[T(A)ILS-dev] Testing of 0.6~rc1

Delete this message

Reply to this message
Author: anonym
Date:  
To: The T(A)ILS public development discussion list
Subject: [T(A)ILS-dev] Testing of 0.6~rc1
As requested per irc, in order to prevent duplication of testing (but
see my point below) I now present what I've tested (as far as I can
remember) without having any problems unless otherwise specified:

* NM dispatched htp with incorrect system clock: resulted in bug:
https://amnesia.boum.org/bugs/htp_is_broken_upstream..._I_think/

* Checked that all seems well during init (mostly that all services
seems to start without errors), and that dmesg seems ok: the haveged
init script is broken but this has supposedly been fixed in upstream
which will be introduced to the next release.

* Starting without network connection, and then plugging it in after
some arbitrary time; i.e. checking that the workaround for the following
tor bug works:
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/1247

* Settings up an account in claws; retrieving inbox and sending mails
(and checking that the IP address is not leaked by HELO/EHLO into the
recipients mail header -- no packet sniffing though); checking that
GnuPG/PGP works.

* Generally using iceweasel.

* Generally using pidgin with XMPP/Jabber, IRC, ICQ. Including OTR. I
wonder if it's a good idea to have OTR plugin options "Automatically
initiate private messaging" and "Require private messaging" enabled as
default as they will interfere considerably when chatting with people
using clients without OTR support.

* Doing an apt-get update and installing random packages.

* Booting through VirtualBox with a very standard setup.

* Booting on bare metal (Dell Latitude X1 laptop) through USB (but not
CD as I have no CD-r:s) and connecting to the network using an ipw2000BG
wireless card.


However, I still think there's a point of different people trying to
test the same things as people occasionally do things differently which
can expose edge cases and other erroneous situations that neither the
developers nor the other testers have thought about. This might not
apply to every feature of course, but I think that each list similar to
the above one should inspire others during their tests.

Cheers!