[Fedora QA] #89: Improve tracking blocker review status
by fedora-badges
#89: Improve tracking blocker review status
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Reporter: jlaska | Owner: poelstra
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 14
Component: Wiki | Version:
Keywords: retrospective |
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
= problem =
Several bugs were changed so they fell off the tracking lists for Fedora
13. For example...
* [http://bugzilla.redhat.com/505189 505189 - Going back to repo UI
screen and and modifying Installation Repo causes traceback]
* [http://bugzilla.redhat.com/577803 577803 - Adding repository
requiring network fails if network is down]
= analysis =
In F-13, a bugzilla keyword was used to denote blocker status. However,
aside from reviewing bugzilla comments, there was no query-able method to
determine whether a blocker request is open, approved or denied. This led
to several Fedora 13 bugs that were 1) fixed in Rawhide, 2) Moved to
MODIFIED or CLOSED and not included, but not included in Fedora 13 (e.g.
RHBZ #505189 and RHBZ #577803).
Not knowing which bugs were already reviewed, also introduced time wasted
reviewing previously reviewed bugs during blocker review meetings.
= enhancement recommendation =
Recommend reviewing process changes to avoid the scenarios leading up to
RHBZ #505189 and RHBZ #577803. Some options discussed so far include
1. Document usage of bugzilla flags (suggested by jkeating) to track
blocker requests. This likely involves creating a ''bot'' to police the
tags?
2. Hardening the current keyword-based mechanism.
Additional discussion points include:
1. Document generating exception report and document action plan for
CLOSED Blocker bugs that did not go through VERIFIED.
2. More frequent nag mails leading up to release milestones. Notification
of NEW or ASSIGNED bugs goes to the maintainer, and MODIFIED bugs goes to
QA.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/89>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
12 years, 4 months
Re: [Fedora QA] #8: Checklist
by fedora-badges
#8: Checklist
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Reporter: johannbg | Owner: somebody
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: trivial | Milestone:
Component: Trac | Version:
Resolution: | Keywords:
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Comment (by adamwill):
I think James is right here in that the QA schedule is meant to cover
this. I would like to be able to link out from the schedule to the
appropriate SOP for each event listed on it. I went through the F16
schedule right at the time F16 started and verified that we actually *do*
have an appropriate SOP to link to for just about every event listed on
the schedule - so I think we're actually pretty well covered here, these
days. The only remaining task is to have the links actually added to the
schedule, which I need to keep bugging Robyn about.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/8#comment:6>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
12 years, 4 months
Re: [Fedora QA] #18: Request for content - Debugging evolution
by fedora-badges
#18: Request for content - Debugging evolution
---------------------+------------------------------------------------------
Reporter: jlaska | Owner: somebody
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone:
Component: Wiki | Version:
Resolution: | Keywords:
---------------------+------------------------------------------------------
Changes (by adamwill):
* cc: mcrha, mbarnes (added)
Comment:
Hasn't gone anywhere, but this would certainly be a good thing to have.
CCing the Evo maintainers to see if they want to help out here.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/18#comment:1>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
12 years, 4 months
Re: [Fedora QA] #6: Man pages
by fedora-badges
#6: Man pages
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Reporter: johannbg | Owner: somebody
Type: task | Status: closed
Priority: minor | Milestone:
Component: component1 | Version:
Resolution: invalid | Keywords:
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Changes (by adamwill):
* status: new => closed
* resolution: => invalid
Comment:
This doesn't really seem to be going anywhere, and I'm not sure it really
makes most sense as a QA ticket. If anything the intent - 'all executables
and configuration files should have a man page' - should be a packaging
guideline, and so far as 'enforcement' goes, I would think it would be
most appropriate to make it an AutoQA test, so that would be filed as an
autoqa trac ticket.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/6#comment:6>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
12 years, 4 months
[Fedora QA] #149: Mentor Request
by fedora-badges
#149: Mentor Request
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
Reporter: hellork | Owner:
Type: proventester request | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone:
Component: Proventester Mentor Request | Version:
Keywords: |
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
= phenomenon =
I am interested in joining the protesters and I'm requesting a mentor.
= reason =
I have been filing bug reports and working on submitting a couple new
projects to Fedora. I have a good working knowledge of Yum update, C, C++,
Makefiles, Bash, Python, Java, and RPM, packaging, etc.
= recommendation =
Sign me up!
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/149>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
12 years, 4 months