On 08/15/2013 03:47 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 15:36:53 -0400
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Interesting since they did not do that when I joined QA what 5 or 6
years ago so again can you refer me to that discussion.
It's always been a test case/critera that I remember...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20070117#Fedora_7
Shows upgrade test cases were there in Fedora 7 and one of the things QA
was testing and ensuring.
We tested for it to a limited extent ( via yum ) but we never officially
supported it.
We always stayed away from opening that pandora box and it was not until
we found out that someone had stamped upgrades to be "officially"
supported that we actually properly defined what should be tested, added
the criteria for it and made it release blocking.
And the discussion around who "officially" stamped it and why is what
I'm looking for ( not that it has been technically possible for number
of years ) and I'm pretty sure it was neither Jeremy,Will,Chris or Seth
that pushed for that "official upgrade" stamp when they introduced
pre-upgrade once they had finish writing it, since all four knew the
ramification for us in QA by doing so.
I can tell you that fedup blindly inherited the "offically upgrade
tool/support" from pre-upgrade by fesco decision, while Will was still
scratching his head designing/writing it and Tim being the only one that
was properly testing what Will threw over the wall.
To many including me that seemed like an odd decision making instead for
example simply not "officially" support upgrades ( thus not making it
release blocking ) until that tool had been written.
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
