On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 16:33 +0100, Till Maas wrote: > I have some additions: > > 7. fixes bug X, but does not claim to fix it > > This can often happen with hardware related bugs, e.g. with the kernel > where something starts to work again Oh, yes, I like that. Then the update text could be updated to claim a fix for that bug, is what you're thinking, right? > 8. The package updated sucessfully, but was not used intentionally. No > breakage noticed. > > This shows, that at least on the test machine, there are no broken deps, > conflicts or broken scriptlets. In my head I sort of had this wrapped up with 'no regressions', but you might be right that it's best to split it out as a choice. > Also it would be nice to provide hardware testing feedback, e.g. for Xorg > updates to say "Works with nouveau, Geforce XY, using VGA out and XV", > which then shows that e.g. 3D support, DVI out or multi screen support > was not tested. This is kind of related to testing with a test plan, but > having this data available in a format that can be easily parsed, would > be nice, too. Maybe this could be done with adding smolt information in > the feedback and the tested features (XV, VGA, DVI, 3D, ...) and the > update needs to have some meta data, which kind of devices are supported > (e.g. only Geforce devices for the nouveau driver package). I sort of agree, but it's quite a complex topic and probably would require some serious design and thinking about of its own, so I was kinda leaving it out at this stage :) The infrastructure team is already working along these lines following Doug's earlier proposal, BTW, so I hope they'll pick up your suggestions. -- 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
