Proven tester wiki love

mike cloaked mike.cloaked at
Wed Jul 7 18:22:42 UTC 2010

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 19:33 -0500, Aaron Faanes wrote:
>> I went to work a bit on jdulaney's fork of the proven tester page to
>> make the mentorship-merging stuff fit a little more smoothly, and I
>> sort of got carried away. I'd normally just add this as a new revision
>> for Proven_testers, but it's pretty substantially revised. It probably
>> needs to get re-reviewed:
>> I can write up a summary of the major differences, but I figure I
>> should only toss out one wall-of-text at a time. ;) Basically, I took
>> the current one, and tried to expand on places that were shallow (like
>> testing criteria) and made other sections flow a lot better (like the
>> old Feedback section).
>> I feel the need to mention I refer to critpath packages as just
>> critical packages and critical updates, instead of critical path
>> packages and critical path updates. This is purely a stylistic change:
>> when I was reading it out loud, I trip over the alliteration of "path
>> packages" a lot. Let me know if this (or anything else) is a mortal
>> sin.
> I understand - I've had the same feeling - but I think we may want to
> stick with the 'critical path' naming, as it's what's used elsewhere in
> Fedora-land.

In general I am happy with the draft - however there is one area that
I am a little uncertain about, and maybe others could clarify. This is
the situation where for example there is currently a kernel in
updates-testing for both f12 and f13, and each of these packages has a
series of bug fixes.  I am perfectly happy to install and test but I
may not be able to test all the bugs reported as fixed. In this
instance if the kernel installs without issue and the machine boots,
with normal logins, normal networking for my particular wireless card
on a laptop, and no issues with any tests that I conduct, should I
report +ve karma if all the tests I can do pass without incident, or
should I as proventester not add karma (i.e. neutral) since I can't
check that all the bugs reported are not problematic.

In the current case I see that for
I can check 559153 but not 558002 for example. So should I add a
report and have neutral karma or +ve? The instructions would indicate
neutral karma is appropriate here. (Prior to becoming a proventester I
would have given +ve karma in this situation.

Similarly for
where there is an even longer list of bugs fixed.  Clearly I can only
test on the hardware that I am installed on for either f12 or f13 ....

Would be nice to have this clarified - I guess that reading the
proventester instructions again this case should have neutral
feedback. It seems that the only situation for giving positive karma
as a proventester is if previously reported negative karma is
demonstrated to have been wrong - please correct me if I am wrong.


mike c

More information about the test mailing list