Latest revision as of 19:25, 22 February 2010

Attendees

People present (lines said)

adamw (101)
jlaska (98)
maxamillion (32)
kparal (28)
Oxf13 (28)
wwoods (10)
zodbot (4)
OldFart (4)
skvidal (2)
jskladan (1)
nirik (1)

Regrets:

Agenda

Previous meeting follow-up

adamw noted that the Privilege_escalation_policy is no longer a draft and has been reviewed by FESCO
adamw thanked folks for joining last weeks Color Management test day (see recap).

Fedora 13 Alpha test status

Alpha Test Compose verification has completed. From the wiki pages, there were 26 bugs identified during testing.

Alpha RC#1 is available for testing. Instructions for downloading and providing feedback available at:

Current list of unresolved bugs blocking the Fedora_13_Alpha_Release_Criteria ...

RHBZ #566948 NEW - Input devices don't work
RHBZ #566979 NEW - Failed dependencies and login problem; basic video driver installation, F13 Alpha RC1.
RHBZ #566991 NEW - Incorrect repourl during install
RHBZ #566995 NEW - /etc/selinux/targeted/contexts/files/file_contexts: Multiple different specifications for /var/lib/cobbler/webui_sessions(/.*)? (system_u:object_r:httpd_cobbler_content_rw_t:s0 and system_u:object_r:public_content_rw_t:s0).
RHBZ #566460 ASSIGNED - kernel 2.6.33 strips coredump when using pipe in core_pattern
RHBZ #567319 ON_QA - GDM starts endlessly

The team discussed current Alpha test efforts, including the list of blocking bugs above. The severity of several bugs was discussed, and different workarounds were suggested for the SELinux issues.

Jkeating noted he was available to spin up any new composes on demand. New compose requests should go into the existing ticket (see ticket#3319).

The group concluded that the Alpha is at risk for the scheduled Go/No_go meeting on Wednesday.

Open discussion - <Your topic here>

development/13 bug procedures

Are there documentation updates needed for filing and closing development/13 bugs? Adamw noted this was on the agenda for tomorrows Bugzappers meeting.

Defining the QA team

A topic we may want to visit in the future ... define what it means to be on the QA team, and how to gain membership. With the current no frozen rawhide implementation, critical path package updates need someone from rel-eng and/or QA to validate the fixes prior to acceptance into the 'updates' repo. Maxamillion offered to send a first draft of what it means to be a QA team member.

Security Spin

Maxamillion looking for people to help draw up test cases for tools on the security spin. Created SecuritySpin:QA_Brainstorm wiki page to track ideas. To assist, please take a look at the email thread. Jlaska suggested pulling in the sectool test day hosts (see Test_Day:2009-09-01_Sectool).

Upcoming QA events

2010-01-21 - Pre-Alpha Rawhide Acceptance Test Plan #1
2010-01-28 - Pre-Alpha Rawhide Acceptance Test Plan #2
2010-02-04 - Pre-Alpha Rawhide Acceptance Test Plan #3
2010-02-04 - NFSv4 Test Day
2010-02-05 - Alpha Blocker Meeting (F13Alpha) #1 (recap)
2010-02-11 - Test Alpha 'Test Compose' (boot media testing)
2010-02-12 - Alpha Blocker Meeting (F13Alpha) #2 (recap)
2010-02-12 - Alpha Test Candidate verification (announcement)
2010-02-18 - Alpha Release Candidate verification
2010-02-18 - Color Management test day
2010-02-19 - Alpha Blocker Meeting (F13Alpha) #3
WE ARE HERE
2010-02-24 - Alpha Go/No-Go Meeting (20:00 EST)
2010-02-25 - Yum Langpack plugin test day

Action items

maxamillion to draft up some proposed policy docs for qa FAS group membership
jlaska / maxamillion to co-ordinate with sectool test day hosts tmraz, mbarabas and pvrabec who may be able to contribute

IRC transcript

jlaska	#startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting	16:00
zodbot	Meeting started Mon Feb 22 16:00:18 2010 UTC. The chair is jlaska. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.	16:00
zodbot	Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.	16:00
jlaska	adamw: you betcha	16:00
jlaska	#meetingname fedora-qa	16:00
zodbot	The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa'	16:00
jlaska	#topic Gathering in the lobby	16:00
* Oxf13		16:00
* jskladan is here		16:00
jlaska	Oxf13: jskladan: welcome	16:00
* kparal joins		16:00
adamw	ello	16:01
* jlaska tips hat to adamw & kparal		16:01
* jlaska needs a new formal greeting method		16:01
adamw	wave of the cane?	16:01
adamw	the natural, jauntier counterpart to the hat tip	16:01
jlaska	adamw: ooh, good choice	16:01
* wwoods appears		16:02
jlaska	I believe we also get 100% of maxamillion today	16:02
jlaska	wwoods: heyo!	16:02
jlaska	I have a hard stop after 30 minutes today, so if we run longer I could use someone to continue chairing	16:02
jlaska	I kept the agenda light today ... but suggestions are always encouraged	16:03
jlaska	#topic Previous meeting follow-up	16:03
jlaska	This should be easy ...	16:03
jlaska	we had nothing listed from last weeks meeting	16:03
jlaska	anything not listed that people would like to update the team on?	16:03
adamw	i'm sure i did lots of important things last week	16:04
adamw	so, yeah, I'm awesome	16:04
jlaska	adamw: I think we have a t-shirt for that	16:04
adamw	oh, we had the test day. it went well.	16:04
jlaska	#info color management test day recap - http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-February/088574.html	16:05
jlaska	adamw: you had some updates on the privilege escalation front last week as well?	16:05
* jlaska doesn't see This page is a draft only It is still under construction and content may change. Do not rely on the information on this page. anymore		16:06
adamw	yeah, it's now officially a policy. yay.	16:06
adamw	so we can get started on writing up some privesc tests if we want.	16:06
adamw	any volunteers? :D	16:06
jlaska	adamw: let's add that to the future TODO list	16:07
adamw	ok	16:07
jlaska	#info privilege escalation is approved as an official policy - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Privilege_escalation_policy	16:07
jlaska	#idea develop test cases to validate the privilege escalation policy	16:08
jlaska	alrighty, let's dive into Alpha	16:08
jlaska	#topic F-13-Alpha test status	16:08
jlaska	So you probably saw Hurry's mail that there is an Alpha release candidate available for test	16:08
jlaska	#info F-13-Alpha-RC1 available for test - http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test-announce/2010-February/000023.html	16:09
Oxf13	it seems kinda brown paper baggy	16:09
jlaska	Oxf13: it sure does :(	16:09
wwoods	oh no, reall?	16:09
jlaska	so ... I just wante dto spend a few moments making sure we all know what's up ... and what the next steps are	16:10
* adamw doesn't really work over the weekend, so can you provide an executive summary?		16:10
* adamw claiming not executive rank but executive attention span		16:10
jlaska	so, we got some weekend testing on the RC, which resulted in new additions to the blocker list	16:10
jlaska	#info F13Alpha blocker bugs - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=538273&hide_resolved=1	16:11
jlaska	adamw: best spot to visit is the test result wiki pages ...	16:11
adamw	gadzooks	16:11
jlaska	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_13_Alpha_RC1_Install#Test_Matrix	16:11
jlaska	has the highlights	16:11
adamw	looks quite...failish.	16:11
Oxf13	I'd say we've got our work cut out	16:12
jlaska	yeah, I'm not at all clear why the change in fortune from TC2	16:12
Oxf13	vastly newer anaconda no?	16:12
jlaska	Oxf13: well, afaict it's not all anaconda	16:12
Oxf13	sure	16:13
adamw	jlaska: the input device breakage is the x server change from hal to udev for input device configuration	16:13
adamw	i knew about that but I didn't know anaconda was actually using the hal system for some kind of configuration	16:13
jlaska	that's https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=566948	16:13
Oxf13	even the stuff that is "anaconda" might not all be anaconda	16:13
jlaska	right	16:13
jlaska	howabout desktop validation, anyone have input on that front?	16:14
jlaska	kparal, you tried a live image earlier today?	16:14
kparal	jlaska: I did try the today's image	16:14
kparal	jlaska: there's some problem with selinux, just reported: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567319	16:15
OldFart	I tried a desktop and after clicking the install to hard drive nothing happened, then tried in a terminal and nothing happened and then it was very late so went to bed.	16:15
kparal	jlaska: I will do the desktop validation with selinux disabled, that should work	16:15
jlaska	kparal: that sounds F13Alpha worthy	16:15
OldFart	I had selinux disabled.	16:15
jlaska	OldFart: Clyde, welcome!	16:16
adamw	well	16:16
adamw	first i'd want to know if the nightlies are f13 or f14	16:16
adamw	since they diverge now	16:16
kparal	adamw: nirik said it's f13	16:16
adamw	ah k	16:16
nirik	yes, f13	16:17
jlaska	okay, so we have a lot of FAIL so far with RC1. And it seems clear that we'll need an RC2 if we want to meet the alpha release criteria	16:17
jlaska	sound accurate?	16:17
kparal	yes	16:17
Oxf13	absolutely	16:18
adamw	yeah, it seems pretty no-brainery that we'll need to delay the alpha	16:18
kparal	but we don't have much time to go/nogo meeting	16:18
jlaska	is there any additional testing we can perform in the meantime?	16:18
OldFart	Later today I will try the desktop and see if I can capture to data on whats happening.	16:19
wwoods	I don't think we need a meeting if it doesn't meet basic acceptance criteria	16:19
jlaska	wwoods: it'll certainly be a quick meeting :D	16:19
wwoods	(does it?)	16:19
adamw	i think we hold the meeting anyway and just say 'well, duh, no.' :)	16:19
adamw	anyway, seems like everyone agrees	16:20
adamw	oh, and i'd agree kparal's bug feels like a blocker	16:20
jlaska	is there anything we can do in the meantime, or are we blocked awaiting new test images?	16:20
kparal	adamw: it blocks this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:TestCases/Install_Source_Live_Image	16:20
kparal	which is an Alpha criterion	16:20
adamw	kparal: well, more properly it blocks the criterion 'The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures from default live image...' but yeah	16:21
kparal	jlaska: the desktop validation testing should be possible, as I mentioned, just boot with selinux=0 or enforcing=0	16:21
adamw	kparal: well, that could possibly invalidate the results	16:21
adamw	if selinux caused problems with any of the tests, you wouldn't be able to tell that way	16:21
kparal	hmm	16:21
adamw	so i'm not sure it's good testing to do	16:21
kparal	that sounds valid	16:22
kparal	the testing should be done with selinux enabled, right	16:22
jlaska	unless otherwise specified, yes	16:22
kparal	even desktop testing	16:22
Oxf13	it should, unless selinux is so horked that you get all failures	16:23
Oxf13	failing every test because of selinux doesn't help as much	16:23
jlaska	imo ... it's okay to workaround it temporarily to see what else lurks	16:23
jlaska	but not something to rely on for the release	16:23
adamw	Oxf13: as i said, in that case, i'd rather wait till selinux is fixed then test	16:23
adamw	Oxf13: than test without it	16:23
adamw	Oxf13: because that's the state we would release in	16:23
Oxf13	adamw: I agree but disagree	16:24
kparal	:)	16:24
adamw	well i'm worried this would happen	16:24
jlaska	adamw: it should be tested that way prior to release	16:24
adamw	jlaska: yeah	16:24
Oxf13	if we waited to test, only to find other things that were obviously broken, we've just lost that much time in getting them fixed	16:24
kparal	it's true we can find more errors not related to selinux, if we test now even without selinux	16:24
adamw	Oxf13: fair point	16:24
adamw	so, how about this	16:24
adamw	if you do the desktop validation with selinux disabled you can log failures but not successes	16:24
OldFart	I would like to get by the x server issue by using the desktop to test other anaconda features.	16:25
Oxf13	while positive results could not be taken as authoritative, negative results have value.	16:25
jlaska	adamw: oh definitely	16:25
Oxf13	adamw: jynx (:	16:25
* adamw call of nature, brb		16:25
kparal	adamw: we can provide PASS results, but we just have to know not to rely it until re-tested again with selinux on	16:25
jlaska	kparal: let's use the WARN or FAIL state for that now	16:26
jlaska	that'll let us know it was tested, and it doesn't meet the stated objectives in the test	16:26
kparal	alright	16:26
jlaska	I think I described WARN for that scenario	16:26
jlaska	either way ... I think we all agreed we can't rely on testing with selinux disabled	16:26
jlaska	alright ... so next steps on the Alpha time ...	16:27
jlaska	#topic F-13-Alpha - next steps	16:27
jlaska	we have a batch of F13Alpha blocker bugs, we have 2 days until the go/no_go meeting	16:27
jlaska	A reminder of the goal ... the F13Alpha list should contain no unMODIFIED bugs	16:28
jlaska	is that accurate?	16:28
Oxf13	I'm on hand to make trees like a madman as we get fixes	16:28
Oxf13	we're going to want to keep a good mapping of potential fixes to bodhi tickets	16:29
skvidal	Oxf13: trees are good - I like oak trees personally	16:29
jlaska	Oxf13: how would you like that type of feedback? email/irc/tickets?	16:29
* skvidal stops being silly		16:29
Oxf13	jlaska: any of hte above works.	16:29
jlaska	Oxf13: okay	16:29
Oxf13	jlaska: doing it in the ticket is probably a good canonical location for tree compose requests	16:29
jlaska	#info requests for new trees should take place in the open RC ticket (https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/3319)	16:30
adamw	back	16:30
kparal	so, F13Alpha blocker list may contain modified bugs (not fixed) to let F13Alpha GO?	16:30
Oxf13	kparal: yes, if they are modified and there is a build in koji for them	16:31
Oxf13	we can compose the tree before the build makes it all the way through bodhi and shows up in a public repo	16:31
kparal	Oxf13: but the F13Alpha will contain all the fixes, right?	16:31
kparal	ok	16:31
adamw	jlaska: i thought we were trying to avoid it this cycle?	16:31
adamw	the criteria says there shouldn't be any open bugs. really that'd just involve closing them if a build known to fix the bug was in place for the compose, though.	16:31
Oxf13	adamw: I thought we were trying to avoid bugs this cycle too (:	16:31
adamw	i mean, avoid having open ones when releasing :)	16:32
jlaska	adamw: that's correct	16:32
Oxf13	by the time we release, bodhi could have automunged the bugs	16:32
jlaska	we can do builds and composes ... but at release ... these puppies need to be CLOSED	16:32
Oxf13	since we're using bodhi this time around we can let it decide when to close the bug(s)	16:32
adamw	okay anyway, cross that bridge when we get to it	16:32
jlaska	so ... let's talk about that bridge	16:33
jlaska	we don't have any blocker review meetings between now and go/no_go	16:33
jlaska	is there anything QA can do to help the blocker bugs along?	16:33
adamw	jlaska: well, a ton of them are 'needsretesting' anaconda aren't they?	16:33
jlaska	yup, I think we can knock some of those out with the current set (using VNC or text-mode installs)	16:34
jlaska	#help Bugs listed as MODIFIED can be verified using RC1 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=538273&hide_resolved=1	16:34
jlaska	anything else to consider on these bugs?	16:35
jlaska	otherwise, I'll need to turn the #chair over to someone else for the remainder of the agenda	16:36
jlaska	any takers on #chair?	16:36
adamw	i'm not so sure about https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=566995	16:36
adamw	if it's not actually causing any problems in itself	16:36
jlaska	I wasn't either ... until it spits out to the console during install a LOT	16:37
jlaska	so I raised it to get some feedback on what's impacted by this ... if it's just noise or something other	16:37
adamw	ah k	16:37
adamw	well, dwalsh is cc'ed so not much we can do there	16:38
adamw	so, I dunno, what's the plan from here?	16:39
adamw	when do we envisage doing an rc2? when the big bugs from the blocker list are fixed?	16:39
jlaska	that's my impression	16:40
adamw	are we working on the assumption we'll be delaying the alpha now?	16:40
jlaska	the phrase I used is ... the alpha is 'at risk'	16:40
jlaska	:)	16:40
jlaska	#chair adamw	16:40
zodbot	Current chairs: adamw jlaska	16:40
jlaska	I don't have anything else on this topic ... just wanted to make sure all the issues were raised and we had an idea how to proceed	16:41
adamw	okay	16:41
kparal	on Live image the Rawhide repository is enabled, instead of Fedora repo. is that a bug?	16:41
jlaska	so to summarize ...	16:41
adamw	anyone else have anything to add on the alpha topic?	16:41
adamw	kparal: seems like one to me, yeah - could be similar to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=566991 ?	16:41
adamw	but definitely file it and escalate as a blocker	16:42
kparal	ok	16:42
jlaska	kparal: good catch	16:42
jlaska	the only other topics I had for today were the open-discussion items	16:43
adamw	yeah	16:43
maxamillion	w00t! I'm late but just in time for open-discussion	16:43
maxamillion	:P	16:43
adamw	hey maxa	16:43
jlaska	adamw: can you walk meetbot through those items?	16:44
maxamillion	I just wanted to point out ---> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SecuritySpin:QA_Brainstorm	16:44
adamw	okay okay everyone calm down!	16:44
adamw	deep breaths!	16:44
adamw	#topic open floor	16:44
wwoods	harrumph! etc!	16:44
maxamillion	adamw: hi hi :)	16:44
adamw	now, children	16:44
adamw	form an orderly queue	16:44
adamw	jlaska suggests:	16:44
adamw	#topic open floor: fedora 13 bug filing procedures	16:44
adamw	but notes 'possible BugZapper topic'	16:44
adamw	which, for me, it is - I have something about this on the BZ agenda for tomorrow	16:45
jlaska	adamw: you raised this last week, just wanted to make sure it was captured somewhere	16:45
jlaska	great!	16:45
adamw	i'm just concerned about what we do with bugs filed on rawhide between a release and a branch point, since it's now not clear whether we should treat those as rawhide or f13 bugs, but we'll discuss that in bz tomorrow	16:45
maxamillion	I do like me some procedures	16:45
adamw	anyone have any comments on that / related concerns?	16:45
adamw	okey dokey	16:46
adamw	#topic open floor: defining FAS qa membership	16:46
maxamillion	oooo, good one	16:46
adamw	not sure where this one comes from; every time it's come up in the past we've noted that we don't actually use the FAS system for anything much so it's a no-op	16:46
adamw	i guess someone has new concerns / proposals?	16:47
jlaska	well, we have a real use case now where FAS qa membership provides a benefit	16:47
maxamillion	adamw: its being used for packages in critical path for updates to F13	16:47
jlaska	^^^ yup	16:47
maxamillion	adamw: those packages have to get karma from members of the FAS group in order to make it through bodhi	16:47
jlaska	so, I just wanted to start this thought process ... and add to the collective team TODO list	16:47
adamw	ahhh	16:48
adamw	so, the question is, how do we define who gets on the list	16:48
maxamillion	bingo	16:48
maxamillion	also, what requirements need to be met for newcomers who want to join the FAS group	16:48
maxamillion	?*	16:48
adamw	we could take a cue from the bugzappers system for new members	16:48
adamw	and grandparent in existing ones, i guess	16:49
maxamillion	is anyone even a member of that group?	16:49
adamw	i think like three people or something :)(	16:49
Oxf13	well, I'd say flush the group membership except for those who are regularly showing up at this meeting	16:49
wwoods	actually the QA group was flushed a while ago	16:50
wwoods	wasn't it?	16:50
Oxf13	from that point, those in the group can serve as a proxy for those who want to be in the group	16:50
adamw	not everyone who contributes usefully on the list shows up to the meetings	16:50
* wwoods tried to flush the QA group about a year ago		16:50
jlaska	it might need a re-flush	16:50
wwoods	who's been adding people to it?	16:50
Oxf13	those who want can do the testing and provide the karma, a QA member can "sign-off" on that testing	16:50
Oxf13	eventually we'll grant full membership to those who prove that they are doing the right thing	16:50
maxamillion	+1	16:50
kparal	we should also create a short wiki document saying how and when to do ACK and when not to do it	16:51
maxamillion	now the question is ... how to put that into verbage for the wiki?	16:51
wwoods	you can't view approved group members? feh	16:51
kparal	for QA members	16:51
jlaska	kparal: +++1	16:51
kparal	another policy task :)	16:52
Oxf13	we're going to need to do something very similar for the releng group	16:53
adamw	so what's the next step on this? who wants to draft up some wiki pages?	16:53
maxamillion	I can, but I imagine there will be some heavy editing needed	16:54
maxamillion	but I wouldn't mind putting together the first draft	16:54
kparal	great	16:54
adamw	excellent	16:54
adamw	#action maxamillion to draft up some proposed policy docs for qa FAS group membership	16:54
adamw	that's everything on the list...	16:54
adamw	so, maxamillion, your time to shine :P	16:54
adamw	#topic open floor: security spin	16:54
maxamillion	heh :D	16:55
maxamillion	http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SecuritySpin:QA_Brainstorm	16:55
maxamillion	I'm trying to work out some bits here since almost all the tools on the spin are command line, I want to get some people to help write some test cases to make sure those bits aren't broken	16:55
maxamillion	then once that piece is done and we can successfully do some manual testing I was wanting to move to a scripted test and hopefully toss it in the AutoQA ring	16:56
maxamillion	but that's the large scale hope .... right now its just going to be an information gathering piece	16:56
adamw	yep, like you wrote to the list	16:57
adamw	so, anything in particular to discuss or is this just a call for help?	16:57
maxamillion	more or less just a call for help if anyone has a few spare cycles and knows anything about any of the tools listed	16:57
maxamillion	I don't know about all of them which is really my main motivation behind extending out to the group for help	16:58
adamw	yeah, so get off your lazy butts people :)	16:58
maxamillion	lol	16:58
jlaska	maxamillion: there was a sectool test day a few releases back ... lemme remember who hosted that event so maybe they have ideas	16:58
jlaska	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2009-09-01_Sectool	16:58
maxamillion	jlaska: oh, that'd be awesome!	16:58
jlaska	looks like ... tmraz, mbarabas and pvrabec	16:59
maxamillion	oh goodness ... we don't appear to have sectool on the security spin :X	17:00
adamw	#info maxamillion looking for people to help draw up test cases for tools on the security spin	17:01
maxamillion	anyhoo, as far as QA efforts go there really wasn't a whole lot to add to what I posted on the list, I just thought I'd bring it up in case some of the people in the meeting hadn't gotten a chance to read through their email (I know I get backed up quite a bit at times)	17:01
adamw	#action jlaska / maxamillion to co-ordinate with sectool test day hosts tmraz, mbarabas and pvrabec who may be able to contribute	17:01
adamw	okay, that's that one	17:02
adamw	anyone else have an open floor topic?	17:02
jlaska	I already chewed up my allowance :)	17:04
maxamillion	oh, I had a random side question that might have been covered and I'm just a tardy turd ... but what's the current libvirt/KVM QA plans, etc.? and where can I find docs on how to help with that? (I have hardware that does KVM now and I'm excited about it)	17:04
adamw	i think our test plans are basically 'we do most of our testing in virtual machines so if it's broken we probably know about it' :P	17:04
adamw	but I may be missing something	17:04
kparal	and we have it as F13Beta criteria	17:05
maxamillion	adamw: fair enough ... that's pretty much what my work flow is at this point as well	17:05
maxamillion	ok, just thought I'd ask :)	17:05
Oxf13	I'm stepping out, I have a local engagement	17:06
adamw	proper formal testing would be useful i guess	17:06
adamw	i don't think we have any planned atm	17:06
adamw	#topic open floor	17:06
adamw	anything else?	17:07
maxamillion	not I	17:08
jlaska	nothing here	17:08
* adamw is busy watching youtube videos about insane japanese robot suits		17:08
maxamillion	adamw: LOL	17:09
adamw	alrighty then - thanks for coming everyone	17:09
adamw	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4evlxq34og , btw	17:09
jlaska	adamw: thanks for the #chair assist	17:09
adamw	aka HOLY SHIT IT'S THE FUTURE	17:10
adamw	#endmeeting	17:10

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

Search

QA/Meetings/20100222: Difference between revisions