Re: Fedora on Macs, removing the release criterion

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 25 November 2016 at 09:27, Bastien Nocera <bnocera@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> 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.
>
> Newer Mac laptops don't have working keyboards or touchpads as they're
> not connected through USB internally. That's not Fedora's problem though.
> The problem is if the installer doesn't work when the pre-requisite
> hardware does.
>
>> 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.
>
> Is there any continuous testing done on the images on the installer? Is it
> on real hardware? Is it possible to mock hardware setups? Comparing
> boot setups on working and non-working installations.
>
> I think it would be possible to do testing that didn't rely quite as much
> on manual testing, through regression testing on "mock" hardware (a hacked
> up VM with a test disk image), comparing the partition types after installation
> against a working setup, comparing the file lists in the boot partition,
> etc.
>
> I'm surprised that the Anaconda, and blivet developers aren't taking part
> of this conversation. I'd certainly like them to point out all the ways in
> which they're already doing what I mentioned, and showing how we could
> add more test cases.

I am actually not surprised at all. This thread has been another
soul-sucking, why the heck do I do anything with Fedora type thread.
After this email I am not paying any more attention to anything on
this thread either.


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux