On Sat, 2013-12-14 at 00:06 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Dec 13, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Chris Murphy
<lists(a)colorremedies.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 13, 2013, at 10:07 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 21:04 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>
>>> It is still very large, that's probably the first thing you'd
notice
>>> about it.
>>
>> I counted, for fun: even excluding the 'sanity checks', it contains 101
>> tests.
>
> In my opinion, every one of those tests requires a feature owner. If
no one volunteers, if a hand off isn't made, the functionality for the
feature represented by the sanity check shall be removed from the next
version of Fedora.
Do you mean someone who is responsible for development of the feature,
or testing it?
Right now I'm simply trying to figure out a vaguely practical approach
for testing what we can of the installer's storage functions. That's
really all I'm shooting for. This is one possible approach, there are
many others. I mean, prior to newUI, we placed a _much_ lower emphasis
on custom partitioning.
I note that only two are final release level. How is it so much
instability/changes still exist after beta, that there are so many
anaconda blockers even though only two, out of a significant pile of
tests, are final release level tests?
Oh, sorry, I forgot to note: I gave up on the release levels after the
first table or so, I figured we could work those out later. A lot more
would be final.
Is it possible to freeze the installer from anything approaching new
functionality after alpha? Consequences?
I believe viking_ice has proposed something like this before:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2013-October/msg00005...
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net