7:33 a.m.
There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
seems like an oversight.
I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this morning and he
agreed that this should be treated as blocking for Workstation.
I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
"Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
following drivers:
(I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
user base).
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628255
7:54 a.m.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 08:33:05AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
seems like an oversight.
I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this morning and he
agreed that this should be treated as blocking for Workstation.
I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
"Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
following drivers:
(I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
user base).
Makes sense overall.
Perhaps we could compose a list of major CUPS drivers and make
sure we test each with at least one printer.
P
7:58 a.m.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:40 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta
for Fedora
30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
following drivers:
I'm in agreement here -- they seem like very reasonable criteria. As for
the printer drivers, I think that the Postscript ought to be in the list,
and perhaps something along the lines of HP LaserJet 4, as there are lots
and lots and lots of printers that try to stay compatible with that. I'd
also love to see "Print to PDF" added to that list, as I find myself using
that more and more as time goes on.
-Jared
8:46 a.m.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:33 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
"Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
+1 to this
and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
following drivers:
(I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
user base).
My main concern here is making sure QA has at least one of each of the
necessary printers. That could get large pretty quickly if we're not
careful. I'm also concerned that we could end up blocking the final
because a printer broke or is out of ink, or other hardware failure. I
think I'd rather keep the Beta proposal for Final. Since we have no
criterion currently, adding the Beta criterion is an improvement. We
can always make the requirement more aggressive if it turns out to be
insufficient.
--
Ben Cotton
Fedora Program Manager
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
8:49 a.m.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:47 AM Ben Cotton <bcotton(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:33 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
> color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
>
+1 to this
> and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
> following drivers:
> (I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
> figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
> user base).
>
My main concern here is making sure QA has at least one of each of the
necessary printers. That could get large pretty quickly if we're not
careful. I'm also concerned that we could end up blocking the final
because a printer broke or is out of ink, or other hardware failure. I
think I'd rather keep the Beta proposal for Final. Since we have no
criterion currently, adding the Beta criterion is an improvement. We
can always make the requirement more aggressive if it turns out to be
insufficient.
We do in fact have criteria that we cannot always verify (like the
Serial-Attached SCSI criteria). In this case, we don't always test it,
but if someone who does have that hardware reports that it doesn't
work, we generally will block on it. So I'd suggest that this criteria
essentially means "We block if it is *known* to fail".
9:21 a.m.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 7:50 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:47 AM Ben Cotton <bcotton(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:33 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for
Fedora 30+:
> > * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> > "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> > shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
> > color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
> >
> +1 to this
>
> > and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> > * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
> > following drivers:
> > (I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
> > figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
> > user base).
Print to file (PDF) is available by default and should be in the list.
" work" means
- creates a file that, when opened with the default PDF reader and in
Firefox using its built-in PDF support, is reasonably similar to
the preview shown on the GNOME print preview display.
As for a real printer, I suggest limiting it to an IPP Everywhere printer
(any make and model), also known as driverless printing.
Otherwise you can quickly get stuck in the mud.
So I'd suggest that this criteria
essentially means "We block if it is *known* to fail".
+1
Chris Murphy
11:22 a.m.
There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
seems like an oversight.
I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this morning and he
agreed that this should be treated as blocking for Workstation.
I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
"Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
following drivers:
(I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
user base).
I'm against this as a blocker for a number of reasons:
* When we've tried to do hardware specific blocking at the time like
dual boot with MacOS this has not worked well and the dual boot is
testable with one piece of hardware
* It's easy to do a zero day update or a standard update to fix it
post release as doesn't affect the install path
* We don't do it for other non critical hardware selections such as
digital cameras, video cameras, and other such things
* Hardware availability, I don't see blocking for one type of printer
over another type is a good use of our time.
11:47 a.m.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing
was
> broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
> apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
> seems like an oversight.
>
> I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this morning and he
> agreed that this should be treated as blocking for Workstation.
>
> I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
> color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
>
> and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
> following drivers:
> (I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
> figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
> user base).
I'm against this as a blocker for a number of reasons:
* When we've tried to do hardware specific blocking at the time like
dual boot with MacOS this has not worked well and the dual boot is
testable with one piece of hardware
* It's easy to do a zero day update or a standard update to fix it
post release as doesn't affect the install path
* We don't do it for other non critical hardware selections such as
digital cameras, video cameras, and other such things
* Hardware availability, I don't see blocking for one type of printer
over another type is a good use of our time.
I think it's reasonable to block on some really basic aspects of
printing breakage, like not being able to print to a PDF file, and
possibly being unable to print to the far simpler realm of IPP
Everywhere printers.
But model specific stuff. No way. I'd be generous with freeze
exceptions, but not blocking the release. I'm even on the fence if I'd
actually block on IPP Everywhere printing being broken. Once we're at
a blocker, do we have the resources to get it fixed within a few days?
If not, forget it. It can't be a blocker if we don't have the
resources to support fixing the blocker in a time escalated manner.
--
Chris Murphy
6:17 p.m.
On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 08:33 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
seems like an oversight.
I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this morning and he
agreed that this should be treated as blocking for Workstation.
I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
"Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
following drivers:
(I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
user base).
So as with the optical media proposal we had quite a lively discussion
on this one, then it got stuck a bit. Stephen, can you take a look at
all the followups and either restate or revise the proposal? Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
10:56 a.m.
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:18 PM Adam Williamson
<adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 08:33 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
> broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
> apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
> seems like an oversight.
>
> I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this morning and he
> agreed that this should be treated as blocking for Workstation.
>
> I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
> color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
>
> and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
> following drivers:
> (I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
> figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
> user base).
So as with the optical media proposal we had quite a lively discussion
on this one, then it got stuck a bit. Stephen, can you take a look at
all the followups and either restate or revise the proposal? Thanks!
Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to this.
I think the feedback on this has been mostly positive on the Beta
criteria, but I'd like to tweak the phrasing a bit and see if this
comes off more favorable:
I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
"Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
following drivers:
- The built-in print-to-PDF driver
- The generic IPP driver
To clarify, this does not mean that all printers need to function
properly that use the IPP driver, just that at least one does (so we
know that printing as a whole is unbroken). Contrary to the first
proposal, we won't specify any particular hardware makes or models
that must work.
How does that sound to people?
1:23 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:58 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:18 PM Adam Williamson
<adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 08:33 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
> > broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
> > apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
> > seems like an oversight.
> >
> > I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this morning and he
> > agreed that this should be treated as blocking for Workstation.
> >
> > I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora
30+:
> > * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> > "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> > shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
> > color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
> >
> > and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> > * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
> > following drivers:
> > (I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
> > figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
> > user base).
>
> So as with the optical media proposal we had quite a lively discussion
> on this one, then it got stuck a bit. Stephen, can you take a look at
> all the followups and either restate or revise the proposal? Thanks!
Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to this.
I think the feedback on this has been mostly positive on the Beta
criteria, but I'd like to tweak the phrasing a bit and see if this
comes off more favorable:
I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
"Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
Does the criterion pply strictly to the printing of text and line
art, or does it also apply to gross departures in photographs? If the
latter:
^minor differences in color reproduction are not considered "non-working"; or
^only major differences in color reproduction are considered "non-working"
Major defined as any of:
obvious and grossly incorrect scaling (e.g. +/- 20%)
color inversion, torqued primaries (white becomes black, black becomes
white; red becomes blue, blue becomes green, etc)
tone reproduction that obliterates relevant identifying detail in two
or more test images
With that language I'm trying to carve out only remarkable, WTF level,
bugs as blockers.
Next question is what applications to use for printing, since the
initiating application matters. What if there's a bug in just one
application? That shouldn't be a printing blocker (it might be a basic
functionality blocker for that application if it's included in default
installations). So I'd say pick two. Firefox and LibreOffice? Firefox
and evince?
Next question, test document(s). European Color Initiative has several
test PDFs already prepared, perhaps the most applicable for our
purposes is the visual test (and a subset of it).And for font scaling
and reproduction, Ghent Working Group has test GWG 9.1 which tests
various encodings of TrueType, PostScript, and OpenType rendering.
Also, there's a suite of LibreOffice test files, and while I haven't
gone through it, I'm willing to bet there's one or two that'd serve as
a decent sanity tester (in any case I'm not proposing printing out
entire test suites):
https://github.com/freedesktop/libreoffice-test-files
The nice thing about standardized tests is the far lower risk of bugs
in the test file itself, and for sure the applicable developers are
familiar with them so as they get escalated, it eliminates the kick
back "how did you create this test file? can you attach it to the
bug?" etc.
and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
following drivers:
- The built-in print-to-PDF driver
- The generic IPP driver
To clarify, this does not mean that all printers need to function
properly that use the IPP driver, just that at least one does (so we
know that printing as a whole is unbroken). Contrary to the first
proposal, we won't specify any particular hardware makes or models
that must work.
I agree with this. One possible sanity test:
1. "Print" the standardized test file to a PDF file (using the
built-in print to PDF driver)
2. Print both the resulting PDF from 1, and the original standardized
test file, to the designated IPP printer.
i.e. two physical prints on paper. And within some ballpark on
scaling, they should appear the same. Some of the subcriteria:
a. PDF file is created from test document
b. PDF file is viewable with the default PDF viewer
c. PDF file is printed
d. Test document is printed
e. minor differences aside: b, c, and d should not cause a WTF
reaction by a human
--
Chris Murphy
2:17 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:24 PM Chris Murphy <lists(a)colorremedies.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:58 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to this.
>
> I think the feedback on this has been mostly positive on the Beta
> criteria, but I'd like to tweak the phrasing a bit and see if this
> comes off more favorable:
>
> I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
> color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
Does the criterion pply strictly to the printing of text and line
art, or does it also apply to gross departures in photographs? If the
latter:
^minor differences in color reproduction are not considered "non-working"; or
^only major differences in color reproduction are considered "non-working"
Major defined as any of:
obvious and grossly incorrect scaling (e.g. +/- 20%)
color inversion, torqued primaries (white becomes black, black becomes
white; red becomes blue, blue becomes green, etc)
tone reproduction that obliterates relevant identifying detail in two
or more test images
With that language I'm trying to carve out only remarkable, WTF level,
bugs as blockers.
I think we can *probably* leave this as a thing to be decided at a
blocker bug review. I really want to avoid trying to set a hard line
on a topic that is inherently subjective. In general, I think we can
just rely on the "last blocker at Go/No-Go" test for this.
Next question is what applications to use for printing, since the
initiating application matters. What if there's a bug in just one
application? That shouldn't be a printing blocker (it might be a basic
functionality blocker for that application if it's included in default
installations). So I'd say pick two. Firefox and LibreOffice? Firefox
and evince?
How about "Desktop environment's 'test page' functionality" and
whichever basic text editor comes with it.
Next question, test document(s). European Color Initiative has
several
test PDFs already prepared, perhaps the most applicable for our
purposes is the visual test (and a subset of it).And for font scaling
and reproduction, Ghent Working Group has test GWG 9.1 which tests
various encodings of TrueType, PostScript, and OpenType rendering.
Also, there's a suite of LibreOffice test files, and while I haven't
gone through it, I'm willing to bet there's one or two that'd serve as
a decent sanity tester (in any case I'm not proposing printing out
entire test suites):
https://github.com/freedesktop/libreoffice-test-files
The nice thing about standardized tests is the far lower risk of bugs
in the test file itself, and for sure the applicable developers are
familiar with them so as they get escalated, it eliminates the kick
back "how did you create this test file? can you attach it to the
bug?" etc.
This sounds useful for automating the tests, but I think in general we
don't need to write this into the criteria. They don't need to be that
specific.
> and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
> following drivers:
> - The built-in print-to-PDF driver
> - The generic IPP driver
>
> To clarify, this does not mean that all printers need to function
> properly that use the IPP driver, just that at least one does (so we
> know that printing as a whole is unbroken). Contrary to the first
> proposal, we won't specify any particular hardware makes or models
> that must work.
I agree with this. One possible sanity test:
1. "Print" the standardized test file to a PDF file (using the
built-in print to PDF driver)
2. Print both the resulting PDF from 1, and the original standardized
test file, to the designated IPP printer.
i.e. two physical prints on paper. And within some ballpark on
scaling, they should appear the same. Some of the subcriteria:
a. PDF file is created from test document
b. PDF file is viewable with the default PDF viewer
c. PDF file is printed
d. Test document is printed
e. minor differences aside: b, c, and d should not cause a WTF
reaction by a human
That seems reasonable, though I'd rather have Master Wordsmith Adam
Williamson phrase that better.
2:44 p.m.
On 2/11/19 3:17 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:24 PM Chris Murphy
<lists(a)colorremedies.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:58 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to this.
>>
>> I think the feedback on this has been mostly positive on the Beta
>> criteria, but I'd like to tweak the phrasing a bit and see if this
>> comes off more favorable:
>>
>> I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora
30+:
>> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
>> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
>> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
>> color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
>
> Does the criterion pply strictly to the printing of text and line
> art, or does it also apply to gross departures in photographs? If the
> latter:
>
> ^minor differences in color reproduction are not considered "non-working";
or
> ^only major differences in color reproduction are considered "non-working"
>
> Major defined as any of:
> obvious and grossly incorrect scaling (e.g. +/- 20%)
> color inversion, torqued primaries (white becomes black, black becomes
> white; red becomes blue, blue becomes green, etc)
> tone reproduction that obliterates relevant identifying detail in two
> or more test images
>
> With that language I'm trying to carve out only remarkable, WTF level,
> bugs as blockers.
>
I think we can *probably* leave this as a thing to be decided at a
blocker bug review. I really want to avoid trying to set a hard line
on a topic that is inherently subjective. In general, I think we can
just rely on the "last blocker at Go/No-Go" test for this.
> Next question is what applications to use for printing, since the
> initiating application matters. What if there's a bug in just one
> application? That shouldn't be a printing blocker (it might be a basic
> functionality blocker for that application if it's included in default
> installations). So I'd say pick two. Firefox and LibreOffice? Firefox
> and evince?
>
How about "Desktop environment's 'test page' functionality" and
whichever basic text editor comes with it.
> Next question, test document(s). European Color Initiative has several
> test PDFs already prepared, perhaps the most applicable for our
> purposes is the visual test (and a subset of it).And for font scaling
> and reproduction, Ghent Working Group has test GWG 9.1 which tests
> various encodings of TrueType, PostScript, and OpenType rendering.
> Also, there's a suite of LibreOffice test files, and while I haven't
> gone through it, I'm willing to bet there's one or two that'd serve as
> a decent sanity tester (in any case I'm not proposing printing out
> entire test suites):
> https://github.com/freedesktop/libreoffice-test-files
>
> The nice thing about standardized tests is the far lower risk of bugs
> in the test file itself, and for sure the applicable developers are
> familiar with them so as they get escalated, it eliminates the kick
> back "how did you create this test file? can you attach it to the
> bug?" etc.
>
>
This sounds useful for automating the tests, but I think in general we
don't need to write this into the criteria. They don't need to be that
specific.
>
>
>
>> and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
>> * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
>> following drivers:
>> - The built-in print-to-PDF driver
>> - The generic IPP driver
>>
>> To clarify, this does not mean that all printers need to function
>> properly that use the IPP driver, just that at least one does (so we
>> know that printing as a whole is unbroken). Contrary to the first
>> proposal, we won't specify any particular hardware makes or models
>> that must work.
>
> I agree with this. One possible sanity test:
>
> 1. "Print" the standardized test file to a PDF file (using the
> built-in print to PDF driver)
> 2. Print both the resulting PDF from 1, and the original standardized
> test file, to the designated IPP printer.
>
> i.e. two physical prints on paper. And within some ballpark on
> scaling, they should appear the same. Some of the subcriteria:
>
> a. PDF file is created from test document
> b. PDF file is viewable with the default PDF viewer
> c. PDF file is printed
> d. Test document is printed
> e. minor differences aside: b, c, and d should not cause a WTF
> reaction by a human
>
That seems reasonable, though I'd rather have Master Wordsmith Adam
Williamson phrase that better.
_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- test(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
I support the idea of having basic printer functionality as a blocker
for Workstation.
I haven't been able to use gnome to install printers here since we
bought new printers (Brother HL-L6200DW) I think one issue is that the
driver is not in the database. Maybe a license reason or someone forgot
to ask Brother. However there is a Generic driver in the data base that
works fine. This gets to the second issue that even when selecting the
generic driver using the gnome tool, the gnome tool can not successfully
setup the printer. The printers can be setup successfully with CUPs or
with the Printer Settings application. I have filed bugs on this since F28.
For the test I would suggest that whatever printer is handy be setup
using CUPs. The printer should then print the test page using CUPs. If
we can get that much, I think the basic things are covered. I actually
find CUPs easier to use than Printer Settings and for me the Gnome
printer tool is not useful at all.
Have a Great Day!
Pat (tablepc)
2:49 p.m.
On Mon, 2019-02-11 at 11:56 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:18 PM Adam Williamson
<adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 08:33 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
> > broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
> > apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
> > seems like an oversight.
> >
> > I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this morning and he
> > agreed that this should be treated as blocking for Workstation.
> >
> > I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora
30+:
> > * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> > "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> > shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
> > color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
> >
> > and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> > * Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
> > following drivers:
> > (I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
> > figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
> > user base).
>
> So as with the optical media proposal we had quite a lively discussion
> on this one, then it got stuck a bit. Stephen, can you take a look at
> all the followups and either restate or revise the proposal? Thanks!
Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to this.
I think the feedback on this has been mostly positive on the Beta
criteria, but I'd like to tweak the phrasing a bit and see if this
comes off more favorable:
I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
"Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
following drivers:
- The built-in print-to-PDF driver
- The generic IPP driver
To clarify, this does not mean that all printers need to function
properly that use the IPP driver, just that at least one does (so we
know that printing as a whole is unbroken). Contrary to the first
proposal, we won't specify any particular hardware makes or models
that must work.
How does that sound to people?
There was broad support for this proposal both on lists and in
meetings, so I am now implementing it with minor tweaks. Thanks
Stephen!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
1845
days inactive
2038
days old
13 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Adam Williamson -
Ben Cotton -
Chris Murphy -
Jared K. Smith -
Peter Robinson -
Petr Šabata -
pmkellly＠frontier.com -
Stephen Gallagher