Re: Underlying DE for the Workstation product, Desktop -vs- Workstation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 22:07 +0100, drago01 wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:55 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
>> <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 02/03/2014 08:55 PM, drago01 wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >The WG's dont dictate or decide how we in QA spend our time.
>> >>
>> >> Where did I say that? Where did QA decide that they now longer want to
>> >> test desktops?
>> >> You seem to always talk about the whole QA community while in fact you
>> >> are talking about yourself.
>> >
>> >
>> > I suggest you check meeting logs [...]
>>
>> Only references I found where:
>> "jreznik from Base WG would like to arrange a meeting with other teams
>> members to discuss the future processes" and
>> "Project-wide, planning is blocking on Fedora.next until the WGs
>> report to FESCo in January; this makes QA planning for Fedora 21
>> mostly impossible until then"
>>
>> (Clicked through the summarys back to end of sep. 2013 ...)
>
> There is certainly a resource question for QA: it's generally reasonable
> to guess that the Products will want to define a minimum expected level
> of quality and that the project as a whole will want the primary
> products (that wording is a hedge against the possibility that we wind
> up defining lots more Products - right now I'm assuming the three
> currently-defined Products are 'primary' ones) to meet their minimum
> requirements for a Fedora release to ship.
>
> Right now we have fairly minimal requirements for the desktop and KDE
> spins, and almost nothing for server or 'cloud' areas of the project, so
> it's reasonable to assume the overall testing workload in a .next
> universe will be higher than it is right now, and Johann is right to say
> that, right now, 'QA' struggles to perform all the work that's
> *currently* required.
>
> So this certainly is an area of concern that will likely need to be
> looked at and resolved. Johann is of the opinion that the way to do this
> is for QA to test the base system and leave everything above that to the
> products, but we have not decided anything like that yet: as the summary
> note above says, we really can't plan much until the .next / Product
> proposals take more concrete form. Especially, we need to know what the
> Products think their minimum quality requirements will be, obviously.

Thanks.
-- 
desktop mailing list
desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora KDE]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Docs]     [Fedora Config]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Red Hat 9]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux