I have to rely on what I hear from testers, especially when multiple testers report the same thing: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/debian-installer/+bug/1425681 If you can prove that it is not true, then perhaps that might suggest other behaviors.
Still, I don't want LVM to be a mandatory testcase. I'm concerned more about the many. When we have more resources, I'll make it mandatory again :-) The old testcase still exists, but I'm not using it. You can find out how to find them and how to contribute here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/ContributingTestcases/Manual @wxl Lubuntu Release Manager, Head of QA Ubuntu PPC Point of Contact Ubuntu Oregon Team Leader On Feb 26, 2015 10:36 PM, "Nio Wiklund" <nio.wikl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Walter, > > It is *not* true that LVM only works if you already have LVM set up. It > works also from a blank drive (with only a partition table created by > for example gparted, no partitions at all). And it works with Lubuntu > Vivid 32-bit installed from the desktop as well as from the alternate > installer. Did you read my test reports? > > I can only talk for myself: I can continue to test that Lubuntu works > with LVM, encrypted disk and encrypted home. > > But we would have to rely on someone else to squash bugs encountered > during the testing. In this particular case we can have a 'plan B', to > add some extra steps that were not necessary in earlier versions of > Lubuntu. If you give me access to the text of the previous testcase, I > can add and modify it to make it useful in the future (either for the > desktop or the alternate installer). And you can revive it. > > You are the QA leader and you can remove or add whatever test cases you > like. I hope your decisions are the best for Lubuntu. > > Best regards > Nio > > Den 2015-02-26 23:34, Walter Lapchynski skrev: > > Well, at this point it seems LVM only works if you already have LVM > > set up. This seems to be problematic. > > > > Also, it's imperative that we limit our scope in order to not get > > overwhelmed. We have a small team and can only do so much. The scope I > > consider appropriate includes packages we can support ourselves or > > that have good support in the community. Ultimately, this does not > > apply to debian-installer. However, alternate images are a necessary > > evil. So then I would limit the scope to what parts of > > debian-installer are relevant to the average user. Encryption arguably > > is applicable, but LVM is certainly not. > > > > That being said, I'd be happy to include optional testcases (meaning > > if they fail, the release will not be delayed) for LVM and encryption, > > but I would want these to be separate. > > > > So who wants to make sure the LVM bug gets fixed and the testcases get > > rewritten? That includes making sure that that equivalent testcases > > are written for ubiquity (which will also be optional). If someone > > wants to do the work, I'll set them up on the tracker. > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:31 AM, Lars Noodén <lars.noo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 26.02.2015 08:36, Nio Wiklund wrote: > >>> ... > >>> @ Walter: I suggest that we have at least one testcase with LVM, > >>> encrypted disk and encrypted home. If we cannot keep the one that > exists > >>> now for the alternate iso, I suggest that we make one for the desktop > iso. > >>> ... > >> > >> +1 it is important to be able to offer encryption, > >> without a test case it might fall to the wayside > >> > >> Regards, > >> /Lars > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-qa > >> Post to : lubuntu-qa@lists.launchpad.net > >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-qa > >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > > > > > >
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-qa Post to : lubuntu-qa@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-qa More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
