QualityAssurance
In this section, we cover the activities of the QA team[1]. For more information on the work of the QA team and how you can get involved, see the Joining page[2].
Contributing Writer: Adam Williamson
QA metrics
Kamil Paral asked for feedback[1] on the topic of gathering statistics on QA activities, as part of a Fedora-wide 'Fedora Hall Of Fame' project[2]. He asked what would be the most important tools to monitor and the most important characteristics to gather. Jóhann Guðmundsson pointed out some of the pitfalls that can come with trying to measure and reward voluntary contributions[3]. James Laska pointed out that gathering statistics would be valuable in ways beyond trying to reward contributors[4]. Jóhann clarified that he was only concerned with the 'Hall of Fame' concept and agreed that statistics could be useful in monitoring and improving overall team performance[5]. Kamil thought that in practice the negative effects Jóhann feared would not be so pronounced[6]. Jóhann followed up with some concrete suggestions of areas and numbers that would be interesting[7].
- ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-July/092196.html
- ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kparal/Idea:Fedora_Hall_of_Fame
- ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-July/092198.html
- ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-July/092200.html
- ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-July/092205.html
- ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-July/092214.html
- ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-July/092215.html
Localization testing
Following on from last week's coverage of Igor Pires Soares's localization testing discussion[1], Noriko Mizumoto suggested[2] using the newly open-sourced Nitrate tool[3] for tracking the tests. Igor asked[4] if the tool was yet packaged for Fedora and deployed in Fedora Infrastructure. James Laska reported[5] that it was not, but said he thought it would be a good candidate to be included. Later, Igor announced[6] that he had made an initial set of updates to the template[7] for Fedora 14.
- ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-July/092029.html
- ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-July/092193.html
- ↑ http://fedorahosted.org/nitrate/
- ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-July/092201.html
- ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-July/092203.html
- ↑ http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-July/092219.html
- ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_14_l10n_Results_Template
After a contentious first Fedora 14 blocker bug review meeting[1], Adam Williamson proposed two alternative ways to cover boot menu functionality in the release criteria[2]. He suggested either having a basic test of essential functionality (the installer eventually boots without manual interaction) at the Alpha stage and a more advanced test (the graphical boot menu appears as intended) at Beta or Final stage, or simply having the more advanced test at Alpha stage. James Laska[3] and Jesse Keating[4] both came down in favour of simply requiring the menu to work correctly at Alpha stage.
Adam Williamson announced[1] that, following the list discussion, he had added the simpler version of the proposed release criterion mentioned in last week's issue to the Fedora 14 Alpha release criteria[2]. Rui He added a validation test to check this[3].
Lessons learned about update process
Kevin Fenzi announced[1] that he had created a page to track lessons learned from problems in the update process[2], and asked the group to document any serious issues they had experienced involving updates to stable releases so that FESCo could benefit from the information in planning changes to the update processes and tooling.