On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Adam Williamson
<adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On 2016-11-17 07:43 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> 2. The Fedora QA group has 1 mac mini which is very old and is only
> used for total install and not dual boot. It would not have found this
> issue. The Fedora QA group also has no one using Mac hardware day to
> day.
This bit isn't quite true. We found the bug *on* that Mac Mini. I'm worried
it's not likely to find *other* bugs that people are likely to encounter on
the systems they actually want to run Fedora on (newer laptops), but it did
find this one.
The problem is that we didn't get around to running the test until the day
before the go/no-go. There's a lot of stuff to test, and anything which only
one person is likely to test is a risk. Frankly speaking, given how humans
work, things that involve digging some piece of hardware you never touch out
of a pile and hooking it up to a keyboard and mouse and a monitor and power
and network is quite likely to get passed over in favour of something you
can run in a VM. Especially if it's 4:30. This is why I have an Unused Arm
Devices Pile Of Shame on my desk...
So, partly this is our fault because we could've tested this earlier and
didn't. But it's also the case that we really need more redundancy in as
much of the required testing as possible.
I disagree with your assessment that it is your (Fedora QA's) fault.
It is not. It is a resource issue that the community beyond just that
of Fedora QA can clearly help with. This is not a Fedora QA failure.
josh