On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 11:44 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 14:29 -0500, James Laska wrote: > > Greetings folks, > > > > Whether you call it a post-mortem, retrospective or lessons learned ... > > the end result is the same. I'd like to collect thoughts on how > > good/bad of a job the QA group did in planning and testing the Fedora 12 > > release. In keeping with the release-wide retrospective from Fedora 11 > > , feel free to share any wishlist items as well. > > > > I've started the discussion on the wiki at > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_12_QA_Retrospective. > > > > Adding your thoughts is easy ... > > * Edit the wiki directly (instructions provided for ~anonymous > > feedback) > > * Or, reply to this mail (I'll collect feedback and add to the > > wiki) > > > > Over the next week, I plan to organize any feedback and discuss the > > highlights during an upcoming QA team meeting. The goal will be to > > prioritize the pain points and use as a basis for defining objectives > > for Fedora 13. > > > > Thanks for your feedback! > > James > > 1) in the end, we focused heavily on just three component areas for > testing: anaconda, kernel, and X.org. This is primarily a function of > the fact that these are the most vital bits; it feels like we're still > at the point of doing 'let's make sure it's not totally broken' testing > than 'let's make sure it's really good' testing. We didn't do stuff like > making sure the desktop was polished. > > 2) there was clearly a lot of uncertainty about RAID issues; it's > something we obviously don't as a team test well enough (and some of us > personally don't understand enough :>). In the end there didn't turn out > to be any horrible issues, but the confusion was evident, and we did > miss the Intel BIOS RAID stuff-ups. For F13 we should have better RAID > testing both in Test Days and in pre-release test cycles. > > 3) We weren't completely on top of X.org bugs for this release. The ones > that wound up getting promoted to release blocker level were kind of an > arbitrary selection. I think we got nouveau mostly right as I had a > reasonable grip on nouveau triage, but we just had too few people to > triage server / intel / ati bugs during the cycle, so when we hit beta / > RC stage, we didn't have the whole bug set well enough triaged to be > able to be sure we picked the most important bugs as blockers. For F13 > we should stay on top of triage better so we can do blocker > identification accurately. happily, matej is more active on X triage > again now and we have some more assistance from Chris Campbell (thank > you Chris!) further volunteers would be great. I will try to stay on top > of nouveau, again. > > 4) we have the big security thing to deal with. I did start a thread on > -devel about that. I gather this goes under the heading "things that could have been better?" When you say 'security thing', do you mean that we don't have a policy or plan to ensure a basic level of security (as your f-devel-list thread raises). Or are there other security aspects from F-12 QA to consider?
Description: This is a digitally signed message part