2016-11-25 17:37 GMT+01:00 Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx>: > 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. > I kind of fail to see how this thread is "soul-sucking", but then again there are lots of things I don't understand. But anyway, it is sad that you feel this way about Fedora. /Andreas > > -- > Stephen J Smoogen. > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
