Draft 'test outline' for Server product (what will be the broad scope of Server testing?)
awilliam at redhat.com
Mon Apr 28 07:57:03 UTC 2014
On Sat, 2014-04-26 at 07:47 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > 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 ).
Why do you view QA's role in such a limited way? We're the Fedora QA
team, not the Fedora Base QA team. So far as I can tell there's no
historical precedent (or whatever) for Fedora QA only caring about
'installer/core/base'; it's more just kind of happened as a result of
our limited resources and the way we've structured our approaches so
far. After we consider anything it may come down to much the same for
Fedora 21, say, but I can't see why we would just set that as an entry
condition - like, not even consider the possibility that the 'Fedora QA'
team might be interested in testing...anything else about Fedora. I
can't quite figure where that makes sense.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA says "Fedora QA is the project which
covers all testing of the software that makes up Fedora. It's our goal
to continually improve the quality of Fedora releases and updates."
Going back to the version from, say, May 2008 (before I joined), the
page said: "The Fedora QA team helps hunt down bugs in Fedora. We work
with the Fedora developers, release engineers, and community members at
every stage of the Fedora lifecycle to help prevent bugs from getting
into the software, and to help find and fix the bugs that slip through
the cracks." Again, there's nothing there about our focus being only on
installer and 'core OS' testing.
> 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 ).
You seem to be taking an incredibly negative view of this whole thing -
"who's to blame if things break". That doesn't seem like a great way to
think about things. Can't we think in a more positive way about what's
the best way we can contribute to improving Fedora as a project and as a
(set of) product(s)? Personally speaking I'm really not that interested
in taking a "political" approach to this kind of thing. I want to feel
like I'm working in a positive direction, not engaging in turf wars...
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
More information about the test