[Fedora QA] #332: Add Fedora 19 Milestones
by fedora-badges
#332: Add Fedora 19 Milestones
--------------------------------------+------------------------
Reporter: tflink | Owner: tflink
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 19
Component: Blocker bug tracker page | Version:
Keywords: | Blocked By:
Blocking: |
--------------------------------------+------------------------
= problem =
Fedora 19 Milestones (alpha, beta, final) need to be added to the blocker
tracking app
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/332>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
11 years, 1 month
[Fedora QA] #331: Update Sync and Variables for new naming conventions
by fedora-badges
#331: Update Sync and Variables for new naming conventions
--------------------------------------+------------------------
Reporter: tflink | Owner: tflink
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 19
Component: Blocker bug tracker page | Version:
Keywords: | Blocked By:
Blocking: |
--------------------------------------+------------------------
= problem =
The blocker tracking words have changed for F19 and the sync algorithm
needs to be updated
= analysis =
AcceptedNTH -> AcceptedFreezeException
RejectedNTH -> RejectedFreezeException
Unfortunately, there are database fields and variables which reference
'accepted' and 'NTH'. These should probably be changed but that's not
critical.
= enhancement recommendation =
Change the algorithm and related tests, update
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/331>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
11 years, 1 month
[Fedora QA] #330: Blocker Components are not updated when bug is reassigned
by fedora-badges
#330: Blocker Components are not updated when bug is reassigned
--------------------------------------+---------------------
Reporter: tflink | Owner: tflink
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: Blocker bug tracker page | Version:
Keywords: | Blocked By:
Blocking: |
--------------------------------------+---------------------
= bug description =
When a bug being followed by the blocker tracking app is reassigned to
another component, the component displayed in the tracker is never
updated.
This is a pretty big problem because it causes the current blockers to be
mis-represented if anything is re-assigned after it is proposed as a
blocker.
= bug analysis =
I looked into this a little during F18 and it doesn't appear to be quite
as simple as I was hoping. In theory, a full sync should take care of the
out-of-date data but that didn't fix the problem and I didn't see anything
obviously wrong with the sync code.
It is possible that #325 is interfering with the sync process - even
though the hacky fix made it into production, the sync was still crashing
on a regular basis.
= fix recommendation =
There are two parts to this bug.
* updated information is not being stored in the database
* change in component is not triggering an update
Changing the bugzilla query to pull in bugs when the component is updated
should be pretty easy - it's the part about new information not making it
into the database which is a bigger issue.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/330>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
11 years, 1 month
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Replace MySQL with MariaDB
by Adam Williamson
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 02:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bill Nottingham <notting(a)redhat.com> writes:
> > Tom Lane (tgl(a)redhat.com) said:
> >> (If the compatibility testing goes *really* smoothly, maybe we could
> >> just drop the requirement for original mysql to still be available,
> >> in which case it reduces to the standard package-replacement problem.
> >> But I'm not prepared to bet on that quite yet.)
>
> > Honestly, I'd be curious as to whether we could get all the compatibility
> > testing done early enough, and packages changed, such that we could consider
> > dropping MySQL. It's just... cleaner.
>
> Quite honestly, I'd prefer that too. But we need to have a good case
> that it's not going to break very many things for very many people.
> Database people hate it when you break their database. So ... as
> mentioned in the feature page, we really need help testing this during
> the F19 devel cycle. We'll need to make decisions before we reach
> alpha/beta stage.
Yeah, 'all the compatibility testing' is something of a vague idea to
pin down :) We can certainly run a couple of test days and ask as many
people as possible to try Maria on their setups and make sure nothing's
amiss, but it's the kind of thing where it's pretty hard to know you've
covered everything. I'm no SQL expert and I'm not sure who is; is there
anyone who's well-experienced in this area who would be willing to lead
testing efforts? Is there any kind of well-known, respected test suite
for MySQL?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
11 years, 1 month
[Fedora QA] #135: Proposed Test Day - TOPIC How about a consideration of the dual boot issues from Fedora 13?
by fedora-badges
#135: Proposed Test Day - TOPIC How about a consideration of the dual boot
issues from Fedora 13?
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Reporter: dramsey | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 14
Component: Test Day | Version:
Keywords: dual boot |
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
How about a consideration of the dual boot issues from Fedora 13?
I remember from the Fedora 13 timeframe, there were dual boot issues.
Would it be advantageous to reconsider a subset of this as well as other
lessons learned from the Fedora 13 which may be a good peruse for
historical impact and reflection.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/135>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
11 years, 2 months
[Fedora QA] #310: Proposed Test Day - realmd/sssd/AD
by fedora-badges
#310: Proposed Test Day - realmd/sssd/AD
----------------------+------------------------
Reporter: stefw | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 18
Component: Test Day | Version:
Keywords: | Blocked By:
Blocking: |
----------------------+------------------------
I would like to propose a test day for testing realmd and sssd against
Active Directory. This is about testing enrollment features that realmd
provides, as well as making sure sssd works smoothly out of the box with
Active Directory.
Ownership: Stef Walter <stefw(a)redhat.com>
Date: The proposed date is 2012-10-18.
Feature to test is:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ActiveDirectory
I believe that there is another partially related test day for FreeIPA and
sssd. However these do not have much overlap.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/310>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
11 years, 2 months
[Fedora QA] #301: Translations Testing Day Proposal
by fedora-badges
#301: Translations Testing Day Proposal
----------------------+------------------------
Reporter: pycrash | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 18
Component: Test Day | Version:
Keywords: | Blocked By:
Blocking: |
----------------------+------------------------
= phenomenon =
Translation test Day
= background analysis =
It is very important to test all the translation before Fedora 18's
release, so Fedora can became a world wide Distro.
= implementation recommendation =
I propose the 2012-10-25 as a Translation Test Day. It is close enough to
the release date so all the Translation will be ready and the 2012-11-01
is still available for testing last minutes changes.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/301>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
11 years, 2 months