2010-01-11 @ 16:00 UTC (11am EST) - Fedora QA Meeting Recap

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 10:54 -0500, James Laska wrote:

> > It seems right that bugs aren't mentioned in the guides or release
> > notes, as that helps reduce clutter and centralize fast-changing
> > information.  Major bugs are fixed before release, and minor bugs
> are
> > documented online in Common Bugs or Bugzilla, since the status of
> fixes
> > and workarounds is dynamic.  If the slow-changing documents all link
> to
> > Common Bugs, that should work pretty well, unless you think people
> > without network should have access to "known issues" in their copy
> of
> > the distribution.  
> 
> I don't hear a lot of complaints about that now, and I think it's
> reasonable to have live information require network access to retrieve
> it.  But should this become a big issue, the solution you identify
> seems
> reasonable.

I agree that it's probably not worth fixing this, it is quite a bit of
work. Though Mandriva (which I take as a model for the common_bugs work)
does ship a static copy of the Errata on disc images.

> > That could be fixed by including a snapshot of
> > "Common Bugs" in the fedora-release-notes RPM.  There doesn't seem
> to be
> > much point in updating it after the release except for re-spins
> (which
> > are unofficial).  
> 
> Adam can say more here, but I believe updates do happen after the
> release.  For example, if a day-0 or later package update resolves an
> issue on the Common_F#_Bugs page, the wiki is updated to direct users
> to
> the applicable bodhi update.

Yes, indeed, this happens, theoretically at least. I haven't quite done
it as proactively as I'd like for F12, but I have updated several
issues, and the instructions are there in the page source for anyone
else who wants to help. I intend to do another update sweep on the page
soon
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net