On Sat, 2009-01-24 at 14:37 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > Christopher Beland wrote: > > This page: > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/Draft/QA/QC > > > > promises a link to a list of bugs that need testing, but the link seems > > to be missing? Such a list would be quite useful... > > > > -B. > > > > > Hum I probably removed it because it has been pointing to an older > release... > > Could you open a ticket in fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa > for this issue. Unfortunately, I cannot. I do not have a login on that system, and I do not appear to be able to report anonymously or register for an account. > It would be also good to get some feedback from you ( Testers ) > on how they feel a wiki page containing all these information > should look like and what information ye would like it to contain.. > > Meanwhile you can pick something that your are familiar with > and search and select that package from here. > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/bugs/index/a* I'm not sure why you would want a wiki page and not something that pulls directly from Bugzilla, if it is only reported bugs that need testing. This RSS feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/NeedsRetesting seems to simply include bugs that have "NeedsRetesting" in the Whiteboard field, which it's easy enough to query on through the advanced search page. But it looks like there are only a handful of such bugs in the system, most of them hardware-specific. Maybe something between "all the open bugs" and "things tagged with "NeedsRetesting" would be helpful. The "all the open bugs" screen seems like the place to start if you are doing intake triage (and there a lot of "NEW" bugs that could probably benefit from that). On the other hand, it might make sense to focus more attention on bugs where a new version has been released since the initial report, since there's some hope that the bug would actually have been fixed. (And if the bug hasn't been triaged by that point, it probably should be or it might never.) A lot of bugs get closed now because the release hits EOL, and the bug was randomly fixed in a later release without anyone noticing. So more frequent testing would in those cases generate some extra work. Theoretically developers would waste less time trying to reproduce already-fixed bugs, but wouldn't they also get a lot of "this bug is still present" messages they wouldn't have time to respond to? None of the downside of that testing would happen if we got a report only including bugs where a developer had manually requested testing. I'm not sure what exactly would be most helpful. -B. -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
