From Fedora Project Wiki

< FWN‎ | Beats

m (correct heading depth)
(fwn 177 draft)
Line 10: Line 10:
=== Test Days ===
=== Test Days ===


This week's Test Day<ref>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2009-05-14_iBus</ref> was on iBus<ref>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/IBus</ref>, the new default input method framework for Asian languages in Fedora 11. Over 15 people came out to test and report their results, and overall the new system seemed to be working solidly, but testing revealed several issues for the developers to work on. Thanks to all who came out for the Test Day.
There was no Test Day last week, as we are deep in the Fedora 11 final release run-up.


Currently, no Test Day is scheduled for next week - it is too close to the scheduled release of Fedora 11 for any testing to produce results directly in Fedora 11 final release, but if you would like to propose a test day which could result in changes for post-release updates, or an early test day for Fedora 12, please contact the QA team via email or IRC.
Currently, no Test Day is scheduled for next week - it is too close to the scheduled release of Fedora 11 for any testing to produce results directly in Fedora 11 final release, but if you would like to propose a test day which could result in changes for post-release updates, or an early test day for Fedora 12, please contact the QA team via email or IRC.
Line 18: Line 18:
=== Weekly meetings ===
=== Weekly meetings ===


The QA group weekly meeting<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings</ref> was held on 2009-05-13. The full log is available<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20090513</ref>. [[User:Wwoods|Will Woods]] reported that he had been doing a lot of upgrade tests, but had not had time to write them up formally as test cases as was planned at the previous meeting.
The QA group weekly meeting<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings</ref> was held on 2009-05-20. The full log is available<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20090520</ref>. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] reported that he had filed a ticket to have Bodhi use the appropriate resolution for bugs fixed with stable release updates. [[User:Lmacken|Luke Macken]] said he would take care of the ticket. Adam also reported that he had not yet remembered to ask the Bugzilla team to add a link to the Fedora bug workflow page.


[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] reported that he had completed the revision of the Fedora bug workflow page<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow</ref> to include the alternative processes agreed for closing bugs in Rawhide at the previous meeting, and had made further changes. He directed the group to his announcement email<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-May/msg01034.html</ref> for further details.
[[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] reported that he had not yet sent out a Test Day feedback survey to previous participants, but had a draft ready and would continue to work on it.


[[User:Wwoods|Will Woods]] reported there had been little work on the autoqa project during the week, as testing for Fedora 11 release had taken priority.
[[User:poelstra|John Poelstra]] said that he had not yet finalized a schedule for blocker bug reviews during the Fedora 12 cycle, as the overall Fedora 12 cycle was still not finalized. He will revisit the issue next week.


The group discussed how to get feedback on the conduct of Test Days themselves, rather than on the software being tested. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] suggested adding a 'suggestion box' to the normal layout for Test Day wiki pages. [[User:Johannbg|Jóhann Guðmundsson]] suggested an email to the fedora-test-list mailing list. [[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] wanted to get in touch with the maintainers who had been involved with Fedora 11 Test Days for their suggestions; [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] thought it better to simply contact them via email then attempt to set up some kind of survey system.
[[User:Wwoods|Will Woods]] reported there had been little work on the autoqa project or adding upgrade test cases to the Wiki during the week, as testing for Fedora 11 release had taken priority.


The group then discussed the Fedora 11 release situation. [[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] explained that [[User:jkeating|Jesse Keating]] had already led a complete review of all outstanding blocker bugs for the release, trimming the list from over 70 to under 40 by downgrading the priority of some issues, and closing some which had already been addressed, after testing. Jesse thought the planned schedule for a second round of reviews was too late, and decided that it should happen on 2009-05-18. The group agreed that the handling of the final stages of release had not been optimal for F11, and for F12 the group should endeavour to get the blocker bug review done earlier in order to be ready for the release candidate phase, and that it would be useful to hold more blocker review meetings earlier in the cycle overall.
The group discussed the Fedora 11 release situation, and noted that the release had been pushed back one week. They examined the blocker bug list, and found it was generally manageable. Francois Cami noted that major fixes to X.org's core or the ATI driver were unlikely as [[DaveAirlie|Dave Airlie]] is on vacation. The group noted that most remaining X.org blockers were in the Intel driver, and assigned to  


The group then discussed the release candidate phase (note that release candidate builds are generally not widely distributed beyond the QA group, for reasons of timing and available resources). [[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] explained that he planned to create an installation test matrix, with 'how to test' documentation. [[User:Wwoods|Will Woods]] and [[User:jkeating|Jesse Keating]] were already working on smoke testing early pre-RC builds. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] suggested sending an email to fedora-test-list to remind members that now is an ideal time to be testing installation from Rawhide.
The group then discussed the Fedora 11 Common Bugs page<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F11_bugs</ref>. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] volunteered to revise the existing page to match the format used for previous releases, initiate a few other changes based on his previous work on Mandriva Linux Errata pages, and talk to other groups about the use of the page, including the Documentation group, and the IRC, mailing list and forum support teams. Francois Cami volunteered to help ensure all appropriate X.org issues are tracked on the page.


[[User:Johannbg|Jóhann Guðmundsson]] raised the issue of the lack of clarity regarding Fedora's target user base, which [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] had mentioned in discussions on fedora-devel-list. [[User:jkeating|Jesse Keating]] mentioned that the issue was already under active discussion by the board. After a long discussion, the group all agreed that the QA group did not need to have an opinion on what type of user Fedora should be targetting, but should make it clear to the board that the lack of a clear definition of this issue was actively affecting the ability of the QA group to work effectively, and QA work would benefit immediately from a clear resolution of this issue, whatever the resolution may be.
In open discussion, Francois Cami noted that for Fedora 11, users of several generations of ATI Radeon cards would now only have the free drivers as a viable choice, whereas previously they would be able to use the ATI proprietary driver from third-party repositories. It was also noted that, at release time, the commonly-used RPMFusion repository would have no packages available for the proprietary driver even for cards for which it is still available, due to the lack of a reliable patch for kernel 2.6.29. The group discussed whether this could be explained in the release notes (with no definite resolution, but advice to check with the Documentation team), and how to note the requirements for a full and useful bug report for problems with the free driver from such users. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] noted that the appropriate venue for such information would be the Bugs and Feature Requests Wiki page<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugsAndFeatureRequests</ref>.  


[[User:Johannbg|Jóhann Guðmundsson]] asked about progress on [[User:jkeating|Jesse Keating's]] proposal to drop the Alpha milestone for the Fedora 12 release cycle. Jesse reported the proposal had been approved by the Release Engineering group and then by FESCo.
The Bugzappers group weekly meeting<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/Meetings</ref> was held on 2009-05-19. The full log is available<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/Meetings/Minutes-2009-May-19</ref>. [[User:poelstra|John Poelstra]] reported on progress of the housekeeping changes for Fedora 11's release, and the group agreed that he was doing a fine job and should keep it up.


The Bugzappers group weekly meeting<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/Meetings</ref> was held on 2009-05-12. The full log is available<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/Meetings/Minutes-2009-May-12</ref>. [[User:poelstra|John Poelstra]] reported that the planned email to fedora-devel-announce about the housekeeping changes in Bugzilla for Fedora 11 release was ready, and asked for feedback. The group agreed the email looked fine except for talking about Fedora 12 instead of Fedora 11. John promised to fix this and then send out the email.
[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] reported on the progress of the triage metric system. Brennan Ashton has again been busy (and without access to a regular internet connection), so progress has been slow. Adam clarified that the main choke point now was the lack of a set of test data for the scripts, to ensure that they were working correctly, and explained he was doing his best to get this data made available. Once it is available, work on the system is no longer solely dependent on Brennan being available.


The group briefly discussed the query used to find bugs filed on Rawhide to be changed to Fedora 11, and mostly agreed that it looked fine.
[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] also reported on the progress of the proposal to include setting the priority / severity fields as part of triage. He had sent out the mail asking for feedback on how to proceed, but had received none yet. The group agreed that he should send out another mail as a new thread, and set a deadline of the end of the week; if no significant feedback to the contrary was received by that point, the group agreed they should proceed using the method proposed by Matej Cepl.


[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] reported on the progress of the triage metric system. Brennan Ashton had been very busy during the week and hence difficult to get hold of. He reported that the Python development group was waiting for Brennan to provide test data for them to confirm their proposed fixes to the code were correct, and he was trying to get Brennan to provide this data.
The next QA weekly meeting will be held on 2009-05-27 at 1600 UTC in #fedora-meeting, and the next Bugzappers weekly meeting on 2009-05-26 at 1500 UTC in #fedora-meeting.


[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] also reported on the progress of the proposal to include setting the priority / severity fields as part of triage. The request for feedback on fedora-devel-list had produced little response; Adam suggested this wasn't a problem, as the main point was to make sure no developers were actively opposed to the proposal for good reasons. The group agreed that Adam would send a mail to the list to move the process along with a view to starting work on priority / severity as part of the initial triage process soon.
<references/>


[[User:Tk009|Edward Kirk]] revived the proposal to create a 000-Not-Sure-What-Component-To-File-Against component to catch bug reports when the reporter was not sure what the component should be. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] pointed out the potential drawback to the proposal was that it would encourage reporters not to bother selecting the correct component for their report, thus needlessly increasing the load on the triagers. The group agreed that the current small number of bugs filed against the 0xFFFF component which currently occupies the first spot in the components list indicated this was not a problem worth making an active effort to address, and further agreed to work on correctly assigning all bugs currently filed against 0xFFFF.
=== Blocker bug review meeting ===


The next QA weekly meeting will be held on 2009-05-20 at 1600 UTC in #fedora-meeting, and the next Bugzappers weekly meeting on 2009-05-19 at 1500 UTC in #fedora-meeting.
[[User:poelstra|John Poelstra]] announced<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg00946.html</ref> a joint QA / Release Engineering Fedora 11 blocker bug review meeting on Friday 2009-05-22. The meeting was not logged, but all outstanding release blockers were reviewed, some were closed or downgraded, and action plans were decided for several.


<references/>
=== Adobe Flash installation instructions ===


=== Upcoming Bugzilla changes ===
[[User:Beland|Christopher Beland]] explained<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg01004.html</ref> that he had updated the Wiki page on Flash<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Flash</ref> with the latest instructions on installing it on x86-64 systems. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] noted<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg01006.html</ref> that the page should emphasize free software alternatives as well as the proprietary Adobe Flash system. [[User:Pfrields | Paul Frields]] announced<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg01027.html</ref> that he had made such a change.
 
[[User:poelstra|John Poelstra]] announced<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg00560.html</ref> that the regular housekeeping changes to Bugzilla for a new release would be happening on 2009-05-26, with all bugs filed on Rawhide being changed to Fedora 11, and a comment left on bugs filed on Fedora 9 that they must be moved to a later release if confirmed still to be valid, or else they will be closed as WONTFIX.


<references/>
<references/>


=== Bugzappers new member SOP ===
=== Fedora 11 Common Bugs page ===


[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] reported<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg00673.html</ref> that he had revised the new members SOP<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/sop_new_member</ref> to be clearer and more explicit, and the page explaining how to join the Bugzappers group<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/Joining</ref> to fully explain the revised process, including the self-introduction email.
[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] announced<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg01026.html</ref> his revisions to the Fedora 11 Common Bugs page, and asked the group to contribute to expanding and maintaining the page and consistently refer to it when explaining problems. He also explained some of the planned improvements to the content of the page and its interaction with Bugzilla.


<references/>
<references/>


=== Priority / severity process ===
=== Mozilla / Beagle blocker bug proposal ===


[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] followed up<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg00674.html</ref> on the priority / severity proposal, explaining that no significant negative feedback had been received from the development group, and asking for votes on which method for setting these fields the group should proceed with.
Jonathan Kamens asked<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg01041.html</ref> whether a bug preventing Beagle from searching Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird data should be a release blocker, on the basis that desktop search is a key function for some users and web browser and email data are important sets which someone may wish to search. [[User:bpepple| Brian Pepple]] pointed out<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg01042.html</ref> that it did not meet the official release blocker criteria<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/ReleaseCriteria</ref>, but Jonathan responded that the page admits this is a subjective judgment, and many bugs that do not strictly meet those criteria are in fact considered blockers. In the end, it was mostly agreed that, because Beagle is not installed by default and so is not considered core functionality, the issue should not be considered a blocker.


<references/>
=== New Bugzappers ===
 
Two new Bugzappers volunteers introduced themselves this week: Xia Shing Zee<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg00734.html</ref> and Alex Turner<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg01028.html</ref>.

Revision as of 00:46, 23 May 2009

QualityAssurance

In this section, we cover the activities of the QA team[1].

Contributing Writer: Adam Williamson

  1. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA

Test Days

There was no Test Day last week, as we are deep in the Fedora 11 final release run-up.

Currently, no Test Day is scheduled for next week - it is too close to the scheduled release of Fedora 11 for any testing to produce results directly in Fedora 11 final release, but if you would like to propose a test day which could result in changes for post-release updates, or an early test day for Fedora 12, please contact the QA team via email or IRC.


Weekly meetings

The QA group weekly meeting[1] was held on 2009-05-20. The full log is available[2]. Adam Williamson reported that he had filed a ticket to have Bodhi use the appropriate resolution for bugs fixed with stable release updates. Luke Macken said he would take care of the ticket. Adam also reported that he had not yet remembered to ask the Bugzilla team to add a link to the Fedora bug workflow page.

James Laska reported that he had not yet sent out a Test Day feedback survey to previous participants, but had a draft ready and would continue to work on it.

John Poelstra said that he had not yet finalized a schedule for blocker bug reviews during the Fedora 12 cycle, as the overall Fedora 12 cycle was still not finalized. He will revisit the issue next week.

Will Woods reported there had been little work on the autoqa project or adding upgrade test cases to the Wiki during the week, as testing for Fedora 11 release had taken priority.

The group discussed the Fedora 11 release situation, and noted that the release had been pushed back one week. They examined the blocker bug list, and found it was generally manageable. Francois Cami noted that major fixes to X.org's core or the ATI driver were unlikely as Dave Airlie is on vacation. The group noted that most remaining X.org blockers were in the Intel driver, and assigned to

The group then discussed the Fedora 11 Common Bugs page[3]. Adam Williamson volunteered to revise the existing page to match the format used for previous releases, initiate a few other changes based on his previous work on Mandriva Linux Errata pages, and talk to other groups about the use of the page, including the Documentation group, and the IRC, mailing list and forum support teams. Francois Cami volunteered to help ensure all appropriate X.org issues are tracked on the page.

In open discussion, Francois Cami noted that for Fedora 11, users of several generations of ATI Radeon cards would now only have the free drivers as a viable choice, whereas previously they would be able to use the ATI proprietary driver from third-party repositories. It was also noted that, at release time, the commonly-used RPMFusion repository would have no packages available for the proprietary driver even for cards for which it is still available, due to the lack of a reliable patch for kernel 2.6.29. The group discussed whether this could be explained in the release notes (with no definite resolution, but advice to check with the Documentation team), and how to note the requirements for a full and useful bug report for problems with the free driver from such users. Adam Williamson noted that the appropriate venue for such information would be the Bugs and Feature Requests Wiki page[4].

The Bugzappers group weekly meeting[5] was held on 2009-05-19. The full log is available[6]. John Poelstra reported on progress of the housekeeping changes for Fedora 11's release, and the group agreed that he was doing a fine job and should keep it up.

Adam Williamson reported on the progress of the triage metric system. Brennan Ashton has again been busy (and without access to a regular internet connection), so progress has been slow. Adam clarified that the main choke point now was the lack of a set of test data for the scripts, to ensure that they were working correctly, and explained he was doing his best to get this data made available. Once it is available, work on the system is no longer solely dependent on Brennan being available.

Adam Williamson also reported on the progress of the proposal to include setting the priority / severity fields as part of triage. He had sent out the mail asking for feedback on how to proceed, but had received none yet. The group agreed that he should send out another mail as a new thread, and set a deadline of the end of the week; if no significant feedback to the contrary was received by that point, the group agreed they should proceed using the method proposed by Matej Cepl.

The next QA weekly meeting will be held on 2009-05-27 at 1600 UTC in #fedora-meeting, and the next Bugzappers weekly meeting on 2009-05-26 at 1500 UTC in #fedora-meeting.

  1. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings
  2. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20090520
  3. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F11_bugs
  4. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugsAndFeatureRequests
  5. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/Meetings
  6. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/Meetings/Minutes-2009-May-19

Blocker bug review meeting

John Poelstra announced[1] a joint QA / Release Engineering Fedora 11 blocker bug review meeting on Friday 2009-05-22. The meeting was not logged, but all outstanding release blockers were reviewed, some were closed or downgraded, and action plans were decided for several.

Adobe Flash installation instructions

Christopher Beland explained[2] that he had updated the Wiki page on Flash[3] with the latest instructions on installing it on x86-64 systems. Adam Williamson noted[4] that the page should emphasize free software alternatives as well as the proprietary Adobe Flash system. Paul Frields announced[5] that he had made such a change.

  1. ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg00946.html
  2. ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg01004.html
  3. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Flash
  4. ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg01006.html
  5. ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg01027.html

Fedora 11 Common Bugs page

Adam Williamson announced[1] his revisions to the Fedora 11 Common Bugs page, and asked the group to contribute to expanding and maintaining the page and consistently refer to it when explaining problems. He also explained some of the planned improvements to the content of the page and its interaction with Bugzilla.

  1. ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg01026.html

Mozilla / Beagle blocker bug proposal

Jonathan Kamens asked[1] whether a bug preventing Beagle from searching Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird data should be a release blocker, on the basis that desktop search is a key function for some users and web browser and email data are important sets which someone may wish to search. Brian Pepple pointed out[2] that it did not meet the official release blocker criteria[3], but Jonathan responded that the page admits this is a subjective judgment, and many bugs that do not strictly meet those criteria are in fact considered blockers. In the end, it was mostly agreed that, because Beagle is not installed by default and so is not considered core functionality, the issue should not be considered a blocker.

New Bugzappers

Two new Bugzappers volunteers introduced themselves this week: Xia Shing Zee[4] and Alex Turner[5].

  1. ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg01041.html
  2. ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg01042.html
  3. ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/ReleaseCriteria
  4. ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg00734.html
  5. ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg01028.html
Retrieved from "https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=FWN/Beats/QualityAssurance&oldid=103577"