On Sat, 2013-12-14 at 00:06 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Dec 13, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 13, 2013, at 10:07 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 21:04 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > >> > >>> It is still very large, that's probably the first thing you'd notice > >>> about it. > >> > >> I counted, for fun: even excluding the 'sanity checks', it contains 101 > >> tests. > > > > In my opinion, every one of those tests requires a feature owner. If > no one volunteers, if a hand off isn't made, the functionality for the > feature represented by the sanity check shall be removed from the next > version of Fedora. Do you mean someone who is responsible for development of the feature, or testing it? Right now I'm simply trying to figure out a vaguely practical approach for testing what we can of the installer's storage functions. That's really all I'm shooting for. This is one possible approach, there are many others. I mean, prior to newUI, we placed a _much_ lower emphasis on custom partitioning. > I note that only two are final release level. How is it so much > instability/changes still exist after beta, that there are so many > anaconda blockers even though only two, out of a significant pile of > tests, are final release level tests? Oh, sorry, I forgot to note: I gave up on the release levels after the first table or so, I figured we could work those out later. A lot more would be final. > Is it possible to freeze the installer from anything approaching new > functionality after alpha? Consequences? I believe viking_ice has proposed something like this before: https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2013-October/msg00005.html -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
