Draft 'test outline' for Server product (what will be the broad scope of Server testing?)

"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" johannbg at gmail.com
Sat Apr 26 07:47:09 UTC 2014

On 04/26/2014 02:04 AM, Mike Ruckman wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 00:10:22 +0000
> "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 04/25/2014 10:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 22:35 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>>>> On 04/25/2014 09:43 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> Well, no it isn't. "They" are part of the Fedora project. So are
>>> "we", and we're allegedly the bit that's responsible for quality
>>> assurance.
>> It was just matter of time that you change tunes of lack of resources
>> and started chanting in having us do all their work but facts remains
>> facts our obligation is to the installer, core and base.
>> Anything built on top of that is not ours to cover but relevant
>> service sub community or WG if you prefer.
>> In the end of the day nobody knows the product better then those who
>> built it and whom better to test it then those same persons.
>> JBG
> There's a bit of a misnomer here - Fedora QA isn't the only
> team doing testing. As far as I can tell, there are already several
> groups that also are testing (updates, DE's, etc, etc.). I don't
> think it will be any different with .next.

With the exception of the workstation WG you should be right.

> I think we'll see more collaboration between the different teams as
> things move forward. It's not so much an "Us" vs "Them"
> thing when it comes to testing .next, more of an opportunity for us as
> Fedora QA to help coordinate testing across the different WGs and
> help facilitate a smooth testing experience across the board.

Which is the role  ( as in the role of the overseer ) we should provide 
while retaining our focus on the installer/core/base and take care of 
that for all the wg's currently existing and emerging ( like KDE and 
probably every other DE's ).

That means the additional changes due to the wg's in the installer falls 
on our shoulders to test and cover ( and stuff like filesystem testing 
encase one wg decides on btrfs another wg on xfs etc basically all 
core/base related stuff and coverage ).

>  From working with the Cloud WG, I haven't gotten even a whiff of the
> impression the plan is to create a thing and dump it on QA waiting
> for "testing" to happen - and I don't think any of the other WGs are
> working under that assumption either. Everyone involved in .next wants
> to produce solid products and from what I've seen everyone knows
> testing of those products is involved.

The Cloud WG is just managing themselves as it should be and had started 
their own QA initiative with "Red" leading that effort and is in a 
momentum which is why it came as a surprise when we suddenly assigned QA 
people to draft a test plan and interrupt that process and momentum ( 
hence my mail on the 14 ) and now you have taken ownership of his ticket 
as opposed to us just continue to observer, see where they would go with 
that and if other WG's would not follow their lead  ( and us strongly 
indicating to other WG's they should be following the clouds lead ).

"I know I haven't been around long, but from what I've seen we have a 
really solid team across the Fedora Project that will work together to 
make things happen and produce a well tested, solid release for Fedora 
21 (in all it's flavors)."

Just given it a few more release cycle and that newbie blindness will 
wear off ;)


More information about the test mailing list