On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 19:12 -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote: > On 04/17/2012 07:02 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 18:13 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote: > >> (but why is it *always* broken in Alphas? :-). > > > > The clue is in the name ;) > > I disagree. Alphas obviously have bugs, but when the *same* bug (or > different bugs with the same symptoms) are present in alpha after alpha > (or beta after beta, etc.) then something is broken in the process. Completely different bugs. I don't see anything particularly wrong with the process, to be honest. Actually, now I look at it, I don't think repo=hd was broken at Alpha. It's reported as PASS at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_17_Alpha_RC4_Install#General_Tests (the test case is hard_drive_variation). It was broken pre-Beta (after the noloader change), and fixed at I think Beta RC3. When it was broken, it was caught in testing. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
