Hi David, > Here I am! BTW, there is a whole QA document on fedora.us which I found > helpful. I took these document(s) as the base for my "How to do QA" suggestion page; see my other post on this. I'd be glad if you could help reworking them! > I also found that reviewing already QA'd bug reports to be > helpful as well. Good idea! If you have some time, can you check some bug reports and compare them with the QA checklist? > It would be nice to see a whole step-by-step of what was > done by a QAer to QA a package, noting that the QA process can vary by > some amount depending on what's changed with a package. My suggestion is that the entries on the QA checklist get fixed shortnames like "[pristinesources]" that one can use in a QA report, possibly with comments, like "[pristinesources], verified MD5 and GPG". It might help when reviewing the QA approvals. Anyway, as I don't do QA, I don't know if this would really be helpful. > This is another holdback I'm sure for some users, is getting the > appropriate test systems as not all QA people may have access to all > systems supported by Legacy. There is a "Test System Provider" linked on the start page of fedoralegacy.org. What exactly does that mean? Is a machine available that users willing to do QA can use? If yes, how do they get an account on a test machine? > I know that I've been meaning to get UML > with RH 7.2, 7.3 and 8.0 so I can QA all packages from one machine. > Having UML images of each distro would be helpful. Any comments from QA testers on this? UML images could be of interest for people checking packages on their own machine, but I think we don't need them if a test system (possibly with UML) is available. Jonas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
