2009-06-24 - Fedora QA meeting Recap ([[Xorg/Debugging]])

[James Laska]

On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 11:03 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 21:39 -0400, Christopher Beland wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 23:06 +0200, François Cami wrote:
> > > Could you guys please have a look and bring some clarity ?
> > 
> > I did some stylistic cleanup...a few questions I think novice bug
> > reporters might have:
> > 
> > * What is the advice for Fedora 10 users, upgrade to F11 and retry?  Try
> > a F11 or Rawhide LiveCD/USB?
> 
> This is a more general thing which should probably be addressed on the
> parent page (I'll check if it is already, and add something if not). I
> think we should say something along the lines that it's fine to file
> reports on any supported release, but if you're running an older
> supported release and you have no particular attachment to it, you may
> want to try a newer release to see if it fixes your issue. (Note that
> it's best to phrase things in a general way like this, in this case,
> rather than referring to specific releases, because if you refer to
> specific releases you have to go back and edit it each time a new one
> comes out).
> 
> > * How do I tell if I have "KMS problems" or "OpenGL/Mesa problems"?
> > 
> > * How do I tell which applications use OpenGL?
> > 
> > * I assume if you are using OpenGL, you'll always have the command
> > "glxinfo" installed?  If not, readers would need to know how to install
> > it.
> 
> I've made a big revision to the page to hopefully address all of those,
> and a few others, and add some more rigor and consistency. It now has a
> section on identifying issues and a section on what information to
> include, and I added a few other misc things (including a note about not
> filing reports on nvidia or fglrx issues). Following the theme above
> about not mentioning specific releases, I changed the common bugs link
> to go to the page Bugs/Common, which uses a neat mediawiki trick to
> always show you the _current_ common bugs page.
> 
> I think we may need a generic page on adding kernel parameters, if there
> isn't one already. I'll try and write one later.
> 
> > Other than that, the page looks quite understandable.
> 
> I hope I didn't make it worse :)

This is killer stuff guys!  Really nice work :)  You've captured
something above 90% of the X issues testers encountered during Fedora 11
campaign.  I've added a Category to this and similar pages to help me
find these things better.  Hopefully this helps others ... 

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Debugging

Are there any other suggested components to target next?  NetworkManager
and Packagekit were two that spring to mind as an active bug recipients.
Debugging pam issues could be interesting as well.

I'm trying to gather the most reported components from triageweb to get
more insight here ... any other thoughts?

Thanks,
James

-- 
==========================================
 James Laska         -- jlaska at redhat.com
 Quality Engineering -- Red Hat, Inc.
==========================================
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/attachments/20090626/8f5f47e0/attachment.sig>