On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 17:06 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> We learned in today's Go/No-Go meeting that the late blocker
> exception[1] has an edge case when the release slips. Currently, it
> suggests[2] that the bug becomes a blocker for the next milestone. In
> the case of a Final wallpaper bug, that
On 4/16/20 16:48, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 13:57 -0400, pmkel...@frontier.com wrote:
It's not about interpretation or not, it's just about a preference for
this:
Test Steps
--
1. Step 1
2. Step 2
3. Step 3
Expected Results
1. Expected result 1
2
We learned in today's Go/No-Go meeting that the late blocker
exception[1] has an edge case when the release slips. Currently, it
suggests[2] that the bug becomes a blocker for the next milestone. In
the case of a Final wallpaper bug, that doesn't make sense.
I propose the exception be changed FROM
On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 13:57 -0400, pmkel...@frontier.com wrote:
> > It's not about interpretation or not, it's just about a preference for
> > this:
> >
> > Test Steps
> > --
> >
> > 1. Step 1
> > 2. Step 2
> > 3. Step 3
> >
> > Expected Results
> >
> >
> > 1. Expected
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 8/8 (x86_64)
New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-IoT-32-20200414.0):
ID: 578977 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/578977
Installed system changes in test x86_64 IoT-dvd_ost
It's not about interpretation or not, it's just about a preference for
this:
Test Steps
--
1. Step 1
2. Step 2
3. Step 3
Expected Results
1. Expected result 1
2. Expected result 2
3. Expected result 3
versus this:
Test Steps and Expected Results
--
On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 12:24 -0400, pmkel...@frontier.com wrote:
>
> On 4/16/20 11:21, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>
>
> > If we're gonna write test cases like that, we should probably just have
> > an alternative template, or an alternative "mode" for the template we
> > have. I don't like using a
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:41 PM Matthew Miller
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:30:07PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > Well, you could check based on EVR of fedora-release. Stable release
> > is always has Release field bumped to 1, and unstable is below 1.
>
> True -- as long as people don't
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:30:07PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Well, you could check based on EVR of fedora-release. Stable release
> is always has Release field bumped to 1, and unstable is below 1.
True -- as long as people don't get the idea that this means that release
candidates are final.
--
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:25 PM Matthew Miller
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 08:18:27AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > It kinda harks back to a time where we had more custom artwork, I think
> > - like boot splashes and stuff? I don't totally remember, but that was
> > basically it, at th
On 4/16/20 11:21, Adam Williamson wrote:
If we're gonna write test cases like that, we should probably just have
an alternative template, or an alternative "mode" for the template we
have. I don't like using a template which clearly expects the "Here are
the steps, and here are the expected
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 08:18:27AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> It kinda harks back to a time where we had more custom artwork, I think
> - like boot splashes and stuff? I don't totally remember, but that was
> basically it, at the time artwork was more than 'just' the desktop
> background. Thes
OLD: Fedora-32-20200415.n.0
NEW: Fedora-32-20200416.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 3
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:14 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> Hi folks!
>
> So, during Fedora 32 Final blocker review, a bug relating to "user
> switching" came up for review:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1817708
>
> I dug into the question of whether we have tended to consider the
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200415.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200416.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 5
Dropped packages:4
Upgraded packages: 142
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 146.24 MiB
Size of dropped packages
On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 16:16 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
> I use the functionality daily, so I'm biased, same as mattdm. I consider it
> really a basic desktop functionality. On our home laptop, my wife never
> logs out. Why would she, she just closes the lid and the laptop goes to
> sleep. When I wan
Yes, the testcase suggests crond, but I suggested chronyd. I have had
trouble in the past trying to use crond on some systems (cloud, I think,
although it was a long time ago). However, I have never had an issue using
chronyd, and it has become my go-to service to use when testing this
testcase.
I
The approach the current criteria were intended to back was one where
we would have something like rawhide-backgrounds or development-
backgrounds which contained a background image that was very obviously
a WORK IN PROGRESS kind of thing - picture of Beefy with "PRE RELEASE"
written on it, or
On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 13:09 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 7:41 PM Geoffrey Marr wrote:
>
> > I have tested Fedora IoT, Cloud, workstation on both ARM and x86_64,
> > everything this testcase blocks on, and they all include chronyd.
> >
>
> The testcase doesn't suggest chro
On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 13:23 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:46 PM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>
> > Honestly, I don't really like...any of these. I kinda get the intent
> > but they all feel icky, mushy and squishy.
> >
>
> It also feels too vague to me. Even our existing se
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 8:14 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> So, during Fedora 32 Final blocker review, a bug relating to "user
> switching" came up for review:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1817708
>
> I dug into the question of whether we have tended to consider the
In regard to my testing of Workstation-Live RC1.3:
This was a bare metal install on a Lenovo M53 with a i5-4570 CPU. The
ISO was check summed and loaded to a thumb drive using Media Writer. The
test machine booted to Live normally. Anaconda started normally. Options
to delete all and reclaim
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd aarch64
Iot dvd x86_64
Passed openQA tests: 8/8 (x86_64)
New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-IoT-33-20200415.0):
ID: 578629 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/578629
ID: 578630 Test:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:46 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> Honestly, I don't really like...any of these. I kinda get the intent
> but they all feel icky, mushy and squishy.
>
It also feels too vague to me. Even our existing sentence "All Fedora
artwork visible in critical path actions on release-
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 7:41 PM Geoffrey Marr wrote:
> I have tested Fedora IoT, Cloud, workstation on both ARM and x86_64,
> everything this testcase blocks on, and they all include chronyd.
>
The testcase doesn't suggest chronyd but crond. So which one are we talking
about here? I tend to cons
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproj
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproj
27 matches
Mail list logo
