As scheduled [1], Fedora 23 Final Test Compose 10 (TC10) and TC11 are now available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation testing!
As discussed at yesterday's blocker review meeting, we requested two TCs at the same time because of the GNOME 3.18.1 mega-update. The two TCs should be the same, except that 10 does not have the GNOME 3.18.1 mega-update, while 11 does. This way we can easily compare the two and we'll know that any problems in TC11 that aren't in TC10 are down to the 3.18.1 update, and we can back it out again if they're too bad.
Content information, including changes, can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6266#comment:9 . Please see the following pages for download links and testing instructions. Normally dl.fedoraproject.org should provide the fastest download, but download- ib01.fedoraproject.org is available as a mirror (with an approximately 1 hour lag) in case of trouble. To use it, just replace "dl" with "download-ib01" in the download URL.
Installation:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test
Base:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Base_Test
Workstation and Desktop:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Desktop_Test
Server:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Server_Test
Cloud:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Cloud_Test
Summary:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Summary
Note the links are to TC11. To see the TC10 pages, you can edit the URLs you get after redirect and replace 'TC11' with 'TC10'. For now I'd recommend testing TC11, and it'd be great if folks can run the Workstation desktop validation tests on TC11; if those all go well, we can say the GNOME mega-update is fine, and then we don't have to worry about TC10 at all. If Workstation testing of TC11 throws up some problems and we decide to back out of 3.18.1, I'll send out a mail suggesting people switch focus to TC10.
All Alpha, Beta and Final priority test cases for each of these test pages [2] must pass in order to meet the Final Release Criteria [3].
Help is available on #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net [4], or on the test list [5].
Create Fedora 23 Final test compose (TC) and release candidate (RC) https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6266
Current Blocker and Freeze Exception bugs: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current [1] http://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-23/f-23-quality-tasks.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_23_Final_Release_Criteria [4] irc://irc.freenode.net/fedora-qa [5] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
On 10/16/2015 12:21 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
As scheduled [1], Fedora 23 Final Test Compose 10 (TC10) and TC11 are now available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation testing!
Hey Adam/Cloud list,
Does anyone know what happened between TC9 / TC10 / TC11 with regards to the Fedora cloud base image? Here is what I notice:
- TC9 boots fine but is affected by https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/128 - TC10 does not boot. It is using syslinux!!! This is a big change that should not have happened. - TC11 boots fine but the kbd rpm is missing so the systemd-vconsole-setup.service systemd unit fails on boot.
Any insight here?
Dusty
On 10/16/2015 11:40 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
On 10/16/2015 12:21 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
As scheduled [1], Fedora 23 Final Test Compose 10 (TC10) and TC11 are now available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation testing!
Hey Adam/Cloud list,
Does anyone know what happened between TC9 / TC10 / TC11 with regards to the Fedora cloud base image? Here is what I notice:
- TC9 boots fine but is affected by https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/128
- TC10 does not boot. It is using syslinux!!! This is a big change that should
not have happened.
- TC11 boots fine but the kbd rpm is missing so the
systemd-vconsole-setup.service systemd unit fails on boot.
Any insight here?
Perhaps affected by dnf change for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199868 ?
On 10/16/2015 02:24 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 10/16/2015 11:40 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
On 10/16/2015 12:21 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
As scheduled [1], Fedora 23 Final Test Compose 10 (TC10) and TC11 are now available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation testing!
Hey Adam/Cloud list,
Does anyone know what happened between TC9 / TC10 / TC11 with regards to the Fedora cloud base image? Here is what I notice:
- TC9 boots fine but is affected by https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/128
- TC10 does not boot. It is using syslinux!!! This is a big change that should
not have happened.
- TC11 boots fine but the kbd rpm is missing so the
systemd-vconsole-setup.service systemd unit fails on boot.
Any insight here?
Perhaps affected by dnf change for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199868 ?
Indeed. That looks like the reason stopped being there.
Thanks, Dusty
On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 14:33 -0400, Dusty Mabe wrote:
On 10/16/2015 02:24 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 10/16/2015 11:40 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
On 10/16/2015 12:21 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
As scheduled [1], Fedora 23 Final Test Compose 10 (TC10) and TC11 are now available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation testing!
Hey Adam/Cloud list,
Does anyone know what happened between TC9 / TC10 / TC11 with regards to the Fedora cloud base image? Here is what I notice:
- TC9 boots fine but is affected by https://fedorahosted.org/clou
d/ticket/128
- TC10 does not boot. It is using syslinux!!! This is a big
change that should not have happened.
- TC11 boots fine but the kbd rpm is missing so the
systemd-vconsole-setup.service systemd unit fails on boot.
Any insight here?
Perhaps affected by dnf change for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199868 ?
Indeed. That looks like the reason stopped being there.
Ah, yeah, someone mentioned that cloud tries some exclusions in its kickstarts. Indeed they may have suddenly started working again, so you might need to check their impact and drop any where the package is actually needed.
We certainly didn't intend to switch the images back to syslinux, I don't know why that would have happened, though - dgilmore would be a better folk to ask.