Thank you Ronald. It may be helpful to introduce myself, some here may recognize me as "Lance" from iso-testing, or Erick Brunzell at Launchpad, and I'm kansasnoob at the forums. I'm just an end user with no tech skills but I love Ubuntu.
One reason for me thinking that "distro-upgrade" testing may be very useful is that I've noticed a great many bugs get addressed in iso-testing either with an actual bug fix or at least a mention in the Release Notes. I attribute a great deal of that to the addition of the "iso-testing" tag to those bug reports. Suffice it to say that Ara Pulido and all involved have made iso-testing relatively easy and IMHO quite successful. The most direct reason is this bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub2/+bug/576724 It would probably be more time efficient to read my post #10 here: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1504847 IMHO that bug should never have seen the light of day in Lucid final but, as I said at the forums, I blew it doing just informal testing :^( So, I'm a bit unsure how to kick off this discussion, but perhaps with a question: Would it be best to include upgrade testing in iso-testing since it has a proven and successful track record, or should it be totally separate, perhaps shaped on the basic "template" followed for creating iso-testing? Someone else asked at Ayatana (where I mistakenly originated this request) about upgrades using the Alternate CD and after pulling up a Maverick Alpha1 test I see that's not among the options: http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/test/4181 I seldom use the alternate so I know little about it, but I will ask the person who inquired to reply to this list. Thanks again to Ronald and thanks in advance to all others.
-- Ubuntu-qa mailing list Ubuntu-qa@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-qa
