Release criteria proposal: logging

Adam Williamson awilliam at
Mon May 16 21:03:17 UTC 2011

On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 16:47 -0400, James Laska wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 13:44 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I know there's a bit of a backlog of proposed criteria changes I really
> > should look at, but wanted to write this one down before it escapes. Per
> > the thread 'Syslog not running?', I'd like to propose the following
> > Alpha criterion for future releases:
> > 
> > * A system logging infrastructure must be available, enabled by default,
> > and must work as intended, and in accordance with relevant standards
> > accepted by the Project
> > 
> > (Improvements to the wording welcome, I'm trying to keep it from going
> > stale by not specifying particular logger implementations or file
> > locations)
> ACK! :)  
> My usual concerns about encompassing too much ... should we elaborate on
> "working as intended"?  Clearly we are interested in whether it works in
> the most basic sense ... not if remote logging a select set of messages
> to another system fails (or is that included too)?

No, I think basic local logging is all we're interested in. Revision:

* A system logging infrastructure must be available and enabled by
default. It must provide at least basic local file-based logging of
kernel messages, and allow other components to write log messages. This
must be done in accordance with relevant standards accepted by the

Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org

More information about the test mailing list