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

Re: 2009-06-24 - Fedora QA meeting Recap



Thanks for the corrections, I've updated the minutes accordingly.

Thanks,
James

On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 23:08 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 06/24/2009 06:35 PM, James Laska wrote:
> <snip>
> .....
> </snip.. 
> 
> HOLD THE PRESSESS ;) 
> 
> There seems to be a bit miss summation here.. 
> 
> So to get one thing clear this is the problem that we are faced with
> ( taken from my improve_reporting page )
>  
> "Lack of needed information for maintainer(s) to be able to
> successfully work with the report." 
> 
> The reason for the lack of the needed information on a report is in
> most cases simply that the reporter has not a clue what to include in
> the report itself and is not mandatory to provide that information.The
> underlying problem is not the reporter nor the triager which often ask
> the reporter to include wrong information because the triager has no
> better clue what to include in the report so he ask for the most
> common include case ( usually to include /var/log/messages). The
> problem is that the maintainer(s) them self have failed to provide
> this information or has done so only to the reporter on a report
> bases.When a maintainer introduces a component into Fedora it should
> be mandatory for him to provide this information along with how to
> enable debug output and to provide test plans for the component.
> 
> 
> > Viking_ice asked whether the abrt tool could be used to improve bug
> > reporting. 
> > 
> >   
> Hum I never asked if abtr could be used to improve bugs it goes
> without saying that any automated bug reporting tool does as long as
> it works.. 
> I was asking if any one knew how abrt is solving this problem. wwoods
> mentioned that "IIRC they had (or were planning to have) plugins or
> conf files that specify what files to attach"  
> Which does not solve the problem they just pass the burden to the
> maintainer to write that plugin or config file or us and since we need
> to have that info in other places like bugzilla then it's question if
> we should not gather that info from maintainers perhaps file a bug
> against all components in bugzilla and asking the maintainer for that
> info and we then we would write that plugin or config file or abrt
> would fetch the info for that in the same db as bugzilla would? 

> > Viking_ice summarized by saying ''we need to come up with some plans on
> > how to gather the info from maintainers on what they want on their
> > reports on how to get that info from them.'' and pointed to
> > [[User:Johannbg/QA/Kernel]] as an example based on j-rod's suggestion
> > from the Fedora 11 retrospective meeting.
> > 
> >   
> 
> I was not refering to my QA/Kernel in a conjunction with  the above
> problem. 
> I just mentioned that I had also started on
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/QA/Kernelin regards to
> j-rods wish on the F11RR meeting
> 
> > Jlaska suggested having a way to catalog content (e.g. debugging tips,
> > or bug filing tips) for testers to easily find could be a great start.
> > 
> >   
> JBG
> -- 
> fedora-test-list mailing list
> fedora-test-list redhat com
> To unsubscribe: 
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

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]