QA/Meetings/20101213

Attendees

People present (lines said)

1. jlaska (152)
2. adamw (41)
3. jskladan (37)
4. kparal (32)
5. wwoods (26)
6. fcami__ (25)
7. brunowolff (5)
8. mkrizek (2)
9. fenrus02 (1)
10. phuzion (1)
11. jsmith (1)
12. Alam (1)
13. Viking-Ice (1)

Unable to attend:

1. Rhe (hopefully sleeping)

Agenda

• Proposed meeting agenda
• MeetBot summary

Call for Test Days

Owner

jlaska

Summary

Call for ideas/owners for Fedora 15 QA/Test_Days

Monitor list of approved features for ideas

Several events scheduled so far (GNOME 3, Xfce 4.8 and X Test Week)

Next steps ...

Contribute ideas to Talk:QA/Fedora_15_test_days

Identify owners to organize and host test days

Schedule another l10n/i18n test day

Bodhi patch

Owner

fcami

Summary

Posted a bodhi patch to improve the bugzilla comment bodhi posts when an update is available

See also fedora-infrastructure ticket#701

Next steps ...

Is there another bodhi-1.x build planned?

Python script communicating with bugzilla

Owner

Bruno

Tune existing python scripts to detect UNTESTED blocker bugs

Bruno drafted a set of sample queries, see User:Bruno#Mockup_for_QA_-_Tracking_bug_queries

The team discussed different approaches for how to integrate this list into current process

Next steps ...

The team tentatively agreed to review the list in each blocker review meeting

jlaska going to merge the proposed queries into the Blocker meeting SOP

Requirements review for Fedora test case management

Owner

rhe

See fedora-qa ticket#152

Requirements review for Fedora test case management

Hurry started drafting requirements at Rhe/tcms_requirements_proposal

Next steps ...

Hurry will continue refining requirements

All - please review and add any comments/concerns in Talk page

Critical Path test case development

Owner

adamwill

See fedora-qa ticket#154

Still experimenting with some mock-ups/examples

Next steps ...

AdamW planning to mail the list explaining proposed system and linking to examples

AutoQA Update

Owner

kparal

Summary

clumens' anaconda_storage test has been reviewed and ready to land in git master branch

The patch representing second attempt for solving ticket #205 has landed into autoqa-devel. That means we will be able to send our test results as comments into Bodhi.

lmacken enabled us to use staging Bodhi instance for AutoQA development purposes (mainly he turned off email notifications). Kudos to him for that

mkrizek and I worked on ticket #241 [6] ("Add support for a staging server"). The patch is not posted yet (waiting for previous patch to land in master), but the code is available at mkrizek-staging branch

jskladan works on a different kind of a koji watcher. His work is available in the 'new_koji_watcher' branch. His work should enable us to hook up depcheck properly into our framework. Some discussion followed on how best to group -pending updates, the group agreed to discuss offline

wwoods still working on a blog post and code to handle ticket #248 (simultaneous depcheck test runs)

Next steps ...

1. Wwoods posting blog article explaining the need for autoqa ticket#248
2. Determine appropriate strategy for watcher and depcheck integration, and revise patchset as needed

Action items

1. jlaska to ping jens+rhe and Alam for thoughts on a F15 l10n/i18n test day
2. jlaska to merge User:Bruno#Mockup_for_QA_-_Tracking_bug_queries into QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting

IRC Transcript

jlaska	#startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting	16:00
zodbot	Meeting started Mon Dec 13 16:00:06 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	#meetingname fedora-qa	16:00
zodbot	The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa'	16:00
jlaska	#topic Gathering life forms	16:00
jlaska	Hi all ... show of hands for those joining the QA meeting today	16:00
jlaska	or cilia, whichever is appropriate	16:00
* jskladan here		16:00
* mkrizek is here		16:00
* Alam here		16:01
adamw	yo!	16:01
* brunowolff I am here in case someone has a question about the not VERIFIED bug queries		16:01
* kparal hellos everyone		16:01
* fenrus02 waves		16:02
brunowolff	As an aside the fedora meeting page says the meeting is at 1500. I thought I missed it.	16:02
jlaska	brunowolff: oh thanks ... lemme update that	16:02
* jlaska waits 60 seconds to start meeting		16:02
jlaska	who are we missing? Viking-Ice wwoods robatino?	16:03
jlaska	alright, let's get moving	16:03
jlaska	#topic Previous Meeting follow-up	16:03
jlaska	I have no action items from last week	16:04
jlaska	we have some ongoing topics, but those will be covered in the agenda	16:04
jlaska	I continue to delay the QA retrospective recommendations work due to other conflicts	16:05
jlaska	thankfully ... that's not stopping some of you from moving forward on big topics for F15	16:05
jlaska	So if you're feeling down about being behind on a task ... you can join me in #behind :)	16:05
jlaska	alright, moving into the agenda	16:06
* Viking-Ice here		16:06
jlaska	howdy!	16:06
jlaska	#topic Call for Test Days	16:06
* phuzion is here		16:06
jlaska	Just re-iterating last weeks call for topics	16:06
jlaska	phuzion: hello :)	16:06
* adamw just sent out an email with that topic to devel-announce...		16:06
jlaska	#link http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2010-December/000733.html	16:07
jlaska	adamw: that's great, thank you	16:07
jlaska	adamw: you scheduled quite a few events last week already	16:07
adamw	well, mostly just several recurrences of two or three :)	16:07
jlaska	the xorg-x11-drv week ... our bread'n'butter ;)	16:07
jlaska	Alam mentioned another l10n/i18n event	16:08
jlaska	I'll ping jens, rhe and Alam about that for F15	16:08
jlaska	iirc, jens and rhe hosted a similar (and successful) event for F14	16:08
adamw	that'd be cool yep	16:08
adamw	the one for f14 was great, it identified some bugs we got marked as NTH and fixed	16:09
adamw	probably wouldn't have been caught otherwise	16:09
jlaska	#action jlaska to ping jens+rhe and Alam for thoughts on a F15 l10n/i18n test day	16:09
jlaska	The RetraceServer guys were interested in hosting something mid-march	16:10
jlaska	but nothing final yet ... I've got an action item to ping them too	16:10
jlaska	adamw: do you think systemd will likely land on the schedule somewhere?	16:11
adamw	should do yep	16:11
adamw	i'm waiting to hear from lennart and/or harald	16:11
jlaska	adamw: sweet, I should have known you already reached out on that :)	16:11
jlaska	Some links for those reading the logs ...	16:12
jlaska	#link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/15/FeatureList	16:12
jlaska	#link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Fedora_15_test_days	16:12
jlaska	adamw: anything else to note on this topic?	16:12
adamw	harald's on vacation, i'm hoping lennart will get back soon	16:12
adamw	nope, i've mostly thrown in the things i had on my list	16:12
jlaska	adamw: thanks for moving that process forward	16:13
adamw	npnp	16:13
jlaska	#topic Bodhi patch	16:13
* fcami__ waves		16:14
jlaska	hey, there he is :)	16:14
fcami__	sorry, just got back from a meeting	16:14
* wwoods is lurking		16:14
jlaska	wwoods: hey	16:14
jlaska	so fcami posted a patch to update the comment that bodhi posts into bugzilla when an update is available for testing	16:14
fcami__	then I sent an updated patch to jlaska/adamw yesterday	16:14
jlaska	#link http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/701	16:15
fcami__	the latest patch integrates all the comments done by bugzappers during the last meeting	16:15
jlaska	fcami__: for next steps ... I think that patch needs review from the bodhi-devel team, and then figure out what to apply it against?	16:15
jlaska	is lmacken lurking?	16:15
fcami__	yes, if you're all OK with that	16:15
adamw	sure	16:16
adamw	just looking at the patch...	16:16
adamw	why are there two slightly different messages in different places?	16:16
fcami__	sorry, I should have posted it to some mailing list	16:16
jlaska	is the patch available for lmacken to review as well?	16:16
fcami__	hmmm, they shouldn't be different	16:16
* adamw tries to fpaste it		16:17
adamw	one seems to have just a bit more text	16:17
fcami__	the two places are 1/ what happens when you edit a bodhi action, adding bugs 2/ when you create a bodhi action with bugs	16:17
jlaska	#link http://fpaste.org/F3Pv/	16:17
jlaska	^^^ patch	16:17
adamw	oh. no, actually, they are the same	16:17
adamw	i just was missing where it wrapped a line :)	16:17
adamw	so looks fine	16:17
fcami__	oy ok :)	16:17
jlaska	is there a bodhi-devel list? How do we get this on the right radar?	16:17
adamw	except i still thought it would be good to have it give a note to log in before leaving feedback	16:18
fcami__	I can add that, yes	16:18
fcami__	there is bodhi@fedorahosted IIRC	16:18
fcami__	I'll CC lmacken	16:18
jlaska	fcami__: ah yeah ... https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/bodhi	16:18
jlaska	fcami__: also, is this patch against the current bodhi code base, or the bodhi-2.0 stuff?	16:19
fcami__	jlaska, whatever's in master in the git repo. maybe I should dig more.	16:19
jlaska	fcami__: I think lmacken can probably add some data there ... since he'll likely be the one accepting the patch (I think)	16:20
* jlaska sees you already started the discussion https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/bodhi/2010-December/000543.html		16:20
fcami__	yes, I did that, that's the previous version	16:21
jlaska	what's the next step?	16:21
fcami__	nirik replied to let me know there was an infra ticket	16:21
fcami__	next step is to update the patch with the log in requirement	16:21
jlaska	cool, and then we should track progress on the thread you started on bodhi@lists.fedorahosted.org ?	16:22
fcami__	yeah, I think so	16:22
fcami__	I'll CC test@lists.fedoraproject.org	16:22
fcami__	as I did last time	16:22
jlaska	okay ... sounds like you've got all the ducks in a row :)	16:22
jlaska	shall we check-in on this again next week?	16:23
fcami__	yeah, probably so	16:23
jlaska	okay	16:23
fcami__	I should update the patch tonight	16:23
jlaska	thanks fcami__	16:23
fcami__	and then I'll try to reach lmacken directly	16:23
fcami__	np jlaska	16:23
fcami__	because I'd like to know if he's OK with the general idea	16:24
* fcami__ gives the mic back		16:24
jlaska	alright ... bruno's next	16:24
jlaska	#topic Improve tracking untested blocker bugs	16:24
jlaska	This is a follow-up on ...	16:24
jlaska	#link http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/89	16:24
jlaska	brunowolff created a draft wiki page with some stock queries we can use to keep track of blocker bugs that get CLOSED but are never VERIFIED	16:25
jlaska	#link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bruno#Mockup_for_QA_-_Tracking_bug_queries	16:25
jlaska	brunowolff: that looks about what we needed. I don't know if we have a pressing need for tracking the NTH bugs that aren't VERIFIED	16:26
jlaska	so if we were looking to slim up the links ... that might be one option	16:26
jlaska	adamw: any thoughts?	16:27
brunowolff	The one possibly significant limitation is that only bugs directly dependent on each tracker are checked.	16:27
adamw	we don't need to track the NTH bugs, but hey, it doesn't hurt either.	16:27
jlaska	The general idea here I think is that we want to incorporate review of these bugs into the blocker bug SOP somehow	16:27
brunowolff	If there are normal bugs depending on other normal bugs that aren't verified, that won't get caught.	16:27
adamw	yeah, that limitation is unfortunate	16:27
adamw	especially when we use component or team blockers, like the anaconda and kde and virt trackers	16:28
jlaska	brunowolff: yeah, I'm used to that limitation ... so that doesn't bother me too much	16:28
jlaska	just as long as we call it out somewhere	16:28
jlaska	so ... how would we respond to bugs on these lists?	16:28
adamw	i kinda thought the aim of the tracker was to ensure that such bugs don't exist	16:29
jlaska	my initial thought, is these lists would serve as extra data ... helping us decide whether some serious looking Blocker bugs never were tested	16:29
adamw	so it's to be used to identify process fail more than some sort of ongoing thing	16:29
jlaska	adamw: yeah, you got it	16:29
jlaska	I don't know if we'll be able to knock out *all* bugs that show up on these lists	16:29
adamw	although i suppose when we mark bugs as blockers early in the cycle and they just get fixed in the normal process of releasing we may skip verified	16:30
jlaska	but that's a laudable goal	16:30
jlaska	adamw: true true	16:30
jlaska	howabout for F15 ... we periodically review the list during Blocker meetings, just like you do with NTH bugs?	16:30
adamw	we could, sure	16:30
jlaska	looking for any ... "Oh shoot!" moments?	16:30
adamw	the only drawback with that is...longer blocker meetings	16:30
adamw	:P	16:30
jlaska	yeah, true true	16:30
jlaska	hmm	16:30
jlaska	the other option is firing the list of test@lists.fp.org each week ... calling out issues if needed?	16:31
adamw	yeah	16:31
adamw	so it's list spam vs. meeting time	16:31
adamw	pick which you hate more	16:31
jlaska	heh :)	16:31
jlaska	we can move it to another meeting	16:32
jlaska	this one	16:32
jlaska	I feel like it's at least worth 5 minutes of a meeting to quickly scan the list	16:32
jlaska	I'll be happy to do the scanning during the meetings in F15	16:32
adamw	sure	16:32
jlaska	if it's useless ... oh well	16:32
adamw	let's see how it goes	16:32
jlaska	yeah	16:32
jlaska	should I integrate brunowolff's links into the blocker meeting SOP page?	16:33
jlaska	otherwise ... I'll forget when we are in the thick of a release :)	16:33
adamw	if we're going to do it in the blocker meeting, sure	16:34
adamw	document the whole process is the goal	16:34
jlaska	brunowolff: unless you have other recommendations, I can try to sanely merge your links into the blocker meeting SOP	16:34
jlaska	#link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting	16:34
jlaska	#action jlaska to merge User:Bruno#Mockup_for_QA_-_Tracking_bug_queries into QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting	16:34
brunowolff	That's fine. If you have any further questions for me, you can bug me by email.	16:35
jlaska	brunowolff: will do, thanks for the bz help :)	16:35
jlaska	#topic Fedora test case mgmt requirements	16:35
jlaska	Just a quick update on #topic	16:35
jlaska	#link http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/152	16:35
jlaska	Hurry drafted an initial requirements page to start collecting/organizing data	16:35
jlaska	#link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Rhe/tcms_requirements_proposal	16:35
jlaska	Please do add comments/ideas/suggestions to the Talk: page	16:36
jlaska	I plan to add some, hopefully constructive, feedback later this week	16:36
jlaska	Alright, next topic ...	16:37
jlaska	#topic CritPath test case development	16:37
jlaska	#link http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/154	16:37
jlaska	adamw: how's it coming along on the critpath work?	16:37
jlaska	any updates/blockers/concerns/question/jokes ...	16:38
adamw	nope, just waiting on me to do something	16:38
adamw	till's feedback was good, i'll go ahead incorporating that	16:39
jlaska	cool. I don't know if it helped, but there's plenty of stuff we can get through the mediawiki API	16:39
adamw	i'm going to write up one or two example (but useful...) test cases, in the appropriate name / category layout, then mail the list again explaining the proposed system and linking to the examples	16:39
jlaska	lemme know if you want me to do any queries for you	16:39
jlaska	adamw: sounds like a plan	16:39
jlaska	#info still experimenting with some mock-ups/examples	16:40
jlaska	#info Will mail the list explaining proposed system and linking to examples	16:40
jlaska	alright ... kparal, are you ready to rock?	16:41
jlaska	thanks adamw :)	16:41
kparal	jlaska: ready to rock the boat :)	16:41
jlaska	#topic AutoQA Update	16:41
adamw	jlaska: i don't really need the queries, it's bodhi/f-e-k that need them :)	16:41
jlaska	adamw: right on	16:41
jlaska	adamw: I meant if you wanted feedback as to whether your examples are queryable as intended etc...	16:42
* kparal waiting a while		16:42
jlaska	kparal: another busy week for AutoQA ... what's the latest?	16:42
kparal	Hello gang, even though I didn't want to be as wordy as last time, I'm afraid I will be :) Here are the latest news:	16:42
kparal	1. clumens' anaconda_storage test has been reviewed propertly (regarding AutoQA part of the test) and it is ready to be merged into master, once clumens deems it's ready. Therefore it should be very probably part of the next release [1]. Enjoy automatic Anaconda tests in the near future, hooray!	16:43
kparal	[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AutoQA_Roadmap	16:43
kparal	(Hey, I have written it in advance, so it would be quicker, but feel free to stop me after any section if you have some comments to it)	16:43
kparal	2. The patch representing second attempt for solving ticket #205 [2] ("Provide a support for sending comments into Bodhi") has landed into autoqa-devel [3]. Big thanks to mkrizek. If no further concerns, it will be merged into master very soon. That means we will be able to send our test results as comments into Bodhi. Example is here: [4]. Currently this is planned for depcheck and for upgradepath test (not enabled yet).	16:44
kparal	[2] https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/205	16:44
kparal	[3] https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/autoqa-devel/2010-December/001435.html	16:44
kparal	[4] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-rpmfluff-0.3-6.fc14	16:44
jlaska	hehe ... you kept dmalcolm on his toes in that update :)	16:45
kparal	yes we did :)	16:45
kparal	but he agreed. maybe he didn't know what to expect	16:45
jlaska	nice workflow with that patch set guys ... proposing, incorporating feedback, providing examples etc...	16:46
wwoods	it's lovely stuff	16:46
kparal	3. lmacken enabled us to use staging Bodhi instance for AutoQA development purposes (mainly he turned off email notifications). Kudos to him for that. There is currently also an invalid certificate problem, but that should be solved in some time. Meanwhile the process of (mis)using staging Bodhi server from AutoQA is described at [5].	16:46
kparal	[5] https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/autoqa-devel/2010-December/001438.html	16:46
jlaska	"insecure=True" ... that gives you a warm feeling :)	16:47
kparal	:)	16:47
kparal	alright, next on	16:48
kparal	4. mkrizek and I worked on ticket #241 [6] ("Add support for a staging server"). The patch is not posted yet (waiting for previous patch to land in master), but the code is available at mkrizek-staging branch. It should allow us have configurable Koji/Bodhi server URLs and configurable options whether to send emails (3 different kinds, actually) and Bodhi comments.	16:48
kparal	[6] https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/241	16:48
jlaska	oh nice, that'll be a handy change	16:48
kparal	(and expect much more documentation in autoqa.conf, as a bonus)	16:49
wwoods	hooray documentation!	16:49
wwoods	heh	16:49
jlaska	btw ... who gets the credit for the killer __docstring__'s ?	16:49
kparal	jlaska: which ones?	16:49
jlaska	in the bodhi feedback patchset ... mkrizek has some really good docstrings for all the methods	16:50
kparal	jlaska: the praise goes to mkrizek I believe	16:50
kparal	I just asked him to document it well, he did the rest :)	16:50
jlaska	nice!	16:51
kparal	ok, and last but not least:	16:51
* mkrizek flattered		16:51
kparal	5. jskladan works on a different kind of a koji watcher. His work is available in the 'new_koji_watcher' branch. His work should enable us to hook up depcheck properly into our framework. It will also obsolete the post-bodhi-update watcher. I'll give him a word to say some key concepts of our new watcher and why we even need it.	16:51
* jskladan steps forward		16:52
jskladan	OK, gang. We found ourselves in need of some updates on the watchers front.	16:52
* kparal hands out the mic to jskladan		16:52
jskladan	The required changes were	16:52
jskladan	1) Make use of the -pending tags in Koji: https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/228	16:52
jskladan	2) Create 'batch' scheduler: https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/204	16:52
jskladan	ad watching -pending tags)	16:52
jskladan	At the moment koji watcher is querying Koji for the list of recently built packages (based on the time of build).	16:53
jskladan	This is a bit unsatisfactory - we can (and we do) miss some spots in the testing chain:	16:53
jskladan	1) package Foo is built at date XYZ. It gains tag dist-f14-updates-candidate	16:53
jskladan	2) koji-watcher founds out "ha, new package, let's test it"	16:53
jskladan	3) tests are OK	16:53
jskladan	4) package Foo gains dist-f14-updates-testing-pending tag	16:53
jskladan	5) we'd like to run tests like depcheck on it, but because the 'built at' date, which the actual watcher checks is not altered, we miss the change	16:53
jskladan	So we decided to use different querying model, based on the tagHistory() in Koji.	16:53
jskladan	(kids, _do_ try this at home it's awesome :) koji list-tag-history --tag=dist-f14-updates-pending)	16:54
* jlaska tries		16:54
jskladan	which effectively tells us which packages were 'pushed' to the tags we care about.	16:54
* jskladan hopes that there's no typo :)		16:54
jskladan	ad "batch scheduling":	16:54
jlaska	so this adds a new 'hook' name that tests would need to code to (for batch updates)?	16:55
jskladan	yes, exactly	16:55
jskladan	We also found us in need of 'batch' scheduling - e.g. we don't want to run depcheck for every package built, but we'd like just to inform autoqa "hey, there is new stuff in dist-f14-updates-pending tag, run tests".	16:55
jskladan	So there is brand-spanking-new 'watch-koji-builds-batch' watcher.	16:56
jlaska	jskladan, wwoods have you guys worked out how depcheck would integrate with this stuff?	16:56
jskladan	which groups the updates according to the tag, and sends the whole 'batch' of updates at once	16:56
jskladan	jlaska: I have not yet spoken with Will	16:56
jskladan	jlaska: but I've tried it out in my testing environment, and it seems to be working like charm	16:57
jskladan	jlaska: even though I'm not really sure about the differences in post-bodhi-update & post-koji-build	16:57
jlaska	how do you mean?	16:57
jskladan	(e.g. if we can miss something by watching only koji-tags, and amending the post-bodhi hook as such)	16:57
jskladan	because at the moment, it seemed to me, that watching the tags is more straightforward for depecheck	16:58
jskladan	because we can easily determine the repo	16:58
jskladan	(or the tag, if you want)	16:58
jlaska	from my understanding, it does seem to better align with the use of hte koji -pending tag	16:59
jskladan	yes, this is also my point of view - I just wanted to make sure, that by setting the post-bodhi aside (at least for depcheck), we're not gonna miss any updates	16:59
jlaska	can run the old watcher, and your watcher side-by-side to compare?	17:00
jlaska	s/can/can we/	17:00
jskladan	the koji & bodhi watcher? sure can, but I belive that it suffers from the same problem as the old koji watcher - e.g. it's reacting to 'builds' instead of 'tag changes'	17:01
jlaska	jskladan: I'll have to take it offline ... I think I'm getting confused :)	17:01
jskladan	eh, my bad	17:01
kparal	this is a bit longer description than I expected :)	17:02
jlaska	wwoods and jskladan ... can you guys sync up on the watcher and depcheck integration?	17:02
jskladan	to put it straight: the plan is to effectively disable post-bodhi, and replace it with post-koji watcher over the 'pending' tags	17:02
wwoods	oop sorry, got waylaid by something, catching up on scrollback	17:02
jskladan	in the mean time - if you're interested in the new koji watcher, feel free to explore the git: <http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=autoqa.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/new_koji_watcher>	17:03
jskladan	and post comments on autoqa-devel (or IRC)	17:03
wwoods	using tag-history is definitely the right approach	17:03
jlaska	jskladan: nice ... I've got plenty of catch-up work to do on autoqa-devel :)	17:03
wwoods	but batching updates.. I don't think that's necesssary or desirable	17:04
wwoods	since the plan is to move to a messagebus as soon as it's feasible	17:05
wwoods	and the messagebus is going to send individual messages for each event	17:05
wwoods	it's not going to batch the messages, so we don't want to build batching into the infrastructure and then drop it later	17:05
kparal	let's consult it after the meeting	17:06
wwoods	this is ticket #204	17:06
wwoods	https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/204	17:06
jlaska	yeah, was going to suggest continuing this in #fedora-qa after the meeting	17:06
jlaska	what else on the autoqa front?	17:07
wwoods	right - this is just a quick summary for the meeting notes	17:07
jlaska	wwoods: thank you, that makes my minute gathering life easier!	17:07
wwoods	ticket #204 involves batching updates from the watcher	17:07
wwoods	a related problem is ticket #208, which concerns simultaneous depcheck runs	17:07
wwoods	err, sorry	17:07
wwoods	that's ticket #248	17:08
wwoods	https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/248	17:08
wwoods	I've tried to give some details on the proposed solutions there	17:08
jlaska	there's been a ton of change recently on the AutoQA front ... so if we need a side-meeting to talk through some of that ... let's do it	17:08
jlaska	let's discuss post-meeting	17:10
wwoods	anyway there's some complex, thorny issues with timing and tagging for depcheck (and other tests in this path)	17:10
* jsmith likes that idea		17:10
jlaska	wwoods: kparal: I think you both are talking from different POV's in ticket#248	17:10
wwoods	we should definitely discuss it further	17:10
wwoods	I'm also working on a blog post to try to explain what the problems are and how we can fix 'em	17:10
wwoods	not finished yet, but here's a diagram I'm working on:	17:10
wwoods	http://wwoods.fedorapeople.org/images/repos-draft.png	17:10
kparal	Thanks everyone, but this was supposed to be a summary, erm :)	17:10
kparal	wwoods: we will discuss if after the meeting	17:11
wwoods	heh, ah well	17:11
wwoods	but yes. Further Discussion Outside The Meeting Is Suggested	17:11
jlaska	no worries ... sounds like it identified a topic we need to drill down on outside of the meeting	17:11
jlaska	wwoods: nice diagram :)	17:11
kparal	thanks jskladan for the problem description	17:11
kparal	and this was also my last topic in the "AutoQA news"	17:12
* jskladan is shocked by the outcome :-D but looking forward to discussing this further :)		17:12
jlaska	thanks for the autoqa updates all	17:12
jlaska	alright ... open discussion time	17:12
jlaska	#topic Open discussion - <your topic here>	17:13
jlaska	we've gone a bit over today ... are there any other items we need to review here?	17:13
* jlaska waits 60 seconds		17:13
jlaska	20 seconds ...	17:14
adamw	nothing from me	17:14
jlaska	5 seconds ...	17:14
jlaska	Alright gang ... thanks for your time and updates today	17:14
jlaska	I'll follow-up to the list later today with minutes	17:15
jlaska	#endmeeting	17:15

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