Spins proposals

[Jon Stanley]

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta at gmail.com> wrote:

> I will be blunt.  I think we've had a significant problem with the QA
> process for multiple releases now.   We must find a way to organize
> volunteer labor better with regard to QA..generally.

A lot of that is being taken care of with F9 - we had (IMHO) a very
successful QA process for Beta.  There is now a testing matrix that
includes owners, test cases, etc, that we've not really had before.

> If QA wants to officially get on the record as saying they aren't going to
> take the responsibility of testing the composed images that RelEng has
> selected and working on as part of a release cycle... then by all means get
> on the record....as a group put your foot down in protest...so I can come in
> with my riot gear and tear gas and bust some skulls.

Well, I don't think I can speak for QA (Will), but I'm fairly certain
that we don't have the resources to do this.  We have a difficult time
as is doing the release testing that exists today, let alone adding an
as yet undetermined number of custom spins to the mix.

Spin owners are responsible for building, maintaining, and executing
their own test plans.  These plans should include the standard Fedora
test plan, and any extensions the spin owners feel appropriate.

> Or QA as a group try to get involved with the formation of the Spin SIG and
> make sure they are well prepared to do a significant amount of the QA as
> part of Kickstart Pool management.

We can try to do this, but our resources are stretched pretty thin
right now.  As mentioned before, spin owners are responsible for the
QA of their spins.  We (QA) cannot do much more than basic sanity
tests.

I am now prepared for the riot gear and tear gas.

-Jon