lubuntu-qa team mailing list archive

[Walter Lapchynski <wxl@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I have to rely on what I hear from testers, especially when multiple
testers report the same thing:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/debian-installer/+bug/1425681
If you can prove that it is not true, then perhaps that might suggest other
behaviors.

Still, I don't want LVM to be a mandatory testcase. I'm concerned more
about the many. When we have more resources, I'll make it mandatory again
:-)

The old testcase still exists, but I'm not using it. You can find out how
to find them and how to contribute here:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/ContributingTestcases/Manual

@wxl
Lubuntu Release Manager, Head of QA
Ubuntu PPC Point of Contact
Ubuntu Oregon Team Leader
On Feb 26, 2015 10:36 PM, "Nio Wiklund" <nio.wiklund@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Walter,
>
> It is *not* true that LVM only works if you already have LVM set up. It
> works also from a blank drive (with only a partition table created by
> for example gparted, no partitions at all). And it works with Lubuntu
> Vivid 32-bit installed from the desktop as well as from the alternate
> installer. Did you read my test reports?
>
> I can only talk for myself: I can continue to test that Lubuntu works
> with LVM, encrypted disk and encrypted home.
>
> But we would have to rely on someone else to squash bugs encountered
> during the testing. In this particular case we can have a 'plan B', to
> add some extra steps that were not necessary in earlier versions of
> Lubuntu. If you give me access to the text of the previous testcase, I
> can add and modify it to make it useful in the future (either for the
> desktop or the alternate installer). And you can revive it.
>
> You are the QA leader and you can remove or add whatever test cases you
> like. I hope your decisions are the best for Lubuntu.
>
> Best regards
> Nio
>
> Den 2015-02-26 23:34, Walter Lapchynski skrev:
> > Well, at this point it seems LVM only works if you already have LVM
> > set up. This seems to be problematic.
> >
> > Also, it's imperative that we limit our scope in order to not get
> > overwhelmed. We have a small team and can only do so much. The scope I
> > consider appropriate includes packages we can support ourselves or
> > that have good support in the community. Ultimately, this does not
> > apply to debian-installer. However, alternate images are a necessary
> > evil. So then I would limit the scope to what parts of
> > debian-installer are relevant to the average user. Encryption arguably
> > is applicable, but LVM is certainly not.
> >
> > That being said, I'd be happy to include optional testcases (meaning
> > if they fail, the release will not be delayed) for LVM and encryption,
> > but I would want these to be separate.
> >
> > So who wants to make sure the LVM bug gets fixed and the testcases get
> > rewritten? That includes making sure that that equivalent testcases
> > are written for ubiquity (which will also be optional). If someone
> > wants to do the work, I'll set them up on the tracker.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:31 AM, Lars Noodén <lars.nooden@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >> On 26.02.2015 08:36, Nio Wiklund wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> @ Walter: I suggest that we have at least one testcase with LVM,
> >>> encrypted disk and encrypted home. If we cannot keep the one that
> exists
> >>> now for the alternate iso, I suggest that we make one for the desktop
> iso.
> >>> ...
> >>
> >> +1 it is important to be able to offer encryption,
> >> without a test case it might fall to the wayside
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> /Lars
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-qa
> >> Post to     : lubuntu-qa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-qa
> >> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >
> >
> >
>
>