From Fedora Project Wiki
| tflink | #startmeeting 2011-08-15 Fedora QA Meeting | 15:00 |
|---|---|---|
| zodbot | Meeting started Mon Aug 15 15:00:35 2011 UTC. The chair is tflink. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 15:00 |
| zodbot | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. | 15:00 |
| tflink | #topic roll call | 15:00 |
| * kparal here | 15:00 | |
| * athmane is here | 15:00 | |
| * mkrizek is present | 15:01 | |
| tflink | kparal, athmane, mkrizek, pschindl: welcome | 15:01 |
| adamw | yo | 15:02 |
| adamw | sorry folks, was on hairball patrol... | 15:02 |
| tflink | adamw: that sounds like fun | 15:02 |
| * tflink waits another couple minutes to see if we get more people | 15:03 | |
| adamw | sorry for no meeting announcement, either, was focusing on alpha | 15:04 |
| tflink | no worries, I was in the same boat :) | 15:05 |
| * tflink forgot until this morning | 15:05 | |
| tflink | ok, let's get this started | 15:05 |
| tflink | #topic Previous Meeting Follow-Up | 15:05 |
| tflink | AFAIK, we don't have anything to follow up on | 15:05 |
| tflink | is there anything I'm missing? | 15:05 |
| adamw | were there any #action items last week? | 15:06 |
| * jskladan lurks in | 15:06 | |
| adamw | the 'previous meeting followup' is mostly a checkin to make sure #actions were...actioned | 15:06 |
| tflink | adamw to split up 728891 into separate bugs and assign them appropriately | 15:06 |
| adamw | done! | 15:06 |
| adamw | that was the file conflict bug, it's been solved for a while now | 15:06 |
| tflink | #info 728891 successfully split up into separate bugs | 15:07 |
| tflink | that's the only one I'm seeing from last week | 15:07 |
| adamw | okay | 15:07 |
| tflink | on to the next topic | 15:07 |
| tflink | #topic Current Alpha Blockers | 15:07 |
| tflink | #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Current_Release_Blockers | 15:08 |
| tflink | we have 2 new proposed blockers that it'd be nice to go over quick | 15:08 |
| tflink | #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_16_Alpha_Release_Criteria | 15:09 |
| tflink | #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730415 | 15:09 |
| tflink | #info kickstart with user --name=blah results in traceback | 15:09 |
| tflink | talking with bcl on friday, this should be fixed soon | 15:10 |
| tflink | IIRC, a patch has been posted to anaconda-devel | 15:10 |
| adamw | this doesn't really make any blocker criteria | 15:10 |
| tflink | nope, probably not | 15:10 |
| adamw | we don't have a specific 'kickstart install should work' criterion but if we did i bet it'd be beta | 15:10 |
| tflink | proposed #agreed 730415 - RejectedBlocker, AcceptedNTH - Does not hit any alpha release criteria but it is kind of ugly. Tested fix would be accepted. | 15:11 |
| adamw | i'm not sure about nth at this point | 15:11 |
| tflink | ack/nack/patch? | 15:11 |
| adamw | that'd involve respinning anaconda again to do nothing but fix this... | 15:12 |
| Southern_Gentlem | can you stay its a beta blocker | 15:12 |
| adamw | do we have an anaconda dev in the house? | 15:12 |
| * tflink thought that there was another bug that they wanted to fix | 15:12 | |
| adamw | Southern_Gentlem: it can be proposed as one and then we'd discuss it on friday | 15:12 |
| tflink | oh, it's proposed nth | 15:12 |
| tflink | proposed #agreed 730415 - RejectedBlocker - Does not hit any of the alpha release criteria - repropose as beta blocker | 15:13 |
| clumens | THUD | 15:14 |
| adamw | ack for that | 15:14 |
| adamw | clumens: so we're split on whether 730415 should be nth | 15:14 |
| adamw | is there any other reason to rebuild anaconda at this point? | 15:14 |
| clumens | no | 15:14 |
| tflink | 729599 would be the other one, but that's nth too | 15:15 |
| clumens | right | 15:15 |
| tflink | and we were having trouble reproducing that on friday | 15:15 |
| tflink | well, in the way that we were fearing anyways | 15:15 |
| tflink | any other votes? | 15:16 |
| adamw | so...yeah, i'm kinda -1 nth at this point. anyone else have a vote? | 15:16 |
| clumens | i'm fine with kicking it on down to final | 15:16 |
| * tflink is taking that as an ack so that we can move on | 15:16 | |
| tflink | #agreed 730415 - RejectedBlocker - Does not hit any of the alpha release criteria - repropose as beta blocker | 15:16 |
| tflink | #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729500 | 15:17 |
| tflink | #info Error while installing updates on Fedora 16 Alpha RC3 | 15:17 |
| tflink | adamw: any luck reproducing this? | 15:17 |
| adamw | not seen it again | 15:17 |
| adamw | and no-one else has either | 15:17 |
| adamw | so let's reject it for now | 15:17 |
| tflink | rejected blocker? | 15:17 |
| adamw | and if others hit it for rc4...add it again | 15:17 |
| tflink | proposed #agreed - 729500 - RejectedBlocker - Have not been able to reproduce, rejecting as blocker. Re-propose if it shows up again. | 15:18 |
| tflink | ack/nack/patch? | 15:18 |
| adamw | ack | 15:18 |
| * tflink would prefer to have 3 votes ... | 15:19 | |
| tflink | #agreed - 729500 - RejectedBlocker - Have not been able to reproduce, rejecting as blocker. Re-propose if it shows up again. | 15:19 |
| * maxamillion is here ... late but here | 15:19 | |
| tflink | maxamillion: welcome | 15:20 |
| tflink | #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730438 | 15:20 |
| maxamillion | tflink: thanks :) | 15:20 |
| tflink | #info SSL CA errors when reporting an installer bug to bugzilla | 15:20 |
| * adamw notes once more for the record that you don't need to pass an exam to vote on blockers | 15:20 | |
| tflink | this is something that I hit on friday - it was covered up by another libreport bug | 15:20 |
| adamw | being an idiot on the internet with an opinion is enough | 15:20 |
| adamw | right, nice catch tflink | 15:20 |
| maxamillion | adamw: lol | 15:20 |
| pjones | but maybe we should start? | 15:21 |
| tflink | #info fix available, test boot.iso is being built for karma now | 15:21 |
| adamw | if we haven't formally voted yet: +1 blocker, prevents bug reporting from anaconda (again) | 15:21 |
| * maxamillion isn't entirely sure how to respond that | 15:21 | |
| adamw | maxamillion: i recommend blithely ignoring it | 15:21 |
| tflink | proposed #agreed - 730438 - AcceptedBlocker - he installer must be able to report failures to Bugzilla, with appropriate | 15:21 |
| tflink | information included. | 15:21 |
| adamw | ack | 15:21 |
| maxamillion | adamw: rgr that | 15:21 |
| tflink | proposed #agreed - 730438 - AcceptedBlocker - he installer must be able to report failures to Bugzilla, with appropriate information included | 15:21 |
| tflink | ack/nack/patch ? | 15:22 |
| tflink | don't make me start calling people out by name :) | 15:22 |
| adamw | ack. with an extra t. | 15:22 |
| adamw | (no, not 'tack'.) | 15:22 |
| tflink | kparal, jskladan: votes? | 15:22 |
| rbergeron | attack? | 15:22 |
| jsmith | ACK | 15:23 |
| tflink | finally :) | 15:23 |
| adamw | ubuntu is attacking?! | 15:23 |
| adamw | man the defences! | 15:23 |
| tflink | #agreed - 730438 - AcceptedBlocker - he installer must be able to report failures to Bugzilla, with appropriate information included | 15:23 |
| rbergeron | OMG | 15:23 |
| tflink | OK, proposed NTH time | 15:23 |
| * Viking-Ice joins in | 15:23 | |
| * kparal was slow to vote | 15:23 | |
| tflink | #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729599 | 15:23 |
| adamw | tflink, to the Negative Review Cannon! | 15:23 |
| tflink | #info PartitionException: msdos disk labels do not support partition names. | 15:23 |
| adamw | rbergeron, to the FUD Dispenser! | 15:23 |
| rbergeron | adamw: only if it has a flip-back yead | 15:24 |
| rbergeron | head | 15:24 |
| adamw | you got it | 15:24 |
| * bcl pokes his head in | 15:24 | |
| * maxamillion is pretty confident he missed something | 15:24 | |
| tflink | I think that I'm -1 nth on this one for alpha - the impact doesn't seem to be quite as bad as we first thought | 15:24 |
| adamw | oh, right, this one... | 15:24 |
| jsmith | +1 for NTH, -1 for blocker | 15:24 |
| jsmith | (alpha blocker, that is) | 15:24 |
| adamw | tflink: is ther news that's not in the bug? | 15:24 |
| tflink | adamw: it was your testing, you tell me | 15:25 |
| adamw | ah | 15:25 |
| adamw | well, i don't wanna rely too much on my little test | 15:25 |
| * athmane is sorry, need to go | 15:25 | |
| tflink | I'm not too strongly -1 | 15:25 |
| tflink | athmane: thanks for joining us | 15:25 |
| adamw | if bcl is sufficiently worried about the impact of this one, i'm still +1 | 15:25 |
| Viking-Ice | this happens only on upgrade right ? | 15:25 |
| tflink | the theory is that it could happen on clean install, too | 15:26 |
| adamw | yeah | 15:26 |
| Viking-Ice | with msdos partition ? | 15:26 |
| bcl | It happens any time you have a msdos labeled disk with the /boot partition on it | 15:26 |
| tflink | if you have msdos disk labels | 15:26 |
| adamw | the theory is that any install to a disk with an msdos disk label, which isn't being entirely reformatted, could be in trouble | 15:26 |
| Viking-Ice | which we clean out if default partitioning scheme is chosen in anaconda ? | 15:26 |
| adamw | i tried a test to confirm this and the install worked, but it's entirely possible i screwed something up. | 15:26 |
| adamw | Viking-Ice: default depends on exactly what's on the disk already, i think | 15:27 |
| tflink | proposed #agreed - 729599 - Doesn't hit any alpha criteria but could affect clean installs to disks with existing msdos partitions | 15:27 |
| tflink | ack/nack/patch? | 15:27 |
| tflink | whoops, that was supposed to say AcceptedNTH | 15:27 |
| tflink | proposed #agreed - 729599 - AcceptedNTH - Doesn't hit any alpha criteria but could affect clean installs to disks with existing msdos partitions | 15:27 |
| adamw | bcl: how messy is the fix for this? | 15:27 |
| clumens | so, i'll be doing an anaconda after all? | 15:28 |
| clumens | https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2011-August/msg00181.html | 15:28 |
| clumens | looks straightforward to me | 15:28 |
| adamw | yeah... | 15:28 |
| adamw | lemme see, what's the worst that could possibly happen... | 15:29 |
| adamw | if the boot partition doesn't get a name, would it still work? | 15:29 |
| bcl | adamw: the fix is clean, I just had to check to make sure the disk label supports the feature before using it. | 15:29 |
| adamw | (i.e. if somehow that conditional was never satisfied) | 15:29 |
| bcl | yes, everything would probably be fine. The change was primarily for EFI | 15:30 |
| adamw | okay... | 15:30 |
| Viking-Ice | I'm +1 nth if there is no risk of breaking partitioning if there is -1 nth | 15:30 |
| adamw | i guess, based on the simplicity of the fix, +1 nth | 15:30 |
| adamw | so yeah, new anaconda | 15:30 |
| maxamillion | +1 nth | 15:30 |
| bcl | there is always risk. the question is -- is the risk better to take in Alpha or Beta? | 15:30 |
| tflink | ok, sounds like we have an agreement | 15:30 |
| clumens | can do. | 15:30 |
| tflink | #agreed - 729599 - Doesn't hit any alpha criteria but could affect clean installs to disks with existing msdos partitions | 15:30 |
| * tflink will wait for new anaconda build before putting out a test boot.iso | 15:31 | |
| clumens | bcl: i thin this is a low risk change. | 15:31 |
| tflink | ok, accepted blocker time | 15:31 |
| tflink | wait, do we need to do this? | 15:31 |
| adamw | prolly worth reviewing the rpm fix | 15:32 |
| tflink | eh, there's only one and that'll come up a little later (rpm issue) | 15:32 |
| tflink | or we can do it now :) | 15:32 |
| tflink | #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728707 | 15:32 |
| tflink | #info on package upgrade RPM is removing empty directories accidentally | 15:33 |
| adamw | so, good news, there's a 'fix' | 15:33 |
| adamw | bad news, it involves pulling in a medium-size bunch of package rebuilds | 15:33 |
| adamw | still, if we gotta do it, we gotta do it | 15:33 |
| tflink | yep | 15:33 |
| Viking-Ice | yup | 15:33 |
| * adamw is still not entirely sure why panu doesn't think rpm should be fixed. | 15:33 | |
| maxamillion | what are the chances that the fix could break the package rebuilds? or cause $other? | 15:34 |
| tflink | it sounds like rpmbuild was part of the problem | 15:34 |
| adamw | the fix in rpm? negligible | 15:34 |
| maxamillion | adamw: cool | 15:34 |
| adamw | but in general, every time you rebuild a package even with no changes, there's a small-but-existent chance of it screwing _something_ up | 15:34 |
| maxamillion | well ... ture | 15:35 |
| maxamillion | true even | 15:35 |
| tflink | so do we want to try pushing for a fix in rpm? | 15:35 |
| maxamillion | bleh .... typing is hard | 15:35 |
| adamw | i just poked the bug with that. but panu already said the right thing is the rebuilds, and we're short on time | 15:35 |
| tflink | very true | 15:36 |
| maxamillion | what would the estimated ETA on the rebuilds be? | 15:36 |
| adamw | they're all done | 15:36 |
| maxamillion | oh | 15:36 |
| Viking-Ice | ;) | 15:36 |
| adamw | need karma, but that's about all | 15:36 |
| adamw | so we should just spin rc4 with the rebuilds of all packages on the dvd, and hope | 15:36 |
| maxamillion | then +1 to the rpm fix | 15:36 |
| * maxamillion likes his package manager to be as bug free as possible | 15:37 | |
| Viking-Ice | adamw, yup | 15:37 |
| jsmith | +1 to the rpm fix as well | 15:37 |
| tflink | proposed #agreed - 728707 - unless something new comes up, go with the rebuilds as a fix for the rpm issue and make sure RC4 has the new builds | 15:37 |
| Viking-Ice | ack | 15:38 |
| adamw | ack | 15:38 |
| tflink | #agreed - 728707 - unless something new comes up, go with the rebuilds as a fix for the rpm issue and make sure RC4 has the new builds | 15:38 |
| jsmith | ACK | 15:38 |
| tflink | ok, done with the bug review party for now | 15:38 |
| adamw | great | 15:38 |
| tflink | #topic RC3 Testing Status | 15:38 |
| adamw | so, bcl and clumens, if we could get a new anaconda build asap that'd be great, then we can compose rc4 and get to testing | 15:38 |
| tflink | I'm probably not the best person for this update, anyone care to take it on? | 15:39 |
| adamw | well, it's pretty straightforward...we covered most everything that needs covering, and hit some bugs that should be fixed in rc4 | 15:39 |
| adamw | i guess the only thing missing is kde desktop validation | 15:39 |
| tflink | at this point, might as well wait for RC4 | 15:40 |
| clumens | yeah i can do that real quick | 15:40 |
| tflink | #info still missing KDE desktop validation, may wait for RC4 for those tests | 15:40 |
| tflink | anything else RC3 related? | 15:41 |
| tflink | then moving on ... | 15:41 |
| adamw | any issues anyone's worried about that haven't been reviewed as blockers? | 15:41 |
| adamw | speak now or forever hold thy peace... | 15:41 |
| tflink | #topic Fedora 16 Alpha RC4 ready-ness | 15:42 |
| tflink | As I understand it, we're pretty much ready for RC4 | 15:42 |
| tflink | just waiting on an anaconda build and hopefully some karma | 15:42 |
| tflink | I assume that the plan is to spin up RC4 today and get testing | 15:43 |
| adamw | yeah | 15:43 |
| adamw | definitely | 15:43 |
| Viking-Ice | yup | 15:43 |
| adamw | we're pretty tight on time; we need at least alpha validation tests complete by wednesday | 15:43 |
| tflink | #info next go/no-go meeting is on Wednesday (2011-08-17) | 15:43 |
| adamw | given all these damn rebuilds landing, and changed anaconda, we should try to avoid relying on pulled-forward rc3 tests as much as possible | 15:43 |
| * jsmith agrees with adamw | 15:44 | |
| tflink | #info due to all of the rebuilds needed for RC4, we should avoid carrying forward results from RC3 | 15:44 |
| adamw | note that the Alpha, Beta, Final column on the validation matrix itself is somewhat out of whack - if in doubt, criteria take priority | 15:44 |
| adamw | (so if something's marked 'Alpha' on the matrix but the matching release criterion is Beta, then it's a Beta test and we should fix the table at some point) | 15:45 |
| tflink | alpha, beta ... they're all just greek letters :-D | 15:45 |
| adamw | if robatino's around when rc4 compose is done he'll do the announcing, otherwise myself or tflink will take care of it | 15:46 |
| tflink | #action robatino, adamw or tflink - do RC4 announcement once the compose is complete | 15:46 |
| tflink | overall, I think that the message is - be ready for testing. Let's not slip alpha another week | 15:47 |
| tflink | not that anyone needed reminding | 15:47 |
| tflink | but I think that about covers it for RC4 stuff until it's released | 15:47 |
| tflink | any concerns with RC4 that we didn't cover? | 15:47 |
| Viking-Ice | nope not from me | 15:48 |
| tflink | OK, I think that covers the agenda that I had in mind | 15:48 |
| tflink | #topic Open Discussion | 15:48 |
| tflink | any other topics that should be discussed? | 15:48 |
| adamw | i don't see anything else major upcoming | 15:49 |
| * jskladan needs to catch the bus home. see you tomorrow gang! | 15:49 | |
| adamw | there's a test day slot thursday but it's empty | 15:49 |
| adamw | cya jskladan! | 15:49 |
| adamw | which is probably a good thing given all of this | 15:49 |
| adamw | do we have an autoqa update from anyone? | 15:49 |
| kparal | do we have an autoqa update at all? :) | 15:49 |
| tflink | we don't have much to say | 15:50 |
| kparal | we releases 0.6.1 | 15:50 |
| adamw | have you all beek working on Project Colada? :) | 15:50 |
| kparal | that fixes some bugs | 15:50 |
| kparal | *released | 15:50 |
| adamw | cool | 15:50 |
| kparal | and planned 0.7 | 15:50 |
| tflink | #info AutoQA 0.6.1 released and deployed to fix some bugs | 15:50 |
| kparal | https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&milestone=0.7.0 | 15:50 |
| adamw | sounds like everything's rolling | 15:51 |
| adamw | what are the major goals for 0.7.0? | 15:51 |
| tflink | #info AutoQA 0.7.0 has been planned, work is progressing | 15:51 |
| kparal | we would like to concentrate on the infrastructure for the next release | 15:51 |
| kparal | resultsdb and staging/testing are the general themes I believe | 15:51 |
| kparal | adamw: wasn't it Project Coconut? | 15:52 |
| adamw | it has many names | 15:53 |
| kparal | I see | 15:53 |
| adamw | but only one goal | 15:53 |
| * kparal imagining it vividly | 15:53 | |
| kparal | any other thoughts on autoqa updates? | 15:54 |
| tflink | we need a package review (soon to be 2) | 15:54 |
| tflink | and a sposor for mkrizek | 15:54 |
| kparal | hongqing says he'll provide a new test for autoqa soon - mediakit_sanity. it should test ISO images of Branched release | 15:54 |
| tflink | s/sposor/sponsor | 15:54 |
| adamw | the package review thing is looking like a bit of a roadblock | 15:54 |
| adamw | i've been distracted by alpha, but one thought i had was to keep it in the family | 15:55 |
| kparal | there has been some progress for mkrizek I believe. the future now looks brighter | 15:55 |
| mkrizek | tflink: good news, I might get a sponsor this week hopefully | 15:55 |
| adamw | we can exchange (or just provide) reviews within the qa group; we have, or should have, enough packagers to do that | 15:55 |
| * tflink makes note to remember that | 15:55 | |
| kparal | adamw: the roadblock was the packaging _sponsor_ I believe | 15:56 |
| kparal | they are scarce | 15:56 |
| tflink | but it sounds like mkrizek might have found one | 15:56 |
| * nb is a sponsor | 15:57 | |
| kparal | here we go, remember that nick, mkrizek :) | 15:58 |
| nb | mkrizek, have you already found someone? or are you still looking? | 15:58 |
| tflink | cool, progress :) | 15:58 |
| * kparal has dinner on the table. let's speed it up! :) | 15:59 | |
| mkrizek | nb: I might, I have been contacted with one | 15:59 |
| adamw | two is better than one... | 15:59 |
| nb | mkrizek, ok, if that doesn't work, let me know | 15:59 |
| mkrizek | nb: ok, thanks! | 15:59 |
| adamw | thanks a bunch nb | 15:59 |
| nb | adamw, no problem | 15:59 |
| adamw | do we have anyone else who needs sponsoring? | 15:59 |
| * tflink was already sponsored but can't quite do reveiws yet | 16:00 | |
| tflink | odd situation | 16:00 |
| nb | tflink, you can't? | 16:00 |
| adamw | well, reviews shouldn't be a big deal | 16:01 |
| adamw | i can do those if no-one else can | 16:01 |
| tflink | nb: long story short, I got sponsored to take on a to-be-orphaned package and I still have a mentor | 16:01 |
| adamw | let's not let kparal's dinner go cold... | 16:01 |
| tflink | adamw: where were you when I was waiting 4 months for a review on py.test? | 16:01 |
| tflink | :) | 16:01 |
| * kparal already moved his notebook to kitchen, no worries | 16:01 | |
| nb | tflink, oh ok | 16:02 |
| tflink | anyhow, unless we have other topics I'm setting the #endmeeting fuse for 5 minutes | 16:02 |
| adamw | tflink: on project colada! | 16:02 |
| tflink | nb: so its not so much can't as shouldn't until I have more experience | 16:02 |
| tflink | any volunteers to do the bug updating? | 16:04 |
| adamw | i can, if no-one else wants to | 16:04 |
| adamw | dgilmore: i'll do an rc4 recipe update on the trac ticket once the anaconda update is up | 16:05 |
| adamw | then we can all get to testing... | 16:05 |
| tflink | adamw: think it's worth the effort to get a boot.iso out for karma on lorax, anacanda etc. ? | 16:06 |
| tflink | or can we just pull all that in to RC4 without karma | 16:06 |
| dgilmore | adamw: ok, what about rpm? | 16:06 |
| adamw | tflink: probably worth a sanity test, yeah. | 16:06 |
| adamw | dgilmore: the fix for the rpm issue does not appear to be in rpm. | 16:06 |
| tflink | k, just making sure I wasn't wasting my time :) | 16:06 |
| adamw | dgilmore: the fix is to rebuild all the affected packages, it seems | 16:06 |
| dgilmore | tflink: we can pull it in without, but it will not hurt to get it | 16:06 |
| adamw | dgilmore: so we'll have to pull all those rebuilds. | 16:06 |
| dgilmore | adamw: fun | 16:06 |
| tflink | alrighty, thanks for coming everyone | 16:07 |
| tflink | time to test the crap out of alpha RC4 | 16:07 |
| * tflink will send out minutes shortly | 16:07 | |
| tflink | #endmeeting | 16:07 |