On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 12:55 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 11:34:26AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> James Laska (jlaska(a)redhat.com) said:
> > I'm not in favor of this criteria addition at this time. I'd love to
> > see this happen, but I don't think it's realistic at this stage in the
> > release or in this forum (F-14). Can we have more input from devel +
> > rel-eng who initially proposed the change?
>
> I'd be willing to extend/change this such that:
>
> - Trees are tested for broken dependencies
Should be covered using existing tests called out in the installation
matrix
(
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test).
> - All broken dependencies are filed
> - These tickets are attached to the nice-to-have tracker
See below ...
> We can work towards the point where the third bullet here is
changed
> to 'the blocker tracker', but if we can't do that now, I would still
> like to *track* the problem.
This seems like an excellent compromise to me, and we should pursue a
more stringent requirement for F15 if people are amenable to that.
Agreed, this is definitely manageable for F-14 using Adam's NTH
(nice-to-have) draft tracking process.
We talked about some additional test activities to run in parallel with
this Thursday's planned Acceptance test run [1]. Filing bugs for all
repoclosure [2] and conflicts [3] seems like a good fit. I'll add this
to my list and communicate results later this week.
Thanks,
James
[1]
http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-14/f-14-quality-tasks.html
[2]
https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/autoqa-results/2010-October/043253.html (x86_64) and
https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/autoqa-results/2010-October/042847.html (i386)
[3]
https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/autoqa-results/2010-October/042709.html