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

Re: rawhide and Fedora QA [was Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM]

On 7/23/07, Karsten Wade <kwade redhat com> wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 18:51 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> (Apologies for the lag, life has been a little crazy of late; I've
> been trying to escape from the computer when not actually needing to
> be in front of it :)

Let me know how that works out. ;-)

(Myself, I just combine - right now I'm making plum jam, cooking dinner
for the family, cleaning the kitchen, making a blessed cup of coffee,
and my mind is thinking and writing.)

> I was told in IRC that my Fedora account (non-bugzilla) needed a
> particular group, which appeared to be confirmed by:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/#head-69a2fdca9900f61c9b53d353b2bc5b09d58fdf70

On the face of it, it seems broken to require anything more than a plain
ol' bugzilla account to file and comment on bugs, and close any you
filed.  I insist on the need for the account so there is a way to
contact a reporter - email address thereby being the sole requirement.

I want to do more than that; I want to help triage and organize bugs.
But apparently that requires a fedora account.

More generally, the wiki implies that any contribution (even bug
filing) requires a Fedora account.

> QA, really. The CLA is just one symptom of that; the lack of
> information about rawhide; the poor treatment of updates-testing users
> (things broken for many days, which discourages people from using
> updates-testing at all); the lack of usable definitions for
> severity/priority all jump out.

Is there a list like this on the Wiki?  Somewhere we can prioritize and
account for shortfall.

I don't believe so. I'm not into creating pages on wikis when no one
seems to acknowledge

> I really mostly wasn't thinking about the CLA at all, except inasmuch
> as I can't see any sane way why it should be required for QA work,
> since nothing I do in QA can possibly be copyrightable. But yes, in my
> copious spare time I'm trying to figure out how the CLA can be
> simplified and applied to fewer things. :)

Not to sure about that.  QA folks, for example, write content to
Docs/Beats, and that becomes the release notes.

Optimize for the common case, not the edge case.

What about email posting?  I may be crazy, but I like the idea that what
I am writing here can be picked up by someone and written into Fedora
Weekly News without worrying about redistribution rights.

That's quite distinct from bug work.

I almost added bugzilla to the top category, and didn't for a couple of
reasons.  One is the mixed-use bugzilla we have -- I'm not sure if one
can give a general account that would have the permissions we want for
Fedora bugs.  Cf. to anyone being able to file bugs against Red Hat
products.  We can't force a click-through CLA for Fedora in front of
someone who is filing bugs for Red Hat products.  So how to gather
bugzilla into the click-through category like the Wiki?

Well, so...
(1) if that division can't be made in bugzilla, then you're right
there is a problem with not having the CLA for bugzilla permissions.
(2) if that is the case, you might as well give up on having an active
bug community. I'll go ahead and stop ranting about QA, since it is a
lost cause.

Somewhere in here we might find it is more valuable to have a
stand-alone Fedora bug tracking because of these kind of community



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