know what we do to test.
-Mike
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Mike McGrath wrote:
Side note about this... Does anyone know if we have a public list of what our test matrix is? I'd be happy to test and sign off on some things but I don't know what we do to test.
Jon Stanley. Paging Jon Stanley. :)
I don't think we have one.
I don't think we have a coherent *community* QA strategy at all.
But this discussion isn't really for f-mktg-l. It might be suitable for the Fedora advisory board, though.
--g
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Mike McGrath wrote:
Side note about this... Does anyone know if we have a public list of what our test matrix is? I'd be happy to test and sign off on some things but I don't know what we do to test.
Jon Stanley. Paging Jon Stanley. :)
I don't think we have one.
OK, my apologies: we do have one. Here it is:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TreeTestingTemplate
--g
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Greg DeKoenigsberg gdk@redhat.com wrote:
As with a lot of things on the wiki, this is out of date :( We're going with the matrices that have spots for folks to put their names, etc.
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
Side note about this... Does anyone know if we have a public list of what our test matrix is? I'd be happy to test and sign off on some things but I don't know what we do to test.
Sure thing - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestResults/Fedora9Install/FinalRelease
One of these matrices is created for every release. Feel free to suggest new testcases as well :)
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Jon Stanley wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
Side note about this... Does anyone know if we have a public list of what our test matrix is? I'd be happy to test and sign off on some things but I don't know what we do to test.
Sure thing - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestResults/Fedora9Install/FinalRelease
One of these matrices is created for every release. Feel free to suggest new testcases as well :)
/me is just taking this opportunity to express his love... for The Jon Stanley. I'll be paying more close attention for F10 and participating in those matrices.
-Mike
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Jon Stanley wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
Side note about this... Does anyone know if we have a public list of what our test matrix is? I'd be happy to test and sign off on some things but I don't know what we do to test.
Sure thing - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestResults/Fedora9Install/FinalRelease
One of these matrices is created for every release. Feel free to suggest new testcases as well :)
OK, so I'm shooting my mouth off about stuff I know nothing about. It happens. :)
So the coherent question becomes, "how can we make it dead-simple for everyone to run these test cases?"
--g
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Jon Stanley wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
Side note about this... Does anyone know if we have a public list of what our test matrix is? I'd be happy to test and sign off on some things but I don't know what we do to test.
Sure thing - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestResults/Fedora9Install/FinalRelease
One of these matrices is created for every release. Feel free to suggest new testcases as well :)
OK, so I'm shooting my mouth off about stuff I know nothing about. It happens. :)
So the coherent question becomes, "how can we make it dead-simple for everyone to run these test cases?"
/me isn't sure if there's some fancy test suite or not so the rest of this email is written under the assumption that there is no fancy test suite.
There's a few ways we could make it dead simple for the masses but its a lot of work to get to that point.
1) Submit scripts for people to run 2) Submit kickstarts for people to use 3) Give detailed directions for the people to follow.
-Mike
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Greg DeKoenigsberg gdk@redhat.com wrote:
Look, we're getting *really* favorable coverage for F9. I expect that coverage will continue. I think this is a case of taking criticism graciously, admitting our imperfections, and working to do better next time.
I agree whole-heartedly with this statement. The majority of the press surrounding F9 has been positive - which is great for Fedora. We continue to push new things out the door and make the functionality of many areas better while adhering to open standards.
But just as we graciously accept the positive comments, we also need to accept the comments regarding imperfections of a release. They at least warrant further analysis and consideration of such comments. These are the areas we might be able to improve - whether it be improvement in the testing process, determining what packages we release with and more.
As we look at some the areas where comments were less than favorable, we might determine we are happy with our reasons for releasing what we did or the process behind the decision making. In other cases we might see that yes, we should work on that area a little more and try to focus some attention there.
It is how we continue to improve.
~Jeffrey
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Greg DeKoenigsberg -
Jeffrey Tadlock -
Jon Stanley -
Juan Camilo Prada -
Mike McGrath -
Rahul Sundaram