On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2016-11-17 07:43 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> >> 2. The Fedora QA group has 1 mac mini which is very old and is only >> used for total install and not dual boot. It would not have found this >> issue. The Fedora QA group also has no one using Mac hardware day to >> day. > > > This bit isn't quite true. We found the bug *on* that Mac Mini. I'm worried > it's not likely to find *other* bugs that people are likely to encounter on > the systems they actually want to run Fedora on (newer laptops), but it did > find this one. > > The problem is that we didn't get around to running the test until the day > before the go/no-go. There's a lot of stuff to test, and anything which only > one person is likely to test is a risk. Frankly speaking, given how humans > work, things that involve digging some piece of hardware you never touch out > of a pile and hooking it up to a keyboard and mouse and a monitor and power > and network is quite likely to get passed over in favour of something you > can run in a VM. Especially if it's 4:30. This is why I have an Unused Arm > Devices Pile Of Shame on my desk... > > So, partly this is our fault because we could've tested this earlier and > didn't. But it's also the case that we really need more redundancy in as > much of the required testing as possible. I disagree with your assessment that it is your (Fedora QA's) fault. It is not. It is a resource issue that the community beyond just that of Fedora QA can clearly help with. This is not a Fedora QA failure. josh _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
