On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 00:11 +0100, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 23:49, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
[... snip ...]
> 1. I have tried this update in my regular day-to-day use and seen no
> regressions.
>
> 2. I have tried this update in my regular day-to-day use and seen a
> regression: bug #XXXXXX.
>
> 3. (Where the update claims to fix bug #XXXXXX) I have tried this update
> and found that it does fix bug #XXXXXX.
>
> 4. (Where the update claims to fix bug #XXXXXX) I have tried this update
> and found that it does not fix bug #XXXXXX.
>
> 5. I have performed the following planned testing on the update: (link
> to test case / test plan) and it passes.
>
> 6. I have performed the following planned testing on the update: (link
> to test case / test plan) and it fails: bug #XXXXXX.
This is basically what Doug had proposed, except that you added 5. and 6.
Great, glad to hear we're thinking in the same direction from different
angles :) Do you have a link to his proposal? I don't recall reading it.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net