F-14 ON_QA release blockers in need of testing

[Sandro "red" Mathys]

On 10/19/2010 04:57 PM, Kamil Paral wrote:
> ----- "Sandro \"red\" Mathys" <red at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> 
>>> List of ON_QA bugs - http://bit.ly/dx4ehO
>>
>> [16:17:55] <red_alert> many of those ON_QA bugs have been VERIFIED
>> before bodhi changed it back [to ON_QA]...do we need to re-test
>> those?
>>
>>
>> [16:19:47] <jlaska> red_alert: I think that's a really good
>> discussion
>> for the list.  kparal mentioned that earlier, let's discuss it there
>> so
>> others can benefit as well
>>
>> #####
>>
>> I've often seen people setting the status back to VERIFIED in such a
>> case but I'm not exactly sure if that's the best possible behavior.
>>
>> So, does it make sense to re-test fixes because the newly pushed
>> version
>> might have broken things again or do we generally assume that fixes
>> included in older versions are still working in newer versions?
>>
>> IMHO it doesn't make sense to re-test again. There'll always be newer
>> versions and we can't always re-test every bug with every new
>> version.
>>
>> +1 for just setting back to VERIFIED again
> 
> 
> It's a little more complicated. Let's suppose we have bug #1234 and
> foobar-1.1 claims to fix it. If you post proposed update to Bodhi 
> and fill into details that it fixes #1234, then Bodhi will set
> #1234 to ON_QA. Some tester will test that and will set the status
> to VERIFIED.
> 
> Now, there was some serious issue with foobar-1.1, unrelated to 
> #1234. The developer will *unpush* that proposed update, create
> foobar-1.2 and post it to proposed updates again. Because there
> is still no foobar update released that would fix #1234, the 
> developer will again mark foobar-1.2 as fixing #1234. Bodhi will
> change #1234 back from VERIFIED to ON_QA. This is correct, because
> although foobar-1.1 is verified to fix that issue, there were some
> additional changes that could negatively impact that fix. So the
> tester should test foobar-1.2 and mark #1234 as VERIFIED again,
> if everything works ok.
> 
> On the other hand, let's suppose that foobar-1.1 was released
> and pushed into 'updates' repository. Now, when the developer
> creates foobar-1.2, he *should not* mark bug #1234 as being fixed
> by foobar-1.2. That was was already fixed by foobar-1.1 and the fix
> was *released*. If such event happens (developer mistakenly marks
> foobar-1.2 as fixing #1234 and Bodhi sets the bug again to ON_QA),
> there is really no need to test it again. We can set it back to
> VERIFIED.
> 
> I think I have described how it should work. But maybe I'm wrong.
> Does it make sense? What do you think?

Right, I never thought about unpushed updates (i.e. I hardly ever met
such cases yet). So I think we need to quickly check the details in
bodhi and then either re-test or (in most cases) set it back to VERIFIED.

Is that about it or is it more complicated? :)