BugZappers/Meetings/Minutes-2009-May-12

Bug Triage Meeting :: 2009-05-12

Attendees

• adamw
• arxs
• john5342
• mcepl
• poelcat
• SMParrish
• tk009
• will

Meeting Topics

• Housekeeping - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora11 - The draft has been completed and poelcat will file a ticket later today with Red Hat Engineering Operations requesting the rebase of rawhide bugs on release day.

• BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora11#Qualifying_Criteria - Some problems occurred generating the query, poelcat and jds2001 will follow up.

• Triage Metrics - http://publictest14.fedoraproject.org/triageweb/ - No new information on the status. adamw will continue to work on it.

• Severity/priority - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Beland/Bugzilla_Legend

-mcepl's "Feedback Request" to the -devel-list received no negative responses to date. adamw will send a progress mail to the list asking that one of the alternatives be chosen.

• 000-Not-Sure-What-Component-To-File-Against idea (avoid bugs getting filed against 0xFFFF inappropriately) - Decided that this wasn't necessary at this time given the very limited number of bugs filed under xFFFF component.

IRC Transcript

--- Log opened Tue May 12 11:02:58 2009
* john5342 is here		11:02
tk009	here	11:03
mcepl	pong	11:03
poelcat	the important thing for today is sending the warning about the rawhide rebase to fedora-devel-announce	11:03
poelcat	did anyone have any suggested changes to the text?	11:03
poelcat	http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora11#Warning_to_Package_Maintainers	11:03
poelcat	#2 should say Fedora 9, not Fedora 10	11:04
adamw	looks fine to me	11:04
tk009	same	11:05
will	looks good to me	11:05
poelcat	okay, i'll send it later today	11:05
arxs	nice work	11:05
SMParrish_	looks like it says release is F12 when should be F11	11:05
will	so it does nice catch	11:06
poelcat	SMParrish_: good catch :)	11:06
* poelcat thinking in too many different releases		11:06
adamw	heh	11:07
adamw	i keep doing the same thing so i didn't notice ;)	11:07
mcepl	+1 to the letter	11:07
poelcat	fixed	11:07
poelcat	that would have been embarrassing :(	11:08
poelcat	next up was the query to select the rawhide bugs to rebase	11:08
poelcat	BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora11#Qualifying_Criteria	11:08
poelcat	jds2001 was trying to help add criteria last nightg	11:08
poelcat	so that if a rawhide bug is blocking one of the F12 blockers it won't get touched	11:09
jds2001	yeah, failed pretty miserably :(	11:09
arxs	maybe some comment to the flag [enh]	11:09
arxs	dcbw (NetworkManager) use it to reflect enhancement requests	11:10
jds2001	poelcat: if i can give a direct DB query that works in upstream BZ, will eng-ops take it?	11:10
poelcat	we can work on the query more outside of the meeting	11:10
poelcat	jds2001: maybe, i can ask	11:10
poelcat	any questions/discussion about the overall http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora11 page ?	11:11
adamw	looks fine to me	11:12
adamw	add arxs's explanation for the enh keyword	11:12
poelcat	what is that?	11:12
poelcat	i thought it was a typo and was going to remove it	11:12
jds2001	seems dan williams uses it.	11:12
arxs	poelcat, please see some line above	11:12
poelcat	is it a keyword or a flag?	11:13
poelcat	and why does it matter for this?	11:13
adamw	by arxs' explanation, it's used for feature requests	11:14
adamw	and those by their nature should be set to rawhide, not any specific already-released versioin	11:14
poelcat	adamw: why doesn't he use FutureFeature?	11:14
adamw	don't ask me =)	11:14
adamw	maybe he doesn't know	11:14
adamw	arxs: ?	11:14
arxs	it's at the start of the summary line, but i added the FutureFeature keyword on the bugs	11:15
arxs	so we can remove it from the query	11:15
poelcat	FutureFeature is what we've used for multiple releases and I think it is a bad idea to add another one that means the same thing	11:15
adamw	ok	11:15
* poelcat removes critiera for enh		11:16
arxs	poelcat: right, enh is not a keyword, it only in the title, and all bugs with this, i added the FutureFeature keyword	11:17
mcepl	should I try to persuade dcbw nicely to give up on enh or we don't care?	11:17
* poelcat sees another error... RFE is not a keyword either		11:17
arxs	mcepl: i inform him myself, but thanks	11:18
mcepl	ok	11:18
poelcat	sometimes people use it in the summary so we look there as a doublecheck	11:18
poelcat	move on?	11:19
adamw	sure	11:19
will	sure	11:19
arxs	poelcat, the query look right, they check the summary for RFE not the keyword	11:19
poelcat	arxs: right, the wiki page was wrong	11:19
poelcat	next topic... Triage Metrics - http://publictest14.fedoraproject.org/triageweb/	11:19
poelcat	anyone have an update?	11:20
poelcat	5/16 was our goal?	11:20
mcepl	poelcat: 404	11:20
will	i get 404 too	11:20
SMParrish	same	11:21
tk009	it has been that way since we got the python port help	11:21
adamw	comphappy's been...fun to get a hold of	11:21
tk009	I thought it was jsut waiting on test data	11:21
adamw	i managed to chat to him for about five minutes this week	11:21
adamw	and asked him to provide the test data	11:21
adamw	but haven't heard from him since then :\	11:22
adamw	a possible alternative approach: does anyone know how he *got* the test data? did someone help him with that?	11:22
poelcat	okay so, "status and ETC unknown"	11:22
adamw	if we know what format it was in and how he dumped it, we can just re-create it	11:22
poelcat	adamw: he generated it by querying bugzilla	11:22
tk009	there is a README	11:22
adamw	poelcat: well, yeah, but it's the specifics i'm interested in :)	11:23
poelcat	and i believe it took a long time (hours/days) because of the way he had to query it	11:23
adamw	ah. fun.	11:23
adamw	so, i'll keep trying to get hold of him	11:23
poelcat	adamw: that would be great :)	11:23
poelcat	next topic ,,,, Severity/priority - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Beland/Bugzilla_Legend update on progress	11:23
arxs	no responses to the mail...	11:24
tk009	not a one	11:24
tk009	that seems a bit strange	11:24
arxs	maybe we can ask some good known developer to make a comment to it, do bring it in front maybe?	11:25
adamw	personally, i don't mind :)	11:25
adamw	the point of the mail was to flush out any active negative feedback	11:26
adamw	i.e. "this will ruin my life because of X"	11:26
tk009	does that mean we would just go ahead wit hte idea after a time if no one replies?	11:26
adamw	i wasn't really expecting that we should get actively positive feedback before going ahead	11:26
adamw	yes	11:26
adamw	imho, anyway	11:26
tk009	how long till that plan would go into effect?	11:27
adamw	my deadline was tomorrow; after that i'm planning to propose we just go ahead with it and see what happens, we can use the f12 cycle as our 'test period' (or earlier if it turns out to be breaking stuff)	11:27
adamw	however, we have to choose one of the alternative schemes - mine / beland's, or matej's (not that the people involve matter much, i don't mind at all if we go with matej's)	11:27
adamw	so i'll send a progress mail to the list outlining this and asking that we pick one of the alternatives	11:27
adamw	so, that's that topic for me	11:29
adamw	any comments?	11:29
will	none from me	11:30
poelcat	sounds good	11:30
arxs	me too	11:30
mcepl	+1	11:31
adamw	ok, next topic :)	11:31
tk009	I believe that was all of them	11:31
poelcat	we're out of topics :)	11:31
tk009	I have one	11:31
tk009	000-Not-Sure-What-Component-To-File-Against idea (avoid bugs getting filed against 0xFFFF inappropriately)	11:32
tk009	did we ever get anywhere wit hthis?	11:32
adamw	no, don't think we did...i don't remember where the discussion died	11:32
tk009	I don't think we can do much on this before release	11:33
tk009	but shopuld we look at it after?	11:33
mcepl	what's wrong with "throw it somewhere in the appropriate direction" (which is what I have been doing for the last two years)?	11:33
tk009	bring it up again?	11:33
tk009	this was jsut something left on the agenda list | belend was leading it I believe	11:34
mcepl	https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=component%3A0xFFFF gives me 11 bugs, which seem to be possible to be dispersed to better places.	11:34
mcepl	should we do as one of the pre-GA actions cleaning up this component?	11:35
adamw	sure, couldn't hurt	11:35
adamw	btw, does anyone know what the hell 0xFFFF actually *is*?	11:35
tk009	triage day item? for today?	11:35
tk009	I do but forgetting atm	11:35
mcepl	adamw: it used to be some testing stuff by David Woodhouse (who used to be RH)	11:36
adamw	so, nothing important	11:36
adamw	oh, i think i remembered what the objection to the proposal is	11:37
adamw	it encourages laziness	11:37
tk009	0pen Free Fiasco Firmware Flasher	11:37
mcepl	yeah, something like that	11:37
adamw	i.e. if the first thing everyone sees is that there's a bug called 000-Not-Sure-What-Component-To-File-Against , they might assume it's fine to just file everything against that	11:37
tk009	just like that =P	11:37
arxs	some time ago we talked about the relation of triager and upstream bugs. I don't remember what are the final result on this. Should the triager take care of upstream bugs and link them to exists BZ bugs?	11:37
adamw	which would lead to one of us poor sods spending half his life assigning bugs to appropriate components	11:37
adamw	arxs: i think we agreed it should be just optional-but-nice...	11:38
adamw	arxs: is it in the How to Triage page? let me look	11:38
adamw	arxs: yeah, it is: BugZappers/How_to_Triage - it's an Optional Step	11:38
adamw	so, it's nice to do it, but you don't have to	11:39
tk009	so my question is, should 0pen Free Fiasco Firmware Flasher	11:39
tk009	oopos	11:39
tk009	should the 000- remain a an agenda item	11:39
arxs	adamw: thanks for pointing me to this, i search the wiki for "upstream" but there to many results displayed :)	11:39
arxs	some the answer is so close... :)	11:40
adamw	tk009: well, we could discuss it here, we have a good number	11:40
adamw	does the benefit of the 'better' name outweigh the disadvantage of encouraging lazy reports?	11:40
tk009	sounds like we don't need it	11:40
tk009	I think mecpl has it right, 11 of them are not a big deal	11:41
arxs	tk009: think also, does anyone know how many bugs are reports false against it?	11:41
john5342	could do with a component 000 that automatically throws and error back at the user to make an effort to find the right component.	11:42
tk009	can that be done?	11:42
john5342	no idea	11:42
arxs	john5342: this is hard to implement it bugzilla	11:43
tk009	that is my thinking sa well	11:43
adamw	yeah, and we don't want to go patching bugzilla for relatively trivial issues	11:43
tk009	not to mention the person that does the work probably wont want too	11:43
arxs	until a heavy customized BZ make it also hard to make updates on it	11:44
adamw	tk009: that's who I meant by 'we' :)	11:44
tk009	=)	11:44
john5342	didnt think it would work. in an ideal world though	11:44
adamw	yeah, it'd probably be nice to have a default selection which didn't 'work'	11:45
adamw	so put it on our "in a world of rainbows and ponies" list and move on :)	11:45
tk009	that is y feeling as well	11:45
poelcat	sounds like this is all for today?	11:46
tk009	for me yes	11:46
adamw	any other business?	11:46
mcepl	actually really, how many people file bugs without knowing against which they file it?	11:46
adamw	mcepl: quite a few, but most know to at least make a guess	11:46
mcepl	*without knowing component	11:46
tk009	it belands thing brother so I couldn't answer taht one	11:46
mcepl	and I think that's we ask them to do ... make a gues	11:46
adamw	oh, my usual thing: anyone worried about any bugs they're triaging that look like serious issues for f11?	11:47
adamw	just want to make sure we're not missing anything for the f11 blockers	11:47
tk009	one blocker that poelcat and richard are working out =P	11:47
* mcepl bumbles something about xorg being completely broken, but nobody is probably surprised by that ...		11:47
adamw	yeah, i waved the white flag on that one =)	11:48
adamw	at first i was going to put all "X doesn't start up!" bugs on the x11 blocker bug, then i counted how many there were, then i shelved that plan	11:48
adamw	sigh	11:48
tk009	commandline is all you need	11:48
adamw	heh	11:48
tk009	irssi works	11:48
tk009	I guess that is it then?	11:49
adamw	sounds like it	11:49
adamw	so, next is triage day in #fedora-bugzappers	11:49
adamw	we could clean up the 0xFFFF list as suggested	11:49
adamw	and also, we have at least will who's new - will, will you be around? would you like some help getting started with zapping?	11:49
tk009	he can't excape now =) get him!	11:50
will	yes, i will be around for the triage hour so that would be great	11:50
adamw	awesome	11:51
tk009	on behalf of poelcat that is a wrap. see everyone in bugzappers	11:51
poelcat	<EOM>	11:53
poelcat	:)	11:53
--- Log closed Tue May 12 11:57:41 2009

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!