[Fedora QA] #76: Use two methods to specify install source

Fedora QA trac at fedorahosted.org
Thu Jun 17 08:03:01 UTC 2010

#76: Use two methods to specify install source
  Reporter:  rhe          |       Owner:  rhe      
      Type:  enhancement  |      Status:  new      
  Priority:  major        |   Milestone:  Fedora 14
 Component:  Wiki         |     Version:           
Resolution:               |    Keywords:           
Comment (by rhe):

 Replying to [comment:7 jlaska]:
 > Replying to [comment:6 rhe]:
 > <skip>
 > With regards to the table display format, I can't think of any immediate
 benefits using the different approaches.  There is only so much we can do
 with wiki tables, right?  Out of curiousity, I copied your draft and
 created 2 new pages to help me visualize how this might look under
 different approaches:
 >  1. Using a table for each variation --

 The advantage of this way is that the number of matrices are less than
 that in my method, and the division is very clear and comfortable: boot,
 DVD, CD, live, pxe and variations.[[BR]]

 But consider if a general tester just finished a whole installation say by
 boot.iso, it is convenient for him to only edit boot.iso matrix or at
 least know where to add all the results directly from that matrix. That's
 why I added entries like
 partitioning] and
 variations] in the boot.iso matrix, though it's not a good way for
 displaying. Also, I think the 'variations' part contains too much so that
 most of the time testers have to contribute in this matrix.

 >  2. Using a single table, with variation column --
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jlaska/Draft3  -- note, I also removed
 the References column here.  I'm curious if that helps us avoid duplicate
 <ref> tags in future wikis.

 It's similar to the method above but to integrate them into one table. I
 think it's cool.:)  but some cases like
 QA:Testcase_Mediakit_ISO_Size] shown many times in one table seem a little
 bit weird, especially when one sorts the cases by column .:)   [[BR]]

 I like the way you changed 'reference' part, very creative.:) I added some
 results on [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jlaska/Draft your draft],
 and you can see that reference 1 and 2 are the same using the key format.
 I think it's better if these two can be combined into one reference like
 reference 3. [[BR]]

 I'll continue thinking about other approaches of this grouping idea.
 Anyone please feels free for advice. Thanks.

Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/76#comment:8>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance

More information about the test mailing list