On Thu, 2016-08-18 at 16:51 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > One of the topics in the Workstation WG's most recent meeting was a > public preview of the rpm-ostree based Workstation. This is a project > David King's been working on recently, and reported on at Flock 2016 > in Krakow. > > I wanted to start a discussion to find out what testing criteria (and > commensurate testing) we need to establish for this to be a public > thing. Moreover, what can the Workstation WG participants do to > contribute to that testing? We are specifically looking to avoid any > "throw it over the wall" to QA here, but rather participate in the > testing to help move the project forward. > > Adam, can you or other QA team members comment on what our next steps > should be here? I did discuss this a bit with the desktop folks a few weeks back. My broad take was that, really, we should be able to use pretty much the tests we have. The only obvious exceptions would be the update and upgrade tests, obviously we'd have to tweak or fork those. But aside from that, it doesn't really matter if a Workstation deliverable is made out of RPMs or ostrees or Pokemon, it should *behave* pretty much the same, and the same set of tests should be applicable to it. Would this be just another deliverable within the current compose process, or is it going to be a separate compose process? -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
