On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 10:10 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 09:12:29AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > I do also agree with Jaroslav's distinction between different types of > > spin; from my area of interest, desktop spins inherently benefit more > > from the QA process because of what they do. The Electronics Lab spin, > > for instance, doesn't present a vastly different appearance out of the > > box than the Desktop spin - it's just a different selection of apps. Our > > testing process mostly concerns itself with stuff like 'does it boot, do > > basic operations work' which wouldn't actually differ much between the > > Desktop spin and the Electronics Lab spin - but certainly *do* differ > > between desktop and KDE, or desktop and LXDE. It would be difficult for > > us to mess things up such that the desktop spin fundamentally 'works' > > but the electronics lab spin doesn't, but we certainly can mess things > > up such that the desktop spin works but the LXDE spin doesn't (we've > > done it before). > > > Although, thinking of target audience for the spin, FEL could certainly > benefit from a different kind of testing. Whereas the desktop spins need to > boot and be able to yum update, FEL is one part demonstration as well -- so > the programs that are being highlighted specially as being on the media > should work out of the box as well. true, and that's *definitely* a case where it makes most sense for the SIG to do the testing (as they're the ones who know what the heck should happen :>) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
