Re: [Lubuntu-qa] Lubuntu Vivid Vervet 15.04 Beta 1 Released

2015-02-27 Thread Walter Lapchynski
Yes, Henk is right. sorry everyone! @wxl Lubuntu Release Manager, Head of QA Ubuntu PPC Point of Contact Ubuntu Oregon Team Leader On Feb 27, 2015 3:37 AM, "Henk Terhell" wrote: > Link [1] doesn't exist and is for beta 2. The correct link is I guess: > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/VividVervet/Beta1/L

Re: [Lubuntu-qa] Alternate testcase changes

2015-02-27 Thread Walter Lapchynski
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 mandato

Re: [Lubuntu-qa] Alternate testcase changes

2015-02-27 Thread Nio Wiklund
Hi Walter, If I can prove? In my opinion my test reports at the QA-tracker and the mails to you show in detail what I did and what results I had. If that is not enough, I'm sorry. I can't come to your place and show in your computer ;-) What I can do is write a comment in the bug report 1425681.

Re: [Lubuntu-qa] Alternate testcase changes

2015-02-27 Thread Walter Lapchynski
Your [bug comment][1] alone is telling, Nio. It basically agrees that it's not behaving correctly. Long story short is if you do a bunch of things that are inconsistent with the [testcase][2] and probably not intuitive to any average user, then it works. That's simply not good enough. If you do wa

Re: [Lubuntu-qa] Alternate testcase changes

2015-02-27 Thread Lars Noodén
On 27.02.2015 20:36, Walter Lapchynski wrote: >... > If you do want to help with testcases, I emphasize how important it is > to make sure that we have matching testcases for both desktop and > alternate. Please make sure to read the documentation on styles and > such. A hint on that: there's no su

Re: [Lubuntu-qa] Alternate testcase changes

2015-02-27 Thread Walter Lapchynski
I think (in general) removing testcases is a bad idea. Some testcases may be more edge cases (which I believe to be the case with encryption/LVM), at which point we can make them optional. That being said, I agree with having encryption/LVM testcases for both desktop and alternate, assuming that t

Re: [Lubuntu-qa] Alternate testcase changes

2015-02-27 Thread Nio Wiklund
Hi again Walter, You wrote "Well, at this point it seems LVM only works if you already have LVM set up." That statement is not true. The problem is not that bad for 32-bit Lubuntu. It works if you wipe the drive and make a new MSDOS partition table. And it is the same problem for the alternate an

Re: [Lubuntu-qa] Alternate testcase changes

2015-02-27 Thread Istimsak Abdulbasir
Overall, the more test cases the better. That is the whole idea I believe. We are trying to test every aspect if Ubuntu catching anything that hurts its functionality. If we believe a test case should primary then we should make primary or optional. We want to grow our testcase database. It is als

Re: [Lubuntu-qa] Alternate testcase changes

2015-02-27 Thread Nio Wiklund
Hi again Walter, You wrote "Well, at this point it seems LVM only works if you already have LVM set up." That statement is not true. The problem is not that bad for 32-bit Lubuntu. It works if you wipe the drive and make a new MSDOS partition table. And it is the same problem for the alternate an

Re: [Lubuntu-qa] Alternate testcase changes

2015-02-27 Thread Nio Wiklund
Den 2015-02-27 20:06, Lars Noodén skrev: > On 27.02.2015 20:36, Walter Lapchynski wrote: >> ... >> If you do want to help with testcases, I emphasize how important it is >> to make sure that we have matching testcases for both desktop and >> alternate. Please make sure to read the documentation on