On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 18:11 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 23.01.13 22:17, Adam Williamson (awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > > On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 19:47 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 22:47:18 +0000, > > > "\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >b) > > > > > > > >We QA have alot of QA community members testing this so this does NOT > > > >require any additional effort or cause additional LOAD on the QA > > > >community. > > > > > > Aren't they just testing an upgrade of the default install? > > > > Correct: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_upgrade_fedup_cli_previous_desktop is the only current upgrade test case. > > > > We could plausibly extend the range somewhat to cover common package > > loadouts (GNOME, KDE, minimal perhaps) and common configuration wrinkles > > (non-US keyboard layout, encryption, a couple of different partition > > schemes), for _one_ upgrade method. Anything beyond that would be a bit > > of a stretch, I think. > > Wouldn't it make sense to test the "full install"? In contrast to other > distributions it should be possible to install all our RPMs at once > (modulo arch specific ones that is). If that thing upgrades properly, > then you have a pretty good chance it will work for most subsets too? It's probably a useful test case to add, yeah, but I can think of several scenarios where it wouldn't cover things (by definition it probably wouldn't catch cases where a necessary dependency was missing in an upgraded package, for instance :>). It helps to some degree to cover against issues in the package set, but it still doesn't innoculate us against configuration differences - hardware borking between kernel releases, different partition layouts etc. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
