On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 16:19 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:40:25 -0500 > James Laska <jlaska@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ...snip... > > > > * setup a remote test env that people could use to test things. > > > > I could use more details on this point. Is this talking about setting > > up QA systems hosted in Fedora infrastructure that any tester could > > login and use to test updates? > > Yes. > > Perhaps something with virtual instances? > *tester requests a base f14 > *machine is built and mails tester info. > *tester logs into machine, applies update that they are testing, tests. > *tester logs out and machine autoreaps away. > > I admit this is pie in the sky without a cloud infrastructure in place, > but it would be pretty cool. ;) > > ...snip... > > > > * PK updates-testing integration of some kind. > > > > Open to any ideas here ... are you thinking about some PK > > updates-testing feedback workflow. Like integrating > > fedora-easy-karma? Something else? > > Yes, a fedora-easy-karma type thing. > Also, abrt could offer to install a testing package where available > when a package crashes? Hmm, I'm conflicted on this. I'm inclined to think that the problem is more about the lack of test documentation around updates, than it is lack of hardware. For me, if I see libasdf-querty4, the first questions I ask is "what is it, and how can I test it". Not, where can I find a disposable virt system to test it. That's not to say having shared test systems or disposable systems for testing updates wouldn't be valuable. I just don't know if that's the first thing I would consider. > Thanks for the excellent feedback! Having such a solution would open up some doors for us, I'm thinking more for on-the-fly AutoQA provisioning for destructive tests. Thanks, James
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
