New QA wikipage in the horizone

[Christopher Beland]

On Sat, 2009-01-24 at 14:37 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Christopher Beland wrote:
> > This page:
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/Draft/QA/QC
> >
> > promises a link to a list of bugs that need testing, but the link seems
> > to be missing?  Such a list would be quite useful...
> >
> > -B.
> >
> >   
> Hum I probably removed it because it has been pointing to an older
> release...
> 
> Could you open a ticket in fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa
> for this issue.

Unfortunately, I cannot.  I do not have a login on that system, and I do
not appear to be able to report anonymously or register for an account.

> It would be also good to get some feedback from you ( Testers )
> on how they feel a wiki page containing all these information
> should look like and what information ye would like it to contain..
> 
> Meanwhile you can pick something that your are familiar with
> and search and select that package  from here.
>  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/bugs/index/a*

I'm not sure why you would want a wiki page and not something that pulls
directly from Bugzilla, if it is only reported bugs that need testing.

This RSS feed:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/NeedsRetesting

seems to simply include bugs that have "NeedsRetesting" in the
Whiteboard field, which it's easy enough to query on through the
advanced search page.  But it looks like there are only a handful of
such bugs in the system, most of them hardware-specific.

Maybe something between "all the open bugs" and "things tagged with
"NeedsRetesting" would be helpful.  The "all the open bugs" screen seems
like the place to start if you are doing intake triage (and there a lot
of "NEW" bugs that could probably benefit from that).  On the other
hand, it might make sense to focus more attention on bugs where a new
version has been released since the initial report, since there's some
hope that the bug would actually have been fixed.  (And if the bug
hasn't been triaged by that point, it probably should be or it might
never.)

A lot of bugs get closed now because the release hits EOL, and the bug
was randomly fixed in a later release without anyone noticing.  So more
frequent testing would in those cases generate some extra work.
Theoretically developers would waste less time trying to reproduce
already-fixed bugs, but wouldn't they also get a lot of "this bug is
still present" messages they wouldn't have time to respond to?  None of
the downside of that testing would happen if we got a report only
including bugs where a developer had manually requested testing.

I'm not sure what exactly would be most helpful.

-B.