On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 00:11 +0100, Mathieu Bridon wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 23:49, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [... snip ...] > > 1. I have tried this update in my regular day-to-day use and seen no > > regressions. > > > > 2. I have tried this update in my regular day-to-day use and seen a > > regression: bug #XXXXXX. > > > > 3. (Where the update claims to fix bug #XXXXXX) I have tried this update > > and found that it does fix bug #XXXXXX. > > > > 4. (Where the update claims to fix bug #XXXXXX) I have tried this update > > and found that it does not fix bug #XXXXXX. > > > > 5. I have performed the following planned testing on the update: (link > > to test case / test plan) and it passes. > > > > 6. I have performed the following planned testing on the update: (link > > to test case / test plan) and it fails: bug #XXXXXX. > > This is basically what Doug had proposed, except that you added 5. and 6. Great, glad to hear we're thinking in the same direction from different angles :) Do you have a link to his proposal? I don't recall reading it. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
