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

Re: Can RC2 be used for RC1 testing?



On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 01:41 -0400, Andre Robatino wrote:
> On 08/21/2009 12:17 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 21:28 -0400, Andre Robatino wrote:
> >> The RC1 Install Test Results page
> >>
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_RC1_Install_Test_Results
> >>
> >> has a broken link to the now deleted RC1 images.  Although RC1 testing
> >> is encouraged, the only way to actually get it now is using the
> >> deltaisos from TC (which one must already have, since that was also
> >> deleted earlier).  Is it okay to use RC2 for RC1 testing?  And is it
> >> really necessary to delete the older images immediately when the newer
> >> ones arrive?  HDD space is cheap nowadays.
> > 
> > Yes and yes - if something were, theoretically, broken in RC1 but fixed
> > in RC2, that would be fine, because that's what we're planning to ship.
> > So there's no reason to test RC1 any more if you have RC2, and results
> > filed in the RC1 matrix from RC2 are fine. Do check the RC2 matrix to
> > see if the same test is present on that reduced matrix, though. Thanks
> > for testing!
> 
> I don't have any F12-capable machines to spare (the i686 rebuild
> eliminated one), so can only test in a virtual guest.  Are the only
> tests where this is acceptable the ones that say so explicitly?

Good question.  I don't know if all applicable tests indicate whether or
not it is acceptable to test in a virtual environment.  I know there is
a specific test to ensure that KVM/xen environments are functional.  

What I like about the test matrix in its current state is that aside
from the architecture, it's left to you to execute in your environment.
For example, I use a fair amount of KVM for my testing, with a mix of
several bare metal systems.  Others might use xen, virtualbox or some
old hardware in the closet.  As long as it's supported by Fedora, it's
still valuable test feedback.

Thanks for pitching in!
James

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


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