Very rough storage validation matrix draft

[Chris Murphy]

On Dec 14, 2013, at 12:48 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 2013-12-14 at 00:06 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>> 
>> In my opinion, every one of those tests requires a feature owner. If
>> no one volunteers, if a hand off isn't made, the functionality for the
>> feature represented by the sanity check shall be removed from the next
>> version of Fedora.
> 
> Do you mean someone who is responsible for development of the feature,
> or testing it?

Testing it.

> Right now I'm simply trying to figure out a vaguely practical approach
> for testing what we can of the installer's storage functions. That's
> really all I'm shooting for.

I understand that. I'm suggesting an approach that ties functionality retention to community interest. If we can't recruit even temp "QA people" to adopt a test case, then maybe the community doesn't really value the functions indicated by those test cases.

For example the iSCSI test case. It seemed pretty much no one in QA really cared about that functionality, as they didn't depend on or use it themselves. It was just a test case to them. So where are the people who actually want that function to work?

Another example is LVM Thin P. I want to know where the feature's owners have been this whole time, and how it is they didn't test RC1 to see if their own feature, given prime real estate in the installer, was working. On that basis alone I'd say LVM Thin P should be pulled due to lack of community interest, including apparently lack of interest by the feature's own owners.

> This is one possible approach, there are
> many others. I mean, prior to newUI, we placed a _much_ lower emphasis
> on custom partitioning.

Yes, well you know how I feel about manual partitioning. The test cases are necessary to qualify the function works sufficiently well for release. But to execute the test cases requires either people or some magical automation.

Chris Murphy