On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 8:33 AM Kamil Paral <kpa...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 6:17 AM Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:36 PM Harold Dost <haroldd...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Is having this as a test criteria *that* burdensome? Similar to another >> > blocker that was being proposed, maybe it's not something that _must_ be >> > tested, but if it's known to be broken that it should block a final. Maybe >> > I'm missing something, but unless the image is over the capacity of a DVD, >> > what would prevent the success of an installation? >> >> We did have a bug a couple years ago or so, where the ISO written to >> USB booted fine, but when burned to optical media wouldn't boot >> anything including VM. It was a bootloader bug, if I recall correctly >> - pretty sure it hit BIOS firmware only, not UEFI. >> >> But yeah it does sound reasonable to have the same "if it's known to >> be broken" then block, similar to the request for printing. > > > There is one difference. Those criteria that we block on yet don't test (at > all or in full extent) in the QA team are usually those that are too > impractical to test centrally. Ensuring that all important printer drivers > work falls into that category, similarly to ensuring all important graphics > cards work, etc. There's no way without community involvement we could ever > cover everything important. > > Optical booting is a different story, that can be tested, and quite easily > (making sure it works on one system usually means it works everywhere - > although there have been exceptions to the rule in the past), it just takes > annoyingly long. And unlike broken printers or to a certain extent broken > graphical drivers, we can't fix this with an update, we'd have to create a > new compose (and make another full round of testing), which we never do. So > although I'd love to get rid of optical media testing, if we keep it in the > criteria, I'm not comfortable with ignoring it inside the QA team and I > believe the test coverage for it would still need to be considered mandatory > in that case. > > _______________________________________________ > test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
+1 _______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
