On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 17:57 +, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 10:52 -0500, James Laska wrote:
>
> > Agreed ... I think it makes sense to keep Category:Test_Cases as just a
> > container for sub-categories if possible. Mainly for the reasons you
> > note around *trying* to keep
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 10:58 -0500, James Laska wrote:
> > So, see:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_xorg-x11-drv-ati_test_cases
> >
> > and note that one of the test cases is also in:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Critical_path_test_cases
>
> Nice examp
On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 10:52 -0500, James Laska wrote:
> Agreed ... I think it makes sense to keep Category:Test_Cases as just a
> container for sub-categories if possible. Mainly for the reasons you
> note around *trying* to keep content organized.
OK. I think I actually went ahead and changed t
On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 14:35 +, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 17:11 +, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Hi, everyone. So, in the recent debate about the update process it again
> > became clear that we were lacking a good process for providing
> > package-specific test instruction
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 17:29 +, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 18:12 -0500, James Laska wrote:
>
> > > the first isn't particularly specific to this, but it was a prerequisite
> > > that I discovered was missing: it's a guide to test case creation in
> > > general, explaining th
On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 14:35 +, Adam Williamson wrote:
> thanks! I'm planning to work on a mockup for the f-e-k and bodhi
> integration this afternoon to show how we envision this all being used
> to kick ass, I think that'll make it clearer.
Bodhi mockup post:
http://www.happyassassin.net/20
On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 17:11 +, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hi, everyone. So, in the recent debate about the update process it again
> became clear that we were lacking a good process for providing
> package-specific test instructions, and particularly specific
> instructions for testing critical p
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 07:53:22AM -0500, James Laska wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 18:32 -0700, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 06:12:47PM -0500, James Laska wrote:
> > > Something to help testers find the right src.rpm name of the
> > > component under test?
> >
> > Somethi
On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 18:12 -0500, James Laska wrote:
> > the first isn't particularly specific to this, but it was a prerequisite
> > that I discovered was missing: it's a guide to test case creation in
> > general, explaining the actual practical process of how you create a
> > test case, and th
On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 18:32 -0700, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 06:12:47PM -0500, James Laska wrote:
> > Something to help testers find the right src.rpm name of the
> > component under test?
>
> Something like that?
Exactly, thanks for sharing. I've added some comments bel
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 06:12:47PM -0500, James Laska wrote:
> Something to help testers find the right src.rpm name of the
> component under test?
Something like that?
#!/bin/bash
me=$(basename $0)
usage () {
echo "Usage: $me "
echo "where is either path to a file or an rpm package nam
On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 15:53 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 17:11:15 +
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > Hi, everyone. So, in the recent debate about the update process it
> > again became clear that we were lacking a good process for providing
> > package-specific test instructi
Thanks Adam for getting the ball rolling on this topic.
On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 17:11 +, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hi, everyone. So, in the recent debate about the update process it again
> became clear that we were lacking a good process for providing
> package-specific test instructions, and p
13 matches
Mail list logo
