From Fedora Project Wiki

< QA‎ | Meetings

(adding blocker meeting discussion)
(update page with the results of the meeting)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
= Attendees =
= Attendees =
* adamw (118)
* tflink (63)
* Viking-Ice (45)
* jreznik (17)
* kparal (13)
* jskladan (6)
* zodbot (5)
* maxamillion (4)
* mel- (4)
* pschindl (4)
* Southern_Gentlem (2)
* nirik (1)
* mkrizek (1)
* satellit (1)


= Agenda =
= Agenda =
Line 9: Line 23:


== Previous meeting follow-up ==
== Previous meeting follow-up ==
* tflink to ensure some kind of upgrade documentation is ready for beta availability tomorrow
* ''tflink to ensure some kind of upgrade documentation is ready for beta availability tomorrow'' - this was [[FedUp#How_Can_I_Upgrade_My_System_with_FedUp.3F|done]]
* tflink to brief #fedora ops and fedora-user-list regulars on fedup
* ''tflink to brief #fedora ops and fedora-user-list regulars on fedup'' - not done yet, passed to adamw
* adamw to co-ordinate with anaconda team on TC1 date planning
* ''adamw to co-ordinate with anaconda team on TC1 date planning'' - not done yet but planned for same day, TC1 expected to land during the week
* jskladan to review final criteria and test cases for obvious revision candidates
* ''jskladan to review final criteria and test cases for obvious revision candidates'' - passed on to pschindl, he has completed work but needs to send email
* viking-ice or tflink to try and get a fedup design document out of wwoods
* ''viking-ice or tflink to try and get a fedup design document out of wwoods'' - closest thing we have is [http://ohjeezlinux.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/fedup-a-little-background/ this blog post]


== Fedora 18 Final status/planning ==
== Fedora 18 Final status/planning ==
* Beta docs status
* Beta docs: There was a Beta release announcement which mentioned fedup and kparal and adamw worked on commonbugs
* Final: potential sore points, areas that need testing?
* To request a release note for a bug, set fedora_requires_release_note flag to ?
* Potential problem areas: fedup was noted as the big one, jreznik planned to check on it


== Test case / criteria revision ==
== Test case / criteria revision ==
* Check in on recent test case revisions, what else needs doing?
* No new criteria proposals at present, adamw, kparal and pschindl all had some in pipeline


== Blocker Meeting Scheduling and Length ==
== Blocker Meeting Scheduling and Length ==
* There have been some concerns about the length and timing of the blocker review meetings, discuss potential alternatives
* Suggestion of holding meetings at different times to encourage more participation tabled till F19
* Some discussion of an idea of holding more but shorter blocker meetings, no definite decision raised
* In-bug voting generally considered good to reduce blocker meeting burden, but generates BZ spam


== Open floor ==
== Open floor ==
* Enterprise storage to be covered next week
== Action items ==
* adamw to brief #fedora ops and fedora-user-list regulars on fedup
* jreznik to draft a list of required functionality for fedup for Final
* adamw to put 'enterprise storage support in newui' on next week's agenda


== IRC Log ==
== IRC Log ==
{|
|- id="t16:01:56"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #startmeeting Fedora QA meeting
|| [[#t16:01:56|16:01]]
|- id="t16:01:56"
! style="background-color: #42427e" | zodbot
| style="color: #42427e" | Meeting started Mon Dec  3 16:01:56 2012 UTC.  The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
|| [[#t16:01:56|16:01]]
|- id="t16:01:56"
! style="background-color: #42427e" | zodbot
| style="color: #42427e" | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
|| [[#t16:01:56|16:01]]
|- id="t16:02:00"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #meetingname fedora-qa
|| [[#t16:02:00|16:02]]
|- id="t16:02:00"
! style="background-color: #42427e" | zodbot
| style="color: #42427e" | The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa'
|| [[#t16:02:00|16:02]]
|- id="t16:02:03"
! style="background-color: #818144" | jreznik
| style="color: #818144" | and a good afternoon/evening for the rest :)
|| [[#t16:02:03|16:02]]
|- id="t16:02:04"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #topic roll call
|| [[#t16:02:04|16:02]]
|- id="t16:02:06"
| colspan="2" | * kparal still here
|| [[#t16:02:06|16:02]]
|- id="t16:02:09"
| colspan="2" | * mkrizek is here
|| [[#t16:02:09|16:02]]
|- id="t16:02:11"
| colspan="2" | * tflink is here
|| [[#t16:02:11|16:02]]
|- id="t16:02:12"
| colspan="2" | * pschindl is here
|| [[#t16:02:12|16:02]]
|- id="t16:02:16"
| colspan="2" | * jreznik is here
|| [[#t16:02:16|16:02]]
|- id="t16:02:44"
| colspan="2" | * nirik is lurking, ping if needed.
|| [[#t16:02:44|16:02]]
|- id="t16:02:53"
| colspan="2" | * jskladan still lurks
|| [[#t16:02:53|16:02]]
|- id="t16:03:37"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | morning everyone
|| [[#t16:03:37|16:03]]
|- id="t16:04:19"
| colspan="2" | * maxamillion is here
|| [[#t16:04:19|16:04]]
|- id="t16:04:53"
| colspan="2" | * Viking-Ice fetches coffee
|| [[#t16:04:53|16:04]]
|- id="t16:05:20"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #topic previous meeting follow-up
|| [[#t16:05:20|16:05]]
|- id="t16:05:24"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | oooh. coffee. good idea.
|| [[#t16:05:24|16:05]]
|- id="t16:05:32"
! style="background-color: #854685" | maxamillion
| style="color: #854685" | +1
|| [[#t16:05:32|16:05]]
|- id="t16:05:34"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | so we have a giant pile of stuff here
|| [[#t16:05:34|16:05]]
|- id="t16:05:40"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | "tflink to ensure some kind of upgrade documentation is ready for beta availability tomorrow"
|| [[#t16:05:40|16:05]]
|- id="t16:05:45"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | i believe that got done?
|| [[#t16:05:45|16:05]]
|- id="t16:06:31"
| colspan="2" | * jreznik thinks so too
|| [[#t16:06:31|16:06]]
|- id="t16:07:09"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | I'm starting to get a bit worried upgrading encrypted partitions
|| [[#t16:07:09|16:07]]
|- id="t16:07:18"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | yeah, it got mostly done
|| [[#t16:07:18|16:07]]
|- id="t16:07:36"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | mean upgrading + encrypted partitions
|| [[#t16:07:36|16:07]]
|- id="t16:07:37"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | done enough for beta, anyways
|| [[#t16:07:37|16:07]]
|- id="t16:07:57"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | Viking-Ice: yeah, I want to give that a test - it sounds like there may be dragons in there
|| [[#t16:07:57|16:07]]
|- id="t16:08:20"
! style="background-color: #4b904b" | kparal
| style="color: #4b904b" | I didn't see any problems except for the timeout
|| [[#t16:08:20|16:08]]
|- id="t16:08:24"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #info this was done - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedUp#How_Can_I_Upgrade_My_System_with_FedUp.3F
|| [[#t16:08:24|16:08]]
|- id="t16:08:31"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | gr
|| [[#t16:08:31|16:08]]
|- id="t16:08:32"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #undo
|| [[#t16:08:32|16:08]]
|- id="t16:08:32"
! style="background-color: #42427e" | zodbot
| style="color: #42427e" | Removing item from minutes: &lt;MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x2b6039d0&gt;
|| [[#t16:08:32|16:08]]
|- id="t16:08:38"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #chair kparal tflink viking-ice
|| [[#t16:08:38|16:08]]
|- id="t16:08:38"
! style="background-color: #42427e" | zodbot
| style="color: #42427e" | Current chairs: adamw kparal tflink viking-ice
|| [[#t16:08:38|16:08]]
|- id="t16:08:52"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #info "tflink to ensure some kind of upgrade documentation is ready for beta availability tomorrow" - this was done: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedUp#How_Can_I_Upgrade_My_System_with_FedUp.3F
|| [[#t16:08:52|16:08]]
|- id="t16:08:58"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | there are some issues with the release notes, but I think those are getting taken care of
|| [[#t16:08:58|16:08]]
|- id="t16:09:07"
| colspan="2" | * tflink will check on that
|| [[#t16:09:07|16:09]]
|- id="t16:09:14"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | "tflink to brief #fedora ops and fedora-user-list regulars on fedup" - did that happen?
|| [[#t16:09:14|16:09]]
|- id="t16:09:54"
| colspan="2" | * satellit late and listening
|| [[#t16:09:54|16:09]]
|- id="t16:09:57"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | not so much and it shows - it looks like many people are using old instructions for testing
|| [[#t16:09:57|16:09]]
|- id="t16:10:27"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | okay
|| [[#t16:10:27|16:10]]
|- id="t16:10:31"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | do you want to take it again or should I?
|| [[#t16:10:31|16:10]]
|- id="t16:10:35"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | or anyone else?
|| [[#t16:10:35|16:10]]
|- id="t16:10:51"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | either way, I'm not so sure who the best people to ping are
|| [[#t16:10:51|16:10]]
|- id="t16:11:34"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | kparal, the timeout issue is present in current GA afaik ( unless it has been fixed have not tested it recently ) just wait entering the password for let's say 5 minutes ( cant remember what the default is ) and you get dropped to systemd shell
|| [[#t16:11:34|16:11]]
|- id="t16:11:54"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | I think that's known, though
|| [[#t16:11:54|16:11]]
|- id="t16:11:59"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | there are multiple bugs filed about it
|| [[#t16:11:59|16:11]]
|- id="t16:12:16"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | yeah, one for dracut and one for systemd.
|| [[#t16:12:16|16:12]]
|- id="t16:12:25"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | two for systemd, I think
|| [[#t16:12:25|16:12]]
|- id="t16:12:26"
! style="background-color: #4b904b" | kparal
| style="color: #4b904b" | Viking-Ice: it's present in Beta, yes. and the timeout is much shorter, I think 1-2 minutes
|| [[#t16:12:26|16:12]]
|- id="t16:12:26"
! style="background-color: #818144" | jreznik
| style="color: #818144" | that's #881670 at least
|| [[#t16:12:26|16:12]]
|- id="t16:12:30"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #info "tflink to brief #fedora ops and fedora-user-list regulars on fedup" - this was not done yet
|| [[#t16:12:30|16:12]]
|- id="t16:12:30"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | one for regular, one for fedup
|| [[#t16:12:30|16:12]]
|- id="t16:12:38"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #action adamw to brief #fedora ops and fedora-user-list regulars on fedup
|| [[#t16:12:38|16:12]]
|- id="t16:12:51"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | it shouldn't cause problems that aren't workaround-able by rebooting, though
|| [[#t16:12:51|16:12]]
|- id="t16:12:53"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | it's a bug party!
|| [[#t16:12:53|16:12]]
|- id="t16:12:58"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | the problem with fedup is that people start upgrade and go doing something else
|| [[#t16:12:58|16:12]]
|- id="t16:13:06"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | "adamw to co-ordinate with anaconda team on TC1 date planning" - yeah, so, oops.
|| [[#t16:13:06|16:13]]
|- id="t16:13:24"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | dgilmore just poked me about this this morning, so i guess we'll work it out after the meeting. but we probably should start doing TCs this week. any objections to that?
|| [[#t16:13:24|16:13]]
|- id="t16:13:35"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | none here
|| [[#t16:13:35|16:13]]
|- id="t16:13:43"
| colspan="2" | * jreznik is ok with TCs this week
|| [[#t16:13:43|16:13]]
|- id="t16:13:48"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | not the more the merrier  ;)
|| [[#t16:13:48|16:13]]
|- id="t16:13:52"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | mean no
|| [[#t16:13:52|16:13]]
|- id="t16:15:15"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #info "adamw to co-ordinate with anaconda team on TC1 date planning" - not done yet, will do today, TCs likely to land this week
|| [[#t16:15:15|16:15]]
|- id="t16:15:31"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | "jskladan to review final criteria and test cases for obvious revision candidates"
|| [[#t16:15:31|16:15]]
|- id="t16:15:36"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | jskladan?
|| [[#t16:15:36|16:15]]
|- id="t16:15:59"
| colspan="2" | * jskladan is skilled in delegation
|| [[#t16:15:59|16:15]]
|- id="t16:16:10"
! style="background-color: #4d4d93" | jskladan
| style="color: #4d4d93" | pschindl did it
|| [[#t16:16:10|16:16]]
|- id="t16:16:15"
! style="background-color: #97974f" | pschindl
| style="color: #97974f" | adamw: I did it, but haven't yet sent the mail
|| [[#t16:16:15|16:16]]
|- id="t16:16:19"
! style="background-color: #4d4d93" | jskladan
| style="color: #4d4d93" | he just needs to send the email IMHO
|| [[#t16:16:19|16:16]]
|- id="t16:16:44"
! style="background-color: #97974f" | pschindl
| style="color: #97974f" | I'm going to send it after this meeting
|| [[#t16:16:44|16:16]]
|- id="t16:16:44"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | damnit, petr, stop slacking on jskladan's work ;)
|| [[#t16:16:44|16:16]]
|- id="t16:16:51"
! style="background-color: #97974f" | pschindl
| style="color: #97974f" | :)
|| [[#t16:16:51|16:16]]
|- id="t16:17:13"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #info "jskladan to review final criteria and test cases for obvious revision candidates" - passed on to pschindl, he has completed work but needs to send email
|| [[#t16:17:13|16:17]]
|- id="t16:17:50"
| colspan="2" | * jskladan is good at training up good interns ;)
|| [[#t16:17:50|16:17]]
|- id="t16:18:10"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | or slacking off, depends on how you look at it :-P
|| [[#t16:18:10|16:18]]
|- id="t16:18:12"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | truly, you are on the road to project colada
|| [[#t16:18:12|16:18]]
|- id="t16:18:29"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #info "viking-ice or tflink to try and get a fedup design document out of wwoods" - speaking of projects, how is bloodfromastone going?
|| [[#t16:18:29|16:18]]
|- id="t16:18:38"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | alternatively: project excalibur
|| [[#t16:18:38|16:18]]
|- id="t16:18:48"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | not a whole lot of change as of late
|| [[#t16:18:48|16:18]]
|- id="t16:19:05"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | we need booze lot of booze to get that information
|| [[#t16:19:05|16:19]]
|- id="t16:19:08"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | someone from design (I don't remember who off the top of my head) has started to look @ the gui for gedup-client
|| [[#t16:19:08|16:19]]
|- id="t16:19:32"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | not the cheap stuff I might add ;)
|| [[#t16:19:32|16:19]]
|- id="t16:19:55"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | as far as a design document goes, the current "design document" is ... (searching for a link)
|| [[#t16:19:55|16:19]]
|- id="t16:20:13"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | http://ohjeezlinux.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/fedup-a-little-background/
|| [[#t16:20:13|16:20]]
|- id="t16:20:42"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #info "viking-ice or tflink to try and get a fedup design document out of wwoods" - currently rejoicing in the title of 'design document' is http://ohjeezlinux.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/fedup-a-little-background/
|| [[#t16:20:42|16:20]]
|- id="t16:20:42"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | there has been some initial work to change mirror manager such that --instrepo won't be required anymore and the .treeinfo will be signed
|| [[#t16:20:42|16:20]]
|- id="t16:21:43"
| colspan="2" | * tflink is a little behind on fedup bugs right now - too much blocker bug happy fun time
|| [[#t16:21:43|16:21]]
|- id="t16:21:49"
! style="background-color: #818144" | jreznik
| style="color: #818144" | btw do we have a list of required work that has to be done for fedup for final?
|| [[#t16:21:49|16:21]]
|- id="t16:21:57"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | nothing official, no
|| [[#t16:21:57|16:21]]
|- id="t16:22:30"
| colspan="2" | * jreznik will start working on it as we really need it (and also opinion from FESCo what they require for final - gui is known...)
|| [[#t16:22:30|16:22]]
|- id="t16:22:49"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | sounds like a plan
|| [[#t16:22:49|16:22]]
|- id="t16:22:50"
! style="background-color: #818144" | jreznik
| style="color: #818144" | to avoid late surprises...
|| [[#t16:22:50|16:22]]
|- id="t16:22:58"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #action jreznik to draft a list of required functionality for fedup for Final
|| [[#t16:22:58|16:22]]
|- id="t16:23:05"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | fffff
|| [[#t16:23:05|16:23]]
|- id="t16:23:19"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | okely dokely
|| [[#t16:23:19|16:23]]
|- id="t16:23:21"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #topic Fedora 18 Final status/planning
|| [[#t16:23:21|16:23]]
|- id="t16:23:35"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | jreznik: late surprises? we never get those :)
|| [[#t16:23:35|16:23]]
|- id="t16:23:43"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | not sure what tflink meant by 'beta docs status'?
|| [[#t16:23:43|16:23]]
|- id="t16:23:55"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | we have a release announcement which mentioned fedup (yay) and kparal and I worked on commonbugs
|| [[#t16:23:55|16:23]]
|- id="t16:24:11"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | followup from last week to make sure we got everything
|| [[#t16:24:11|16:24]]
|- id="t16:24:45"
! style="background-color: #818144" | jreznik
| style="color: #818144" | adamw: thanks for help with the announcement!
|| [[#t16:24:45|16:24]]
|- id="t16:25:20"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | at some point, we might want to think about coordinating better with docs about release notes - there was a mention of a bz flag for highlighting issues but that doesn't need to happen today
|| [[#t16:25:20|16:25]]
|- id="t16:25:28"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | better/differently
|| [[#t16:25:28|16:25]]
|- id="t16:26:34"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | yeah, there is one, i kinda assume people know about it, but maybe not.
|| [[#t16:26:34|16:26]]
|- id="t16:26:37"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | i use it now and again.
|| [[#t16:26:37|16:26]]
|- id="t16:26:50"
| colspan="2" | * tflink had never heard of it before that devel@ thread
|| [[#t16:26:50|16:26]]
|- id="t16:27:21"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | welp, the 'fedora_requires_release_note' flag is it, folks.
|| [[#t16:27:21|16:27]]
|- id="t16:27:30"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | i think you set it to ? .
|| [[#t16:27:30|16:27]]
|- id="t16:31:09"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | okay, the other thing was "Final: potential sore points, areas that need testing?", which i guess we've kind of been covering :)
|| [[#t16:31:09|16:31]]
|- id="t16:31:13"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | anything else we didn't cover yet?
|| [[#t16:31:13|16:31]]
|- id="t16:32:04"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | bootup + black screen
|| [[#t16:32:04|16:32]]
|- id="t16:32:05"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | fedup is mostly what I'm worried about
|| [[#t16:32:05|16:32]]
|- id="t16:32:44"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | I think I saw people mentioning that it was not only happening with the ati drivers
|| [[#t16:32:44|16:32]]
|- id="t16:33:41"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | i'm free of it with 3.7 rc kernels
|| [[#t16:33:41|16:33]]
|- id="t16:34:36"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | Viking-Ice: well, i mean, as i explained in a mail, 'it boots to a black screen' is one of the most generic symptoms we *have*.
|| [[#t16:34:36|16:34]]
|- id="t16:34:58"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | a few people seeing that alone doesn't tell us much useful - could be five different bugs.
|| [[#t16:34:58|16:34]]
|- id="t16:35:17"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | yeah they need to ssh into the machine and grap the log
|| [[#t16:35:17|16:35]]
|- id="t16:36:57"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | adamw, anyway I dont think those are 5 different bugs thou I think they all relate to that grub gfxpayloud stuff that we changed between releases
|| [[#t16:36:57|16:36]]
|- id="t16:38:13"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | what changed there?
|| [[#t16:38:13|16:38]]
|- id="t16:38:16"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | don't think i'm up on that one
|| [[#t16:38:16|16:38]]
|- id="t16:39:32"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | the gfxpayload settings
|| [[#t16:39:32|16:39]]
|- id="t16:39:42"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | i mean, what changed specifically
|| [[#t16:39:42|16:39]]
|- id="t16:40:05"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | or are you just talking about that we put in the theming for grub2?
|| [[#t16:40:05|16:40]]
|- id="t16:40:14"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | we were modesetting in f17, i think, but without theming
|| [[#t16:40:14|16:40]]
|- id="t16:40:40"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | I thought that there was a theme in F17 but it might have been added post-release
|| [[#t16:40:40|16:40]]
|- id="t16:42:11"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | okay, anyhow, in general: if we have people hitting black screens, we need more data.
|| [[#t16:42:11|16:42]]
|- id="t16:44:05"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | hm looks like I never mentioned that on the bug report
|| [[#t16:44:05|16:44]]
|- id="t16:44:19"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | well I mentioned it to airlied
|| [[#t16:44:19|16:44]]
|- id="t16:45:17"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | in anycase the "it boots to a black screen" is a regression in my case
|| [[#t16:45:17|16:45]]
|- id="t16:45:49"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | oh, you're hitting it yourself? well, should be easy enough to mess with the grub config and see if that fixes it?
|| [[#t16:45:49|16:45]]
|- id="t16:45:51"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | F16/F17 ( and pre 3.6 kernel ) worked just fine
|| [[#t16:45:51|16:45]]
|- id="t16:46:00"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | adamw, I know it fixes it
|| [[#t16:46:00|16:46]]
|- id="t16:46:09"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | well removing that line atleast does
|| [[#t16:46:09|16:46]]
|- id="t16:46:22"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | ah, okay.
|| [[#t16:46:22|16:46]]
|- id="t16:46:37"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | well, if it looks like other people have the same problem, elevate it to proposed blocker...
|| [[#t16:46:37|16:46]]
|- id="t16:47:24"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | moving on, in the interests of time
|| [[#t16:47:24|16:47]]
|- id="t16:47:29"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #topic Test case / criteria revision
|| [[#t16:47:29|16:47]]
|- id="t16:47:39"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | do we have much here?
|| [[#t16:47:39|16:47]]
|- id="t16:47:48"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | i don't see any proposals since memory test
|| [[#t16:47:48|16:47]]
|- id="t16:47:55"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | i'm still not getting to the partitioning criteria :(
|| [[#t16:47:55|16:47]]
|- id="t16:48:38"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | it sounds like we're waiting a bit on petr's email
|| [[#t16:48:38|16:48]]
|- id="t16:48:54"
| colspan="2" | * kparal didn't manage to write up the kickstart proposal
|| [[#t16:48:54|16:48]]
|- id="t16:49:11"
! style="background-color: #4b904b" | kparal
| style="color: #4b904b" | somewhere in the queue
|| [[#t16:49:11|16:49]]
|- id="t16:49:43"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #info no new criteria proposals at present, adamw, kparal and pschindl all have some in pipeline
|| [[#t16:49:43|16:49]]
|- id="t16:51:31"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #topic Blocker Meeting Scheduling and Length
|| [[#t16:51:31|16:51]]
|- id="t16:51:39"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | tflink, want to take this one?
|| [[#t16:51:39|16:51]]
|- id="t16:53:13"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | sure
|| [[#t16:53:13|16:53]]
|- id="t16:53:29"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | there have been some complaints/suggestions around the blocker meetings recently
|| [[#t16:53:29|16:53]]
|- id="t16:54:02"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | one was the time is inconvenient for some people and it might better to not always use the same time if we want more participation
|| [[#t16:54:02|16:54]]
|- id="t16:54:18"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | which may be true, but I'm tempted to leave that one alone for now
|| [[#t16:54:18|16:54]]
|- id="t16:54:39"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | ie, leave the discussion around that for post-f18
|| [[#t16:54:39|16:54]]
|- id="t16:54:46"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | the other is about frequency and duration
|| [[#t16:54:46|16:54]]
|- id="t16:55:19"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | any thoughts on whether the current format of 3 hour meetings at least once a week vs. 1 hour meetings several times per week?
|| [[#t16:55:19|16:55]]
|- id="t16:55:44"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | i prefer getting it done in one go
|| [[#t16:55:44|16:55]]
|- id="t16:55:52"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | there's quite a bit of 'overhead' which gets multiplied with multiple meetings
|| [[#t16:55:52|16:55]]
|- id="t16:55:59"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | yeah, but we tend to lose people after a while
|| [[#t16:55:59|16:55]]
|- id="t16:56:03"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | obviously, though, 3x3 hour meetings is the worst of the worst :)
|| [[#t16:56:03|16:56]]
|- id="t16:56:13"
! style="background-color: #4d4d93" | jskladan
| style="color: #4d4d93" | ^ :)
|| [[#t16:56:13|16:56]]
|- id="t16:56:16"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | dont we have criteria that hits "* Put advanced storage (filtering, multipath/iscsi/zfcp dialogs) back in." item ( from post-f18 newui TODO on anaconda list )
|| [[#t16:56:16|16:56]]
|- id="t16:56:16"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | is anaconda in f18 in good shape for "enterprise storage"
|| [[#t16:56:16|16:56]]
|- id="t16:56:18"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | ?
|| [[#t16:56:18|16:56]]
|- id="t16:56:24"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | ?
|| [[#t16:56:24|16:56]]
|- id="t16:56:24"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | dont we have criteria that hits "* Put advanced storage (filtering, multipath/iscsi/zfcp dialogs) back in." item ( from post-f18 newui TODO on anaconda list )
|| [[#t16:56:24|16:56]]
|- id="t16:56:25"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | is anaconda in f18 in good shape for "enterprise storage"
|| [[#t16:56:25|16:56]]
|- id="t16:56:27"
! style="background-color: #818144" | jreznik
| style="color: #818144" | but seriously - is that even possible? looking on proposed blocker bugs list?
|| [[#t16:56:27|16:56]]
|- id="t16:57:13"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | adamw, do you have any clue on the enterprise storage part of anaconda
|| [[#t16:57:13|16:57]]
|- id="t16:57:16"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | yeah, I don't think anyone likes the current method
|| [[#t16:57:16|16:57]]
|- id="t16:57:22"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | Viking-Ice: that seems to be a bit off topic
|| [[#t16:57:22|16:57]]
|- id="t16:57:39"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | you where speaking of the criteria to begin with
|| [[#t16:57:39|16:57]]
|- id="t16:57:48"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | but installing to iSCSI, FC, FCoE etc. is not in F18, will return in F19 IIUC
|| [[#t16:57:48|16:57]]
|- id="t16:58:00"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | I was?
|| [[#t16:58:00|16:58]]
|- id="t16:58:06"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | Viking-Ice: like half an hour ago?
|| [[#t16:58:06|16:58]]
|- id="t16:58:29"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | so we tried this thing this week where tflink categorized the bugs for on-bug voting
|| [[#t16:58:29|16:58]]
|- id="t16:58:32"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | what did everyone think about that?
|| [[#t16:58:32|16:58]]
|- id="t16:58:32"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | adamw,  more like 10 minutes
|| [[#t16:58:32|16:58]]
|- id="t16:58:47"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | and I'm the actual one that was proposing we go for one hour meetings
|| [[#t16:58:47|16:58]]
|- id="t16:58:48"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | Viking-Ice: still, we moved on to a new topic since then...there's always open floor if you want to bring up something from before
|| [[#t16:58:48|16:58]]
|- id="t16:58:52"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | otherwise we just get confused
|| [[#t16:58:52|16:58]]
|- id="t16:58:56"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | adamw aha
|| [[#t16:58:56|16:58]]
|- id="t16:59:00"
| colspan="2" | * maxamillion is almost always confused anyways
|| [[#t16:59:00|16:59]]
|- id="t16:59:04"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | =)
|| [[#t16:59:04|16:59]]
|- id="t16:59:11"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | more frequently
|| [[#t16:59:11|16:59]]
|- id="t16:59:24"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | Viking-Ice: since we're discussing the length of blocker meetings now, talking about enterprise storage criteria seems a bit out of place :)
|| [[#t16:59:24|16:59]]
|- id="t16:59:32"
| colspan="2" | * maxamillion is just getting worse at multi tasking ... $day_job is more busy than $old_day_job
|| [[#t16:59:32|16:59]]
|- id="t16:59:42"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | adamw,  you weren't when I asked those questions
|| [[#t16:59:42|16:59]]
|- id="t16:59:53"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | you conveniently ignored it
|| [[#t16:59:53|16:59]]
|- id="t17:00:09"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | Viking-Ice: er - i set the topic at xx:51 to "Blocker Meeting Scheduling and Length"
|| [[#t17:00:09|17:00]]
|- id="t17:00:16"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | you asked your questions at xx:56
|| [[#t17:00:16|17:00]]
|- id="t17:00:26"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | after there had already been several minutes of discussion on the blocker meeting length topic
|| [[#t17:00:26|17:00]]
|- id="t17:00:32"
! style="background-color: #9b519b" | Southern_Gentlem
| style="color: #9b519b" | move on and deal with this later
|| [[#t17:00:32|17:00]]
|- id="t17:00:37"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | yep
|| [[#t17:00:37|17:00]]
|- id="t17:00:39"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | adamw,  no I re-asked those question at that time
|| [[#t17:00:39|17:00]]
|- id="t17:00:52"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | the blocker meeting is supposed to be starting soon
|| [[#t17:00:52|17:00]]
|- id="t17:01:04"
! style="background-color: #4b904b" | kparal
| style="color: #4b904b" | (now)
|| [[#t17:01:04|17:01]]
|- id="t17:01:11"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | yeah I proposed for 3x1 hour or 5x1 meeting instead of 3 hours meeting
|| [[#t17:01:11|17:01]]
|- id="t17:01:20"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | Viking-Ice: oh. i never got the originals. maybe they were affected by that netsplit i see in the history. sorry
|| [[#t17:01:20|17:01]]
|- id="t17:01:41"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | I didn't see them either
|| [[#t17:01:41|17:01]]
|- id="t17:01:54"
| colspan="2" | * jreznik does not have that question neither...
|| [[#t17:01:54|17:01]]
|- id="t17:01:57"
! style="background-color: #9b519b" | Southern_Gentlem
| style="color: #9b519b" | perfer we dont have that many blockers so 1 -1 hr meeting can deal
|| [[#t17:01:57|17:01]]
|- id="t17:02:44"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | that's obviously the best
|| [[#t17:02:44|17:02]]
|- id="t17:02:56"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | but it seems unrealistic
|| [[#t17:02:56|17:02]]
|- id="t17:03:08"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | especially right now
|| [[#t17:03:08|17:03]]
|- id="t17:03:12"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | how can we have such a low blocker count without evaluating proposed blockers and rejecting some? which is...what we do in the meeting? :)
|| [[#t17:03:12|17:03]]
|- id="t17:04:03"
! style="background-color: #818144" | jreznik
| style="color: #818144" | clean-up in tickets should help a little - /me voted in several bugs today
|| [[#t17:04:03|17:04]]
|- id="t17:04:18"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | yeah, i think that was a good idea
|| [[#t17:04:18|17:04]]
|- id="t17:04:34"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | is anyone worried about covering at least 'obvious' bugs with in-bug voting?
|| [[#t17:04:34|17:04]]
|- id="t17:04:41"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | it seems like the best way to reduce the load a little
|| [[#t17:04:41|17:04]]
|- id="t17:04:42"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | yeah, I need to go through and modify the ones that have enough -1s or +1s
|| [[#t17:04:42|17:04]]
|- id="t17:04:49"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | ah, i was about to ask if you'd done that
|| [[#t17:04:49|17:04]]
|- id="t17:05:15"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | I'm making the list for today's meeting from bugs that weren't on the 'more obvious' list
|| [[#t17:05:15|17:05]]
|- id="t17:05:22"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | we have enough to go through that it shouldn't be an issue
|| [[#t17:05:22|17:05]]
|- id="t17:05:24"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | sounds good
|| [[#t17:05:24|17:05]]
|- id="t17:05:46"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | shall we take a vote on the 'many short meetings' proposal?
|| [[#t17:05:46|17:05]]
|- id="t17:05:50"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | or more discussion on it?
|| [[#t17:05:50|17:05]]
|- id="t17:06:15"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | should we have it 1 hour or 1 and half hour
|| [[#t17:06:15|17:06]]
|- id="t17:06:18"
! style="background-color: #4b904b" | kparal
| style="color: #4b904b" | if the obvious list is compiled by someone and sent to the list, I'm OK. just going randomly though blocker list doesn't seem great
|| [[#t17:06:18|17:06]]
|- id="t17:06:21"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | ( takes 10 minutes to start )
|| [[#t17:06:21|17:06]]
|- id="t17:06:32"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | kparal: I sent the list out to test@ on friday
|| [[#t17:06:32|17:06]]
|- id="t17:06:39"
! style="background-color: #4b904b" | kparal
| style="color: #4b904b" | tflink: yeah, I know
|| [[#t17:06:39|17:06]]
|- id="t17:06:46"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | ok, you meant in general
|| [[#t17:06:46|17:06]]
|- id="t17:06:48"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | right, you're saying it should always be done that way, make it a process?
|| [[#t17:06:48|17:06]]
|- id="t17:07:02"
! style="background-color: #4b904b" | kparal
| style="color: #4b904b" | yes, something like that
|| [[#t17:07:02|17:07]]
|- id="t17:07:22"
! style="background-color: #4b904b" | kparal
| style="color: #4b904b" | it's better to have a list of obvious blockers, and then people can vote in the bugzilla or say "no this is not obvious"
|| [[#t17:07:22|17:07]]
|- id="t17:07:26"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | maybe we should have some kind of threshold at which the 'formal on-bug voting' process kicks in - &gt;20 proposed blockers or something
|| [[#t17:07:26|17:07]]
|- id="t17:07:50"
! style="background-color: #4b904b" | kparal
| style="color: #4b904b" | if we don't have the list, each person have a different opinion what is obvious
|| [[#t17:07:50|17:07]]
|- id="t17:08:05"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | sure
|| [[#t17:08:05|17:08]]
|- id="t17:08:08"
! style="background-color: #818144" | jreznik
| style="color: #818144" | kparal: but you can still vote and other people can say no
|| [[#t17:08:08|17:08]]
|- id="t17:08:09"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | yeah, but I think that's a bit unavoidable for now
|| [[#t17:08:09|17:08]]
|- id="t17:08:22"
! style="background-color: #4b904b" | kparal
| style="color: #4b904b" | jreznik: without the list I don't know they voted
|| [[#t17:08:22|17:08]]
|- id="t17:08:28"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | Viking-Ice: i'd prefer 1.5 to 1, yeah, the 10 minute overhead is significant
|| [[#t17:08:28|17:08]]
|- id="t17:08:51"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | the point of going through and doing some sorting is to reduce the number of bugs to discuss in meetings - I don't see a way to do that without one person doing the initial sorting
|| [[#t17:08:51|17:08]]
|- id="t17:09:07"
! style="background-color: #818144" | jreznik
| style="color: #818144" | would it be possible to parse the bug for "-1/+1 blocker" in the current blocker bug list and show it?
|| [[#t17:09:07|17:09]]
|- id="t17:09:08"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | which is unavoidably biased to a certain point
|| [[#t17:09:08|17:09]]
|- id="t17:09:09"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | so try 3x1.5 ( monday/wednesday/friday )
|| [[#t17:09:09|17:09]]
|- id="t17:09:27"
! style="background-color: #818144" | jreznik
| style="color: #818144" | tflink: but yeha, someone has to do the initial sort
|| [[#t17:09:27|17:09]]
|- id="t17:10:04"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | jreznik: yeah, that wouldn't be too hard in principle - the hard part is making sure to catch all the minor variations in +/-1
|| [[#t17:10:04|17:10]]
|- id="t17:10:47"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | it might be interesting to add some support for flagging "obvious" bugs in the tracker app
|| [[#t17:10:47|17:10]]
|- id="t17:10:58"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | but there is no way I'm going to get to that until after F18
|| [[#t17:10:58|17:10]]
|- id="t17:11:00"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | okay, so sounds like we're broadly on board with the in-bug voting, i'm not hearing much discussion of 'multiple short meetings'
|| [[#t17:11:00|17:11]]
|- id="t17:11:03"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | and we're 10 minutes over time
|| [[#t17:11:03|17:11]]
|- id="t17:11:43"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | I think it's an interesting idea but I also think we need to get through the monster list sooner than later
|| [[#t17:11:43|17:11]]
|- id="t17:11:49"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | so should we discuss in-bug the gray area we might be hitting
|| [[#t17:11:49|17:11]]
|- id="t17:12:15"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | so for now, I'm -1 on the idea of shorter meetings
|| [[#t17:12:15|17:12]]
|- id="t17:12:44"
| colspan="2" | * tflink emphasizes "for now" as in at least until we get through the initial list
|| [[#t17:12:44|17:12]]
|- id="t17:12:53"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | I'm not so sure that maintainers will be happy about the bug spam we introduce by voting in the bugs themselves
|| [[#t17:12:53|17:12]]
|- id="t17:12:57"
| colspan="2" | * adamw is +/-0 - personally i prefer longer-but-fewer, but i certainly acknowledge the problem of losing people as the meetings go on
|| [[#t17:12:57|17:12]]
|- id="t17:13:07"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | Viking-Ice: that's a good point, actually, hadn't thought of that
|| [[#t17:13:07|17:13]]
|- id="t17:13:11"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | maybe we should check on devel@
|| [[#t17:13:11|17:13]]
|- id="t17:13:22"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #info viking-ice points out that a drawback of in-bug voting is bugzilla spam
|| [[#t17:13:22|17:13]]
|- id="t17:13:40"
! style="background-color: #818144" | jreznik
| style="color: #818144" | let's go through the current list and we will see how many left - we can be flexible
|| [[#t17:13:40|17:13]]
|- id="t17:13:49"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #info aside from that, general support for in-bug voting on 'obvious' blockers when the blocker count is high, but it should be a defined process
|| [[#t17:13:49|17:13]]
|- id="t17:14:24"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #info no-one seems to have strong feelings either way on the multiple-short-meetings plan, but we don't have time to thrash it out further today
|| [[#t17:14:24|17:14]]
|- id="t17:14:49"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | I think that the blocker process could use some work, but that doesn't help for now
|| [[#t17:14:49|17:14]]
|- id="t17:14:51"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | anyone want to take an action item for considering a formal in-bug-review process further?
|| [[#t17:14:51|17:14]]
|- id="t17:15:10"
! style="background-color: #8c4a4a" | tflink
| style="color: #8c4a4a" | I'm not against the idea, but I don't really want to do it right now
|| [[#t17:15:10|17:15]]
|- id="t17:15:22"
| colspan="2" | * tflink won't stop anyone else from doing it, though
|| [[#t17:15:22|17:15]]
|- id="t17:15:50"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | i guess everyone's a bit overloaded at present
|| [[#t17:15:50|17:15]]
|- id="t17:16:02"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | let's go on to open floor so we can discuss viking's missed question and get to blocker review
|| [[#t17:16:02|17:16]]
|- id="t17:16:05"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #topic open floor
|| [[#t17:16:05|17:16]]
|- id="t17:16:05"
! style="background-color: #4b904b" | kparal
| style="color: #4b904b" | I'm not really against in-bug voting, but I really like meeting voting more
|| [[#t17:16:05|17:16]]
|- id="t17:16:16"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | Viking-Ice: sorry your criteria question got missed earlier, what was it again?
|| [[#t17:16:16|17:16]]
|- id="t17:17:05"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | adamw, let's just add enterprise storage support in anaconda ( if any ) to next meeting item and start working on the blocker bugs
|| [[#t17:17:05|17:17]]
|- id="t17:17:12"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | okay
|| [[#t17:17:12|17:17]]
|- id="t17:17:29"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #info viking-ice is concerned about storage support in newUI but meeting has overrun so we'll cover it next week
|| [[#t17:17:29|17:17]]
|- id="t17:17:45"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #action adamw to put 'enterprise storage support in newui' on next week's agenda
|| [[#t17:17:45|17:17]]
|- id="t17:17:46"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | *enterprise*
|| [[#t17:17:46|17:17]]
|- id="t17:17:51"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | yeah, got it in the action item :)
|| [[#t17:17:51|17:17]]
|- id="t17:17:57"
! style="background-color: #488888" | Viking-Ice
| style="color: #488888" | ;)
|| [[#t17:17:57|17:17]]
|- id="t17:18:01"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | anything else for open floor?
|| [[#t17:18:01|17:18]]
|- id="t17:19:09"
! style="background-color: #539e9e" | mel-
| style="color: #539e9e" | what does 'open floor' mean?
|| [[#t17:19:09|17:19]]
|- id="t17:19:28"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | topics that weren't covered elsewhere in the meeting
|| [[#t17:19:28|17:19]]
|- id="t17:19:35"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | though we'd like to finish quickly to get on to the blocker review meeting
|| [[#t17:19:35|17:19]]
|- id="t17:19:47"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | did you have something to bring up quickly?
|| [[#t17:19:47|17:19]]
|- id="t17:20:17"
! style="background-color: #818144" | jreznik
| style="color: #818144" | blocker fun! any other topic could be re-raised after it... if not serious one
|| [[#t17:20:17|17:20]]
|- id="t17:20:46"
! style="background-color: #539e9e" | mel-
| style="color: #539e9e" | adamw: well, i need to fill a fedup bug. dunno of that is appropriate here
|| [[#t17:20:46|17:20]]
|- id="t17:20:52"
! style="background-color: #539e9e" | mel-
| style="color: #539e9e" | s/of/if/
|| [[#t17:20:52|17:20]]
|- id="t17:21:50"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | mel-: are you having trouble filing it in bugzilla?
|| [[#t17:21:50|17:21]]
|- id="t17:23:07"
! style="background-color: #539e9e" | mel-
| style="color: #539e9e" | adamw: no, i think will be fine :)
|| [[#t17:23:07|17:23]]
|- id="t17:23:10"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | okay, let's move on to blocker review, we can help mel outside of the meeting
|| [[#t17:23:10|17:23]]
|- id="t17:23:13"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | thanks for coming everyone!
|| [[#t17:23:13|17:23]]
|- id="t17:23:14"
! style="background-color: #407a40" | adamw
| style="color: #407a40" | #endmeeting
|| [[#t17:23:14|17:23]]
|}
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.11.0 by [mailto:marius@pov.lt Marius Gedminas] - find it at [http://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html mg.pov.lt]!

Latest revision as of 03:26, 1 February 2013

Attendees

  • adamw (118)
  • tflink (63)
  • Viking-Ice (45)
  • jreznik (17)
  • kparal (13)
  • jskladan (6)
  • zodbot (5)
  • maxamillion (4)
  • mel- (4)
  • pschindl (4)
  • Southern_Gentlem (2)
  • nirik (1)
  • mkrizek (1)
  • satellit (1)

Agenda

  • Previous meeting follow-up
  • Fedora 18 Final status/planning
  • Test case / criteria revision
  • Blocker Meeting Scheduling and Length
  • Open floor

Previous meeting follow-up

  • tflink to ensure some kind of upgrade documentation is ready for beta availability tomorrow - this was done
  • tflink to brief #fedora ops and fedora-user-list regulars on fedup - not done yet, passed to adamw
  • adamw to co-ordinate with anaconda team on TC1 date planning - not done yet but planned for same day, TC1 expected to land during the week
  • jskladan to review final criteria and test cases for obvious revision candidates - passed on to pschindl, he has completed work but needs to send email
  • viking-ice or tflink to try and get a fedup design document out of wwoods - closest thing we have is this blog post

Fedora 18 Final status/planning

  • Beta docs: There was a Beta release announcement which mentioned fedup and kparal and adamw worked on commonbugs
  • To request a release note for a bug, set fedora_requires_release_note flag to ?
  • Potential problem areas: fedup was noted as the big one, jreznik planned to check on it

Test case / criteria revision

  • No new criteria proposals at present, adamw, kparal and pschindl all had some in pipeline

Blocker Meeting Scheduling and Length

  • Suggestion of holding meetings at different times to encourage more participation tabled till F19
  • Some discussion of an idea of holding more but shorter blocker meetings, no definite decision raised
  • In-bug voting generally considered good to reduce blocker meeting burden, but generates BZ spam

Open floor

  • Enterprise storage to be covered next week

Action items

  • adamw to brief #fedora ops and fedora-user-list regulars on fedup
  • jreznik to draft a list of required functionality for fedup for Final
  • adamw to put 'enterprise storage support in newui' on next week's agenda

IRC Log

adamw #startmeeting Fedora QA meeting 16:01
zodbot Meeting started Mon Dec 3 16:01:56 2012 UTC. The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:01
zodbot Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:01
adamw #meetingname fedora-qa 16:02
zodbot The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa' 16:02
jreznik and a good afternoon/evening for the rest :) 16:02
adamw #topic roll call 16:02
* kparal still here 16:02
* mkrizek is here 16:02
* tflink is here 16:02
* pschindl is here 16:02
* jreznik is here 16:02
* nirik is lurking, ping if needed. 16:02
* jskladan still lurks 16:02
adamw morning everyone 16:03
* maxamillion is here 16:04
* Viking-Ice fetches coffee 16:04
adamw #topic previous meeting follow-up 16:05
adamw oooh. coffee. good idea. 16:05
maxamillion +1 16:05
adamw so we have a giant pile of stuff here 16:05
adamw "tflink to ensure some kind of upgrade documentation is ready for beta availability tomorrow" 16:05
adamw i believe that got done? 16:05
* jreznik thinks so too 16:06
Viking-Ice I'm starting to get a bit worried upgrading encrypted partitions 16:07
tflink yeah, it got mostly done 16:07
Viking-Ice mean upgrading + encrypted partitions 16:07
tflink done enough for beta, anyways 16:07
tflink Viking-Ice: yeah, I want to give that a test - it sounds like there may be dragons in there 16:07
kparal I didn't see any problems except for the timeout 16:08
adamw #info this was done - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedUp#How_Can_I_Upgrade_My_System_with_FedUp.3F 16:08
adamw gr 16:08
adamw #undo 16:08
zodbot Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x2b6039d0> 16:08
adamw #chair kparal tflink viking-ice 16:08
zodbot Current chairs: adamw kparal tflink viking-ice 16:08
adamw #info "tflink to ensure some kind of upgrade documentation is ready for beta availability tomorrow" - this was done: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedUp#How_Can_I_Upgrade_My_System_with_FedUp.3F 16:08
tflink there are some issues with the release notes, but I think those are getting taken care of 16:08
* tflink will check on that 16:09
adamw "tflink to brief #fedora ops and fedora-user-list regulars on fedup" - did that happen? 16:09
* satellit late and listening 16:09
tflink not so much and it shows - it looks like many people are using old instructions for testing 16:09
adamw okay 16:10
adamw do you want to take it again or should I? 16:10
adamw or anyone else? 16:10
tflink either way, I'm not so sure who the best people to ping are 16:10
Viking-Ice kparal, the timeout issue is present in current GA afaik ( unless it has been fixed have not tested it recently ) just wait entering the password for let's say 5 minutes ( cant remember what the default is ) and you get dropped to systemd shell 16:11
tflink I think that's known, though 16:11
tflink there are multiple bugs filed about it 16:11
adamw yeah, one for dracut and one for systemd. 16:12
tflink two for systemd, I think 16:12
kparal Viking-Ice: it's present in Beta, yes. and the timeout is much shorter, I think 1-2 minutes 16:12
jreznik that's #881670 at least 16:12
adamw #info "tflink to brief #fedora ops and fedora-user-list regulars on fedup" - this was not done yet 16:12
tflink one for regular, one for fedup 16:12
adamw #action adamw to brief #fedora ops and fedora-user-list regulars on fedup 16:12
tflink it shouldn't cause problems that aren't workaround-able by rebooting, though 16:12
adamw it's a bug party! 16:12
Viking-Ice the problem with fedup is that people start upgrade and go doing something else 16:12
adamw "adamw to co-ordinate with anaconda team on TC1 date planning" - yeah, so, oops. 16:13
adamw dgilmore just poked me about this this morning, so i guess we'll work it out after the meeting. but we probably should start doing TCs this week. any objections to that? 16:13
tflink none here 16:13
* jreznik is ok with TCs this week 16:13
Viking-Ice not the more the merrier  ;) 16:13
Viking-Ice mean no 16:13
adamw #info "adamw to co-ordinate with anaconda team on TC1 date planning" - not done yet, will do today, TCs likely to land this week 16:15
adamw "jskladan to review final criteria and test cases for obvious revision candidates" 16:15
adamw jskladan? 16:15
* jskladan is skilled in delegation 16:15
jskladan pschindl did it 16:16
pschindl adamw: I did it, but haven't yet sent the mail 16:16
jskladan he just needs to send the email IMHO 16:16
pschindl I'm going to send it after this meeting 16:16
adamw damnit, petr, stop slacking on jskladan's work ;) 16:16
pschindl :) 16:16
adamw #info "jskladan to review final criteria and test cases for obvious revision candidates" - passed on to pschindl, he has completed work but needs to send email 16:17
* jskladan is good at training up good interns ;) 16:17
tflink or slacking off, depends on how you look at it :-P 16:18
adamw truly, you are on the road to project colada 16:18
adamw #info "viking-ice or tflink to try and get a fedup design document out of wwoods" - speaking of projects, how is bloodfromastone going? 16:18
adamw alternatively: project excalibur 16:18
tflink not a whole lot of change as of late 16:18
Viking-Ice we need booze lot of booze to get that information 16:19
tflink someone from design (I don't remember who off the top of my head) has started to look @ the gui for gedup-client 16:19
Viking-Ice not the cheap stuff I might add ;) 16:19
tflink as far as a design document goes, the current "design document" is ... (searching for a link) 16:19
tflink http://ohjeezlinux.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/fedup-a-little-background/ 16:20
adamw #info "viking-ice or tflink to try and get a fedup design document out of wwoods" - currently rejoicing in the title of 'design document' is http://ohjeezlinux.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/fedup-a-little-background/ 16:20
tflink there has been some initial work to change mirror manager such that --instrepo won't be required anymore and the .treeinfo will be signed 16:20
* tflink is a little behind on fedup bugs right now - too much blocker bug happy fun time 16:21
jreznik btw do we have a list of required work that has to be done for fedup for final? 16:21
tflink nothing official, no 16:21
* jreznik will start working on it as we really need it (and also opinion from FESCo what they require for final - gui is known...) 16:22
adamw sounds like a plan 16:22
jreznik to avoid late surprises... 16:22
adamw #action jreznik to draft a list of required functionality for fedup for Final 16:22
adamw fffff 16:23
adamw okely dokely 16:23
adamw #topic Fedora 18 Final status/planning 16:23
tflink jreznik: late surprises? we never get those :) 16:23
adamw not sure what tflink meant by 'beta docs status'? 16:23
adamw we have a release announcement which mentioned fedup (yay) and kparal and I worked on commonbugs 16:23
tflink followup from last week to make sure we got everything 16:24
jreznik adamw: thanks for help with the announcement! 16:24
tflink at some point, we might want to think about coordinating better with docs about release notes - there was a mention of a bz flag for highlighting issues but that doesn't need to happen today 16:25
tflink better/differently 16:25
adamw yeah, there is one, i kinda assume people know about it, but maybe not. 16:26
adamw i use it now and again. 16:26
* tflink had never heard of it before that devel@ thread 16:26
adamw welp, the 'fedora_requires_release_note' flag is it, folks. 16:27
adamw i think you set it to ? . 16:27
adamw okay, the other thing was "Final: potential sore points, areas that need testing?", which i guess we've kind of been covering :) 16:31
adamw anything else we didn't cover yet? 16:31
Viking-Ice bootup + black screen 16:32
tflink fedup is mostly what I'm worried about 16:32
Viking-Ice I think I saw people mentioning that it was not only happening with the ati drivers 16:32
Viking-Ice i'm free of it with 3.7 rc kernels 16:33
adamw Viking-Ice: well, i mean, as i explained in a mail, 'it boots to a black screen' is one of the most generic symptoms we *have*. 16:34
adamw a few people seeing that alone doesn't tell us much useful - could be five different bugs. 16:34
Viking-Ice yeah they need to ssh into the machine and grap the log 16:35
Viking-Ice adamw, anyway I dont think those are 5 different bugs thou I think they all relate to that grub gfxpayloud stuff that we changed between releases 16:36
adamw what changed there? 16:38
adamw don't think i'm up on that one 16:38
Viking-Ice the gfxpayload settings 16:39
adamw i mean, what changed specifically 16:39
adamw or are you just talking about that we put in the theming for grub2? 16:40
adamw we were modesetting in f17, i think, but without theming 16:40
tflink I thought that there was a theme in F17 but it might have been added post-release 16:40
adamw okay, anyhow, in general: if we have people hitting black screens, we need more data. 16:42
Viking-Ice hm looks like I never mentioned that on the bug report 16:44
Viking-Ice well I mentioned it to airlied 16:44
Viking-Ice in anycase the "it boots to a black screen" is a regression in my case 16:45
adamw oh, you're hitting it yourself? well, should be easy enough to mess with the grub config and see if that fixes it? 16:45
Viking-Ice F16/F17 ( and pre 3.6 kernel ) worked just fine 16:45
Viking-Ice adamw, I know it fixes it 16:46
Viking-Ice well removing that line atleast does 16:46
adamw ah, okay. 16:46
adamw well, if it looks like other people have the same problem, elevate it to proposed blocker... 16:46
adamw moving on, in the interests of time 16:47
adamw #topic Test case / criteria revision 16:47
adamw do we have much here? 16:47
adamw i don't see any proposals since memory test 16:47
adamw i'm still not getting to the partitioning criteria :( 16:47
tflink it sounds like we're waiting a bit on petr's email 16:48
* kparal didn't manage to write up the kickstart proposal 16:48
kparal somewhere in the queue 16:49
adamw #info no new criteria proposals at present, adamw, kparal and pschindl all have some in pipeline 16:49
adamw #topic Blocker Meeting Scheduling and Length 16:51
adamw tflink, want to take this one? 16:51
tflink sure 16:53
tflink there have been some complaints/suggestions around the blocker meetings recently 16:53
tflink one was the time is inconvenient for some people and it might better to not always use the same time if we want more participation 16:54
tflink which may be true, but I'm tempted to leave that one alone for now 16:54
tflink ie, leave the discussion around that for post-f18 16:54
tflink the other is about frequency and duration 16:54
tflink any thoughts on whether the current format of 3 hour meetings at least once a week vs. 1 hour meetings several times per week? 16:55
adamw i prefer getting it done in one go 16:55
adamw there's quite a bit of 'overhead' which gets multiplied with multiple meetings 16:55
tflink yeah, but we tend to lose people after a while 16:55
adamw obviously, though, 3x3 hour meetings is the worst of the worst :) 16:56
jskladan ^ :) 16:56
Viking-Ice dont we have criteria that hits "* Put advanced storage (filtering, multipath/iscsi/zfcp dialogs) back in." item ( from post-f18 newui TODO on anaconda list ) 16:56
Viking-Ice is anaconda in f18 in good shape for "enterprise storage" 16:56
Viking-Ice ? 16:56
Viking-Ice ? 16:56
Viking-Ice dont we have criteria that hits "* Put advanced storage (filtering, multipath/iscsi/zfcp dialogs) back in." item ( from post-f18 newui TODO on anaconda list ) 16:56
Viking-Ice is anaconda in f18 in good shape for "enterprise storage" 16:56
jreznik but seriously - is that even possible? looking on proposed blocker bugs list? 16:56
Viking-Ice adamw, do you have any clue on the enterprise storage part of anaconda 16:57
tflink yeah, I don't think anyone likes the current method 16:57
tflink Viking-Ice: that seems to be a bit off topic 16:57
Viking-Ice you where speaking of the criteria to begin with 16:57
tflink but installing to iSCSI, FC, FCoE etc. is not in F18, will return in F19 IIUC 16:57
tflink I was? 16:58
adamw Viking-Ice: like half an hour ago? 16:58
adamw so we tried this thing this week where tflink categorized the bugs for on-bug voting 16:58
adamw what did everyone think about that? 16:58
Viking-Ice adamw, more like 10 minutes 16:58
Viking-Ice and I'm the actual one that was proposing we go for one hour meetings 16:58
adamw Viking-Ice: still, we moved on to a new topic since then...there's always open floor if you want to bring up something from before 16:58
adamw otherwise we just get confused 16:58
Viking-Ice adamw aha 16:58
* maxamillion is almost always confused anyways 16:59
adamw =) 16:59
Viking-Ice more frequently 16:59
adamw Viking-Ice: since we're discussing the length of blocker meetings now, talking about enterprise storage criteria seems a bit out of place :) 16:59
* maxamillion is just getting worse at multi tasking ... $day_job is more busy than $old_day_job 16:59
Viking-Ice adamw, you weren't when I asked those questions 16:59
Viking-Ice you conveniently ignored it 16:59
adamw Viking-Ice: er - i set the topic at xx:51 to "Blocker Meeting Scheduling and Length" 17:00
adamw you asked your questions at xx:56 17:00
adamw after there had already been several minutes of discussion on the blocker meeting length topic 17:00
Southern_Gentlem move on and deal with this later 17:00
tflink yep 17:00
Viking-Ice adamw, no I re-asked those question at that time 17:00
tflink the blocker meeting is supposed to be starting soon 17:00
kparal (now) 17:01
Viking-Ice yeah I proposed for 3x1 hour or 5x1 meeting instead of 3 hours meeting 17:01
adamw Viking-Ice: oh. i never got the originals. maybe they were affected by that netsplit i see in the history. sorry 17:01
tflink I didn't see them either 17:01
* jreznik does not have that question neither... 17:01
Southern_Gentlem perfer we dont have that many blockers so 1 -1 hr meeting can deal 17:01
adamw that's obviously the best 17:02
adamw but it seems unrealistic 17:02
tflink especially right now 17:03
adamw how can we have such a low blocker count without evaluating proposed blockers and rejecting some? which is...what we do in the meeting? :) 17:03
jreznik clean-up in tickets should help a little - /me voted in several bugs today 17:04
adamw yeah, i think that was a good idea 17:04
adamw is anyone worried about covering at least 'obvious' bugs with in-bug voting? 17:04
adamw it seems like the best way to reduce the load a little 17:04
tflink yeah, I need to go through and modify the ones that have enough -1s or +1s 17:04
adamw ah, i was about to ask if you'd done that 17:04
tflink I'm making the list for today's meeting from bugs that weren't on the 'more obvious' list 17:05
tflink we have enough to go through that it shouldn't be an issue 17:05
adamw sounds good 17:05
adamw shall we take a vote on the 'many short meetings' proposal? 17:05
adamw or more discussion on it? 17:05
Viking-Ice should we have it 1 hour or 1 and half hour 17:06
kparal if the obvious list is compiled by someone and sent to the list, I'm OK. just going randomly though blocker list doesn't seem great 17:06
Viking-Ice ( takes 10 minutes to start ) 17:06
tflink kparal: I sent the list out to test@ on friday 17:06
kparal tflink: yeah, I know 17:06
tflink ok, you meant in general 17:06
adamw right, you're saying it should always be done that way, make it a process? 17:06
kparal yes, something like that 17:07
kparal it's better to have a list of obvious blockers, and then people can vote in the bugzilla or say "no this is not obvious" 17:07
adamw maybe we should have some kind of threshold at which the 'formal on-bug voting' process kicks in - >20 proposed blockers or something 17:07
kparal if we don't have the list, each person have a different opinion what is obvious 17:07
adamw sure 17:08
jreznik kparal: but you can still vote and other people can say no 17:08
tflink yeah, but I think that's a bit unavoidable for now 17:08
kparal jreznik: without the list I don't know they voted 17:08
adamw Viking-Ice: i'd prefer 1.5 to 1, yeah, the 10 minute overhead is significant 17:08
tflink the point of going through and doing some sorting is to reduce the number of bugs to discuss in meetings - I don't see a way to do that without one person doing the initial sorting 17:08
jreznik would it be possible to parse the bug for "-1/+1 blocker" in the current blocker bug list and show it? 17:09
tflink which is unavoidably biased to a certain point 17:09
Viking-Ice so try 3x1.5 ( monday/wednesday/friday ) 17:09
jreznik tflink: but yeha, someone has to do the initial sort 17:09
tflink jreznik: yeah, that wouldn't be too hard in principle - the hard part is making sure to catch all the minor variations in +/-1 17:10
tflink it might be interesting to add some support for flagging "obvious" bugs in the tracker app 17:10
tflink but there is no way I'm going to get to that until after F18 17:10
adamw okay, so sounds like we're broadly on board with the in-bug voting, i'm not hearing much discussion of 'multiple short meetings' 17:11
adamw and we're 10 minutes over time 17:11
tflink I think it's an interesting idea but I also think we need to get through the monster list sooner than later 17:11
Viking-Ice so should we discuss in-bug the gray area we might be hitting 17:11
tflink so for now, I'm -1 on the idea of shorter meetings 17:12
* tflink emphasizes "for now" as in at least until we get through the initial list 17:12
Viking-Ice I'm not so sure that maintainers will be happy about the bug spam we introduce by voting in the bugs themselves 17:12
* adamw is +/-0 - personally i prefer longer-but-fewer, but i certainly acknowledge the problem of losing people as the meetings go on 17:12
adamw Viking-Ice: that's a good point, actually, hadn't thought of that 17:13
adamw maybe we should check on devel@ 17:13
adamw #info viking-ice points out that a drawback of in-bug voting is bugzilla spam 17:13
jreznik let's go through the current list and we will see how many left - we can be flexible 17:13
adamw #info aside from that, general support for in-bug voting on 'obvious' blockers when the blocker count is high, but it should be a defined process 17:13
adamw #info no-one seems to have strong feelings either way on the multiple-short-meetings plan, but we don't have time to thrash it out further today 17:14
tflink I think that the blocker process could use some work, but that doesn't help for now 17:14
adamw anyone want to take an action item for considering a formal in-bug-review process further? 17:14
tflink I'm not against the idea, but I don't really want to do it right now 17:15
* tflink won't stop anyone else from doing it, though 17:15
adamw i guess everyone's a bit overloaded at present 17:15
adamw let's go on to open floor so we can discuss viking's missed question and get to blocker review 17:16
adamw #topic open floor 17:16
kparal I'm not really against in-bug voting, but I really like meeting voting more 17:16
adamw Viking-Ice: sorry your criteria question got missed earlier, what was it again? 17:16
Viking-Ice adamw, let's just add enterprise storage support in anaconda ( if any ) to next meeting item and start working on the blocker bugs 17:17
adamw okay 17:17
adamw #info viking-ice is concerned about storage support in newUI but meeting has overrun so we'll cover it next week 17:17
adamw #action adamw to put 'enterprise storage support in newui' on next week's agenda 17:17
Viking-Ice *enterprise* 17:17
adamw yeah, got it in the action item :) 17:17
Viking-Ice ;) 17:17
adamw anything else for open floor? 17:18
mel- what does 'open floor' mean? 17:19
adamw topics that weren't covered elsewhere in the meeting 17:19
adamw though we'd like to finish quickly to get on to the blocker review meeting 17:19
adamw did you have something to bring up quickly? 17:19
jreznik blocker fun! any other topic could be re-raised after it... if not serious one 17:20
mel- adamw: well, i need to fill a fedup bug. dunno of that is appropriate here 17:20
mel- s/of/if/ 17:20
adamw mel-: are you having trouble filing it in bugzilla? 17:21
mel- adamw: no, i think will be fine :) 17:23
adamw okay, let's move on to blocker review, we can help mel outside of the meeting 17:23
adamw thanks for coming everyone! 17:23
adamw #endmeeting 17:23

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.11.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!

Retrieved from "https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=QA/Meetings/20121203&oldid=321831"