On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 09:26 -0500, Bastien Nocera 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 testing should be switched to be a dual-boot test, as it's what > Mac users are more likely to be using (and also a necessity for firmware > upgrades). Chris was incorrect about this. When we actually do have time to run Mac tests, we test dual boot installs. > > The Fedora QA group also has no one using Mac hardware day to > > day. > > This isn't a problem. There are people using Macs day-to-day, and they report > bugs. The problem here, and I can't emphasise this enough, this problem is > a systemic problem with the installer QA, specifically. > Once the machine is installed, it's usually fairly straight forward to > update packages, downgrade them, and fix hardware specific problems as long > as the device can be booted, and a sufficient amount of hardware is working. > > The installer not working, especially when it's a last minute problem, > it becomes a blocker. Do we need a different schedule for installer > development? This was a 'last minute bug' in the sense that we *found* it at the last minute. It was not a 'last minute bug' in the sense that it was *introduced* at the last minute. The bug was in fact introduced to blivet master almost exactly a year ago: https://github.com/rhinstaller/blivet/commit/368a4db6141c7fdcb31ed45fe6be207ccc08ad30 If you're operating under the belief that there is some sort of pell- mell development process involved here, then you're off-base. That is not the case. The developers are in fact quite conservative about the level of change they pull into Branched - more conservative than the Fedora policies require. > Given that I use my hardware for development (in this case, hardware > enablement), I don't really have the time to constantly wipe and reinstall > the system to test rawhide installers. I guess that most folks that already > have Fedora installed on their machines will simply upgrade the system. Yes. This is exactly the point I argued way down-thread. It is true to say that not many people test the installer on Macs. Some people initially argued that we could take this to mean not many people *use* Fedora on Macs, but I'd argue that's not true. The truth, I believe, is that a reasonable number of people run Fedora on Macs - enough to be worth caring about - but very few people test the installer on Macs. This is an issue specific to Macs, rather than a 'systemic problem with installer development'. > The main problem to me seems to be that the installer sees too little > testing, or too little testing when big changes occur, or not a wide > enough breadth of testing scenarios, at the development stage. This is true only in the sense that, let's be honest, it applies to almost every piece of code ever. No-one ever tests *everything*. But in fact we probably test the installer more than we test almost anything else. It is also, unfortunately, an inherently incredibly complex codebase with more codepaths than almost anything else, many of which are not trivial to exercise. Like this one. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
