theora screencasting not working in F12

[James Laska]

On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 18:20 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 10/27/2009 04:26 PM, James Laska wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 08:26 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> >   
> >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Kamil Paral <kparal at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>     
> >>> So, I'm just curious, do you have some advice how to draw attention
> >>> to a particular bug the right people, except from reporting it into
> >>> bugzilla and waiting perhaps months or years? I mean it for this issue
> >>> but I also mean it generally for other (future) issues. Give me a hint
> >>> if you have some. Thanks!
> >>>       
> >> File the bug with upstream rather than just lobbing it into bugzilla.
> >>
> >> Two minutes after I received your list mail (35 minutes after you sent
> >> it) you had a response (though, it's one telling you that your problem
> >> is NOTABUG in libtheora)— behold the power of an issue reaching
> >> someone with upstream experience.
> >>     
> > Thanks for your feedback in the bug report Gregory.  I read Kamil's
> > message to the list more around how to couple test feedback with feature
> > pages.  We have one obvious method now in Test Days.  Unfortunately, we
> > have far more features than test days.  So, once a feature is complete
> > and available in rawhide ... as testers, what's our mechanism to provide
> > the feature owner(s) with test feedback as they've requested [1]?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > James
> >
> > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Thusnelda#How_To_Test
> >   
> 
> I perceived Kamil's message just as Gregory.  If it had been me I would
> have filed those bugs against istanbul or recordmydesktop regardless of
> that the "How to test" section of Thusnelda feature page does not
> contain any Test cases for testers to test and to provide feed back
> from. AFAIK there was never request [1] to QA to assist and set aside a
> test day to test Thusnelda ( or a mail sent to this list asking testers
> to test ) not even a reply to [2] and goes without saying if maintainers
> don't coordinate with QA or ask testers to test their feature ( which
> can be as simple as sending a mail to this list ) it wont get tested and
> thus it can be utterly broken which obviously means that marking feature
> 100% feature done is by all meaningless unless there are some QA/testing
> done to confirm it... 

> [1]https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa
> [2]https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Features/Thusnelda

Thanks for the reminder Jóhann, we do have a formal process for
requesting focused testing from the QA team [1].  While the Test Day
process is designed to be self-hosting [2], I still have doubts that we
could accommodate every feature owner if they all requested focused
testing.  Just not enough days.  More to the point, not all test day
topics lend themselves to test days.  So I wonder if there is another
service the QA team could offer.  

We have the infrequently used reactive response should a feature fail to
meet it's stated objectives.  However, is there something we can offer
that's more proactive (as a compliment to test days)?  

> thus it can be utterly broken which obviously means that marking feature
> 100% feature done is by all meaningless unless there are some QA/testing
> done to confirm it... 

The % complete is intended to track development efforts.  Should that
change?

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days/Create
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/SOP_Test_Day_management
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20091027/eb969b20/attachment.bin