On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 11:15 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 06/12/2016 18:11, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 15:00 +0000, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: > > > W dniu 06.12.2016 o 14:43, Kamil Paral pisze: > > > > > > > All of that is, of course, motivated by trying to spend QA time more > > > > effectively. You can see the current coverage e.g. in this table [2], > > > > overall we burn 6 DVDs and perform 12 optical installation (BIOS + > > > > UEFI) for every release candidate published. We allow non-complete > > > > (yet still substantial) coverage for Alpha and Beta, but 100% > > > > coverage for Final for each candidate compose. That is quite time > > > > consuming, both burning and installation from optical media take a > > > > long time, it requires bare metal testing, and we can't use the > > > > machines for anything else during that time. > > > > > > Why not boot VM with virtual optical drive? You can choose BIOS/UEFI, > > > 32/64bit and do not require bare metal hardware for it. > > > > It's not a sufficient test. We have had real bugs in the past where a > > VM would boot from an ISO image, but real systems would not boot from > > the same ISO image burned to a real optical disc. > > > > Virtual machines are great for convenience, but they are not real > > hardware and we cannot in good conscience release our product without > > testing it on real machines with real media. > > It's still a good test to do. For example, Server and netinst ISO > images are used a lot for VMs, but not for bare metal. Of course we already test the ISOs on VMs, all the time. -- 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
