#76: Use two methods to specify install source
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: rhe | Owner: rhe
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 14
Component: Wiki | Version:
Resolution: | Keywords:
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by rhe):
Replying to [comment:7 jlaska]:
> Replying to [comment:6 rhe]:
> <skip>
> With regards to the table display format, I can't think of any immediate
benefits using the different approaches. There is only so much we can do
with wiki tables, right? Out of curiousity, I copied your draft and
created 2 new pages to help me visualize how this might look under
different approaches:
> 1. Using a table for each variation --
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jlaska/Draft
The advantage of this way is that the number of matrices are less than
that in my method, and the division is very clear and comfortable: boot,
DVD, CD, live, pxe and variations.[[BR]]
But consider if a general tester just finished a whole installation say by
boot.iso, it is convenient for him to only edit boot.iso matrix or at
least know where to add all the results directly from that matrix. That's
why I added entries like
[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rhe/Validation_Test_Results_Test_Matrices#Partition
partitioning] and
[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rhe/Validation_Test_Results_Test_Matrices#Variations
variations] in the boot.iso matrix, though it's not a good way for
displaying. Also, I think the 'variations' part contains too much so that
most of the time testers have to contribute in this matrix.
> 2. Using a single table, with variation column --
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jlaska/Draft3 -- note, I also removed
the References column here. I'm curious if that helps us avoid duplicate
<ref> tags in future wikis.
It's similar to the method above but to integrate them into one table. I
think it's cool.:) but some cases like
[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Mediakit_ISO_Size
QA:Testcase_Mediakit_ISO_Size] shown many times in one table seem a little
bit weird, especially when one sorts the cases by column .：） [[BR]]
I like the way you changed 'reference' part, very creative.:) I added some
results on [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jlaska/Draft your draft],
and you can see that reference 1 and 2 are the same using the key format.
I think it's better if these two can be combined into one reference like
reference 3. [[BR]]
I'll continue thinking about other approaches of this grouping idea.
Anyone please feels free for advice. Thanks.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/76#comment:8>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
--
test mailing list
test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
