Re: 2009-06-24 - Fedora QA meeting Recap

[James Laska]

Thanks for the corrections, I've updated the minutes accordingly.

Thanks,
James

On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 23:08 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>  On 06/24/2009 06:35 PM, James Laska wrote:
>  <snip>
>  .....
>  </snip.. 
>  
>  HOLD THE PRESSESS ;) 
>  
>  There seems to be a bit miss summation here.. 
>  
>  So to get one thing clear this is the problem that we are faced with
>  ( taken from my improve_reporting page )
>   
>  "Lack of needed information for maintainer(s) to be able to
>  successfully work with the report." 
>  
>  The reason for the lack of the needed information on a report is in
>  most cases simply that the reporter has not a clue what to include in
>  the report itself and is not mandatory to provide that information.The
>  underlying problem is not the reporter nor the triager which often ask
>  the reporter to include wrong information because the triager has no
>  better clue what to include in the report so he ask for the most
>  common include case ( usually to include /var/log/messages). The
>  problem is that the maintainer(s) them self have failed to provide
>  this information or has done so only to the reporter on a report
>  bases.When a maintainer introduces a component into Fedora it should
>  be mandatory for him to provide this information along with how to
>  enable debug output and to provide test plans for the component.
>  
>  
>  > Viking_ice asked whether the abrt tool could be used to improve bug
>  > reporting. 
>  > 
>  >   
>  Hum I never asked if abtr could be used to improve bugs it goes
>  without saying that any automated bug reporting tool does as long as
>  it works.. 
>  I was asking if any one knew how abrt is solving this problem. wwoods
>  mentioned that "IIRC they had (or were planning to have) plugins or
>  conf files that specify what files to attach"  
>  Which does not solve the problem they just pass the burden to the
>  maintainer to write that plugin or config file or us and since we need
>  to have that info in other places like bugzilla then it's question if
>  we should not gather that info from maintainers perhaps file a bug
>  against all components in bugzilla and asking the maintainer for that
>  info and we then we would write that plugin or config file or abrt
>  would fetch the info for that in the same db as bugzilla would?  
>  > Viking_ice summarized by saying ''we need to come up
> with some plans on
>  > how to gather the info from maintainers on what they want on their
>  > reports on how to get that info from them.'' and pointed to
>  > [[User:Johannbg/QA/Kernel]] as an example based on j-rod's suggestion
>  > from the Fedora 11 retrospective meeting.
>  > 
>  >   
>  
>  I was not refering to my QA/Kernel in a conjunction with  the above
>  problem. 
>  I just mentioned that I had also started on
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/QA/Kernelin regards to
>  j-rods wish on the F11RR meeting
>  
>  > Jlaska suggested having a way to catalog content (e.g. debugging tips,
>  > or bug filing tips) for testers to easily find could be a great start.
>  > 
>  >   
>  JBG
>  -- 
>  fedora-test-list mailing list
>  fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  To unsubscribe: 
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list