[Fedora QA] #268: asking to join the proven testers and requesting a mentor

[fedora-badges]

#268: asking to join the proven testers and requesting a mentor
-----------------------------------------+------------------
 Reporter:  arifiauo                     |       Owner:
     Type:  proventester request         |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                        |   Milestone:
Component:  Proventester Mentor Request  |     Version:
 Keywords:                               |  Blocked By:
 Blocking:                               |
-----------------------------------------+------------------
 = phenomenon =
 Hi my name is Arif,
 I want to join to be part of proven tester, and I ask the mentor so that I
 can be proven tester that can be served well.

 = reason =
 I am interested in joining proven tester because I love the community of
 Fedora and I want to make the Fedora Project better and better.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/268>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance

[fedora-badges]

#268: asking to join the proven testers and requesting a mentor
------------------------------------------+-----------------
  Reporter:  arifiauo                     |      Owner:
      Type:  proventester request         |     Status:  new
  Priority:  major                        |  Milestone:
 Component:  Proventester Mentor Request  |    Version:
Resolution:                               |   Keywords:
Blocked By:                               |   Blocking:
------------------------------------------+-----------------

Comment (by arifiauo):

 I also have read and understand how the process of testing. I also have
 posted feedback. Here are a few of the feedback:

 [https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-0079/papyon-0.5.6-1.fc16
 papyon]

 [https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-0135/pptp-1.7.2-14.fc16
 pptp]

 [https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-0112/gedit-3.2.6-1.fc16
 gedit]

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/268#comment:1>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance

[fedora-badges]

#268: asking to join the proven testers and requesting a mentor
------------------------------------------+-----------------
  Reporter:  arifiauo                     |      Owner:
      Type:  proventester request         |     Status:  new
  Priority:  major                        |  Milestone:
 Component:  Proventester Mentor Request  |    Version:
Resolution:                               |   Keywords:
Blocked By:                               |   Blocking:
------------------------------------------+-----------------

Comment (by mcloaked):

 You have satisfied the requirements to be a proventester so I am happy to
 sponsor you. I see that you have already applied for proventester group
 membership in FAS so I have already sponsored you.  Welcome to the
 proventester group.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/268#comment:2>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance

[fedora-badges]

#268: asking to join the proven testers and requesting a mentor
------------------------------------------+-----------------
  Reporter:  arifiauo                     |      Owner:
      Type:  proventester request         |     Status:  new
  Priority:  major                        |  Milestone:
 Component:  Proventester Mentor Request  |    Version:
Resolution:                               |   Keywords:
Blocked By:                               |   Blocking:
------------------------------------------+-----------------

Comment (by mschwendt):

 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rss/rss2.0?comments=True&user...

 I'd like to request more verbose comments, especially with regard to
 whether anything has been tested specifically. Only posting "works for me"
 everywhere in quick succession is not too helpful.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/268#comment:3>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance

[fedora-badges]

#268: asking to join the proven testers and requesting a mentor
------------------------------------------+-----------------
  Reporter:  arifiauo                     |      Owner:
      Type:  proventester request         |     Status:  new
  Priority:  major                        |  Milestone:
 Component:  Proventester Mentor Request  |    Version:
Resolution:                               |   Keywords:
Blocked By:                               |   Blocking:
------------------------------------------+-----------------

Comment (by mschwendt):

 @ arifiauo : I urgently request you to respond to my earlier comment.

 Your latest activity in bodhi is just another flood of "works for me" plus
 a few more "works for me" where you meant to copy a -1 posted by an
 earlier tester. You corrected that later, but multiple mistakes like that
 give less reason to believe that you conduct tests painstakingly. You even
 copied a -1 I added to a wrong package without giving any details other
 than "Does not work". Please do respond there, too.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/268#comment:4>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance

[fedora-badges]

#268: asking to join the proven testers and requesting a mentor
------------------------------------------+-----------------
  Reporter:  arifiauo                     |      Owner:
      Type:  proventester request         |     Status:  new
  Priority:  major                        |  Milestone:
 Component:  Proventester Mentor Request  |    Version:
Resolution:                               |   Keywords:
Blocked By:                               |   Blocking:
------------------------------------------+-----------------

Comment (by arifiauo):

 Replying to [comment:3 mschwendt]:
>  
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rss/rss2.0?comments=True&user...
>  
 > I'd like to request more verbose comments, especially with regard to
 whether anything has been tested specifically. Only posting "works for me"
 everywhere in quick succession is not too helpful.

 When I asked for a mentor, no one tells how to make comments. So I just
 gave "Works for me". And keep in mind, I was just commenting on the
 packages I tried. I do not comment anywhere, not as you say.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/268#comment:5>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance

[fedora-badges]

#268: asking to join the proven testers and requesting a mentor
------------------------------------------+-----------------
  Reporter:  arifiauo                     |      Owner:
      Type:  proventester request         |     Status:  new
  Priority:  major                        |  Milestone:
 Component:  Proventester Mentor Request  |    Version:
Resolution:                               |   Keywords:
Blocked By:                               |   Blocking:
------------------------------------------+-----------------

Comment (by arifiauo):

 Replying to [comment:4 mschwendt]:
>  @ arifiauo : I urgently request you to respond to my earlier
> comment.
>
>  Your latest activity in bodhi is just another flood of "works for me"
>  
 plus a few more "works for me" where you meant to copy a -1 posted by
an
 earlier tester. You corrected that later, but multiple mistakes like that
 give less reason to believe that you conduct tests painstakingly. You even
 copied a -1 I added to a wrong package without giving any details other
 than "Does not work". Please do respond there, too.

 I do not understand the details of a program running, I just know it works
 well or not. If I need to get the mentoring, I am ready. If I'm not a good
 proventester, I am also ready to be fired. What is clear I am just trying
 to give feedback on what I've tried.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/268#comment:6>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance

[fedora-badges]

#268: asking to join the proven testers and requesting a mentor
------------------------------------------+-----------------
  Reporter:  arifiauo                     |      Owner:
      Type:  proventester request         |     Status:  new
  Priority:  major                        |  Milestone:
 Component:  Proventester Mentor Request  |    Version:
Resolution:                               |   Keywords:
Blocked By:                               |   Blocking:
------------------------------------------+-----------------

Comment (by arifiauo):

 Replying to [comment:4 mschwendt]:
>  @ arifiauo : I urgently request you to respond to my earlier
> comment.
>  
 If you reply to a comment, use the reply button or say a name only, do not
 use "@", this is not twitter.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/268#comment:7>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance

[fedora-badges]

#268: asking to join the proven testers and requesting a mentor
------------------------------------------+-----------------
  Reporter:  arifiauo                     |      Owner:
      Type:  proventester request         |     Status:  new
  Priority:  major                        |  Milestone:
 Component:  Proventester Mentor Request  |    Version:
Resolution:                               |   Keywords:
Blocked By:                               |   Blocking:
------------------------------------------+-----------------

Comment (by mschwendt):

 I'm not familiar with twitter. The '@' (at) notation predates twitter. It
 makes it more obvious (and more readable) that some person is being
 addressed and that the word after the '@' is a username and not an acronym
 such as 'afaics' or 'iirc'.

 [...]

 With regard to the mentoring, I think the entire proventesters area is
 still experimental and a constant learning-process also for the mentors.
 Guidelines are updated as new conclusions are drawn.


 My concerns are that you never give any hint about what you've tested or
 how much you've used a new package. It's always a plain "works for
me",
 even for packages that are not in the repos yet, which means you must have
 downloaded them from koji. If you've done that, you've never mentioned it.
 In many other cases you vote +1 a few hours already after a package has
 been pushed to the repos. And you do that for an overwhelming (!) variety
 of packages (a multitude I cannot sum up here). How much of that stuff do
 you really use?

 [...]

 Then there's this:

   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Proven_tester#Major_bugs

 Still, at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-17155  you
 have not explained your -1. As subsequent testers are expected to retest
 for issues reported by previous testers, you need to follow the guidelines
 and post details. I cannot take back my earlier -1 because it is not known
 what issue you've found.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/268#comment:8>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance

[Michael Schwendt]

Let me disclose a bit of stuff that could help understanding my point
of view.


* It is true that some other testers also post brief comments such as "no
regressions noted during casual use". I also do that occasionally, but I
also post neutral feedback as recommended in the guidelines.

Mentioning "casual use" could be an important detail, and a difference
e.g. from someone else who runs Squid in a corporate intranet.


* If there are too many terse "works for me" +1 comments on packages,
accountability becomes a problem. If major bugs are found after
approval of the package, it becomes all to easy for a "works for me"
tester to claim that a bug could not and cannot be reproduced or
that the crucial feature has not been tested. Therefore, terse +1
votes should not be the norm, but the exception for testers who have
shown familiarity with the same package/software before. More verbose
comments to build up trust, and subsequent terse comments depending on
how confident a tester is when signing off a package.


* Testing requirements aren't very specific yet. For major apps like Claws
Mail, for example, it would not be feasible to test every feature. Still,
regularly I try to explain a +1 with a few words and, for example, mention
that I've used Claws Mail with IMAP or specific plugins that have been
fixed. Sometimes it also helps to point out that none of the bug-fixes
have been verified, or that none of them had been reproducible before.


* I think it isn't asked too much to add a few words on what kind of
testing the tester has performed. Example "Audacity": Has arifiauo only
installed and started the new upstream release? Or has he sampled and
edited a one hour long track, too? Has he used it often or sporadically
only?


* Or "pptp", which crashed regularly, albeit only once a week, with the
bodhi ticket giving details:

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-0135
|
| bodhi - 2012-01-05 21:04:20
|   This update has been pushed to testing
| 
| arifiauo - 2012-01-06 06:05:51
|   Works for me 

Uh?


* Another example, the "Perl" base package. Watch the difference:

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-17271
|
| watzkej (proventesters) - 2012-01-04 02:23:13
|   767931 seems to be fixed per running the reproducer script.
|   I haven't noticed any regressions in my personal use of Perl.
|
| arifiauo - 2012-01-05 20:43:04
|   Works for me 

What usage patterns has Perl seen here?


* "gsm" is mostly a library in ordinary installs and deserves an
explanation of how it has been tested:

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-16629
|
| mschwendt (proventesters) - 2011-12-13 11:49:48
|   Tested .au to .gsm and .gsm to .au conversion plus playback.
|
| bodhi - 2011-12-16 22:06:25
|  This update has reached 14 days in testing and can be pushed
|  to stable now if the maintainer wishes
|
| arifiauo - 2012-01-05 20:47:26
|  Works for me 

Has he performed the same tests or different ones?
Is the "Works for me" supposed to say "Package installed, machine still
rebooted"? Is that the only goal of the entire testing procedure?


There are many more examples within yesterday's flood of +1 votes on a
multitude of different software types, not limited to stuff like tor or
nfoview. That makes me nervous.

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-0272
|
| bodhi - 2012-01-10 18:29:09
|  This update is currently being pushed to the Fedora 16 testing updates repository.
|
| arifiauo (proventesters) - 2012-01-11 00:22:59
|  Works for me
| 
| bodhi - 2012-01-11 05:59:57
|  This update has been pushed to testing 

:-/

[fedora-badges]

#268: asking to join the proven testers and requesting a mentor
------------------------------------------+-----------------
  Reporter:  arifiauo                     |      Owner:
      Type:  proventester request         |     Status:  new
  Priority:  major                        |  Milestone:
 Component:  Proventester Mentor Request  |    Version:
Resolution:                               |   Keywords:
Blocked By:                               |   Blocking:
------------------------------------------+-----------------

Comment (by mcloaked):

 When you originally stated in your first entry to this ticket that "I also
 have read and understand how the process of testing" - I believed that you
 had indeed read the details in the provestester wiki entry at:
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Proven_tester

 In that web page it states:

 "Feedback procedures

 Since a proven tester's karma determines whether an update is allowed to
 be promoted, they follow special procedures based on the severity of
 regressions they encounter. Use Fedora Easy Karma - see the page for
 instructions on installing and using this tool - to list all installed
 packages from the updates-testing repository and allow to file feedback on
 each one at a time. Note that you can use the parameter --critpath-only,
 which will cause f-e-k to list only unapproved critical path updates, if
 you are short on time for testing. If you do not use this parameter, pay
 particular attention to updates whose description notes that they are
 critical path updates.

 Positive feedback
 Usually, you will be able to post positive feedback on an update. If you
 do not encounter any of the situations below, and find that the update
 passes the tests mentioned above and does not cause you any other
 problems, you should leave positive feedback and note that you were able
 to use the package successfully and did not notice any significant
 problems.

 Major bugs
 If you identified any serious problems in your testing and were able to
 identify the update responsible, post negative feedback for that update.
 If possible, please file a bug report on the problem and link to the bug
 report in your feedback message. A good feedback message quickly and
 clearly identifies the behavior change and the cause, if you were able to
 determine it.

 Minor bugs
 If you identify a problem which is minor in nature and does not impede the
 actual critical path functionality, please do not post negative feedback.
 Post neutral or positive feedback with a note of the issue encountered
 (and a link to a bug report if appropriate).

 Previously reported bugs
 If your testing uncovers no problems but you see that another tester has
 identified a serious problem with the package, please try to replicate
 their problem, and post negative feedback if you are now able to confirm
 it. If you are not able to confirm the problem but you suspect this may be
 because you cannot recreate the necessary conditions, please post neutral
 feedback noting that you were unable to duplicate the problem. Only post
 positive feedback if you are sure your testing indicates the other
 reporter's negative feedback is a mistake.

 Update does not fix a bug it claims to
 If you find an update does not fix a bug it claims to fix, this is not
 usually a case where you should file negative karma. Only file negative
 karma if that is the only change in the update. If an update claims to fix
 five bugs, but only fixes four of them, it is not helpful to post negative
 karma as this may result in the update being rejected, which does not help
 those suffering from the bug that wasn't fixed, and hurts those suffering
 from the bugs that are fixed. When you test an update that claims to fix a
 particular bug and doesn't, but does not have any of the issues listed as
 meriting negative or neutral feedback above, please leave positive
 feedback with a note that the bug in question is not fixed, or neutral
 feedback with such a note if the issue prevents you from otherwise
 properly testing the update.

 Update does not fix a bug it does not claim to
 Please do not leave negative feedback on an update simply because it does
 not fix a bug that also existed prior to the update, and which the update
 does not claim to fix. Doing so serves no purpose: preventing the update
 from being released doesn't help you when the already-released version of
 the package also has the bug. In this case, making it harder for the
 update to be approved only serves to prevent other users from getting the
 fixes for their bugs.

 Unfamiliar packages
 If you are not sure what the component does or how to test it, do not post
 positive or negative feedback. For critical path updates, if the above
 general tests of booting, network functionality and update functionality
 identified no problems, it is fine to leave a neutral feedback message
 noting that you were able to boot the system and perform critical path
 tasks with the update installed. This is generally not useful for non-
 critical path updates, however: please only comment on them if you are
 familiar with the package and able to test it directly."

 Please will you make sure that you indeed have read this properly and
 apply any comments to testing according to these guidelines.

 When you test a package you should install it - and then check whenever
 possible whether any bugs that were reported to be fixed are indeed fixed
 in your own test system.  Please also ensure that you run a package for
 long enough that no new bugs appear in the system after the package has
 been installed.

 It is also useful for some packages to say whether you are using x86 or
 x86_64 since in some cases bugs were only reported for one architecture.
 In general for unfamiliar packages note the guidance that "For critical
 path updates, if the above general tests of booting, network functionality
 and update functionality identified no problems, it is fine to leave a
 neutral feedback message noting that you were able to boot the system and
 perform critical path tasks with the update installed." - on other words
 if you have not done detailed tests but your system runs with no apparent
 regressions then say so and give neutral karma, not +1.

 I think it would be appreciated by testers and developers if you stick
 within these published guidelines, and I am repeating these here as your
 mentor.

 I will look forward to more useful comments and appropriate karma in your
 bodhi comments from now on, and I hope these suggestions will be helpful
 in your further testing as a proventester.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/268#comment:9>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance

[fedora-badges]

#268: asking to join the proven testers and requesting a mentor
------------------------------------------+-----------------
  Reporter:  arifiauo                     |      Owner:
      Type:  proventester request         |     Status:  new
  Priority:  major                        |  Milestone:
 Component:  Proventester Mentor Request  |    Version:
Resolution:                               |   Keywords:
Blocked By:                               |   Blocking:
------------------------------------------+-----------------

Comment (by arifiauo):

 Replying to [comment:9 mcloaked]:
>  I will look forward to more useful comments and appropriate karma in
>  
 your bodhi comments from now on, and I hope these suggestions will be
 helpful in your further testing as a proventester.

 Ok, from now I'll try to give good feedback and in accordance with the
 guidelines. I'm not going to make the feedback again for a while, I wanted
 to learn it first. Thanks for the advice, it really helps.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/268#comment:10>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance

[fedora-badges]

#268: asking to join the proven testers and requesting a mentor
------------------------------------------+--------------------
  Reporter:  arifiauo                     |      Owner:
      Type:  proventester request         |     Status:  closed
  Priority:  trivial                      |  Milestone:
 Component:  Proventester Mentor Request  |    Version:
Resolution:  wontfix                      |   Keywords:
Blocked By:                               |   Blocking:
------------------------------------------+--------------------
Changes (by dmossor):

 * priority:  major => trivial
 * cc: test@… (added)
 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => wontfix


Comment:

 Thank you for your interest in helping the Fedora Project QA team. I'm
 afraid Proven Testers is currently closed to applicants as explained at
 the top of ​the [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Proven_tester Proven
 Tester] page. The group has no function as things stand, so it is "in
 hibernation". We may resurrect it when Bodhi 2.0 is released.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/268#comment:11>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance