QA/Meetings/20110620

Attendees

People present (lines said):

1. jlaska (112)
2. j_dulaney (40)
3. adamw (30)
4. vhumpa1 (28)
5. tflink (17)
6. jskladan (2)

Unable to attend:

1. Rhe (hopefully sleeping)
2. Hongqing (hopefully sleeping)
3. wutao85 (hopefully sleeping)
4. kparal (PTO)

Agenda

• Proposed meeting agenda
• MeetBot summary

Gnome Shell duplicate application names

• Upstream GNOME not interested in resolving duplicate application names - Fedora free to resolve as it sees fit
• We are free to make a path or gnomeshell extension - but should not "expect them to condone it"
• ACTION: j_dulaney - will gather a full list of the application name collisions, then decide as a group how to proceed

AutoQA updates

• We've been working to test and finish up AutoQA 0.5.0 and at the moment we're hoping to finish up and release this week some time
• we still have 2 issues to work out (that I'm aware of) - jskladan has submitted a patch for one and I'm still working on the other
• Look for a new release announcement later this week!
• Fedora infrastructure team planning to move existing autoqa systems on July 12 ... jlaska working with smooge+nirik to prepare install/configure new servers (prod + stage) ahead of time

R³ - Retrospective recommendation review

• https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_15_QA_Retrospective#Recommendations
• Jlaska finally pulled together the retrospective feedback into some recommendations. I'd like to start converting these tasks into tickets and begging for volunteers. if there is something you like on the list, and want to get started on ... by all means, go for it.
• j_dulaney noted that bugzilla now allows any logged in user to set the Blocks field

Open Discussion - <your topic here>

Including security spin test matrix in F16 test runs?

• jlaska asked whether we should include athmane's security test matrix in the list of F16 release validation matrices (refer to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Athmane/Fedora_15_Security_Lab_Testing) (jlaska, 15:48:43)
• Early consensus is YES! Adamw will be working on a process allow for additional test matrix for non-desktop and non-installer tests. For example, this could be used to cover some of jdulaney's btrfs tests as well.

Action Items

1. j_dulaney - will gather a full list of the application name collissions
2. * - review and comment on Fedora 15 retrospective recommendations

IRC Log

jlaska	#startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting	15:00
zodbot	Meeting started Mon Jun 20 15:00:24 2011 UTC. The chair is jlaska. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.	15:00
zodbot	Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.	15:00
jlaska	#meetingname fedora-qa	15:00
zodbot	The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa'	15:00
jlaska	#topic Roll Call	15:00
jskladan	j_dulaney: hi there. Well, got struck by two most unpleasant things at once - illness and end-semester exams	15:00
* j_dulaney waves		15:01
* jskladan steps out of the shadows		15:01
j_dulaney	jskladan: Man, that sucks	15:01
jlaska	Hey j_dulaney, jskladan	15:01
adamw	yo	15:01
jlaska	hey adamw	15:01
j_dulaney	tflink, adamw, jlaska	15:02
jlaska	hey robatino	15:02
* jlaska sees tflink joined too		15:02
jlaska	anyone else I'm forgetting?	15:02
vhumpa1	Hi there	15:03
jlaska	Vita!	15:03
jlaska	okay, let's get things moving ...	15:03
* vhumpa1 stands out of his dark dungeon		15:03
j_dulaney	Yo, bro	15:03
jlaska	we didn't have a meeting last week ... so I have no previous items to cover	15:04
jlaska	but if something surfaces, let's discuss in open-discussion	15:04
jlaska	#topic Release Criteria Updates	15:05
jlaska	adamw: I don't know if you had any remaining criteria updates ... or if you've made all the planned changes already	15:05
jlaska	the other item on under this topic, was vhumpa1's investigation into the Shell duplicate application names	15:05
adamw	there may be something else, i'm still kinda swimming upstream here	15:06
adamw	i know vita's been working hard on that but i haven't caught up with that thread yet, vita can update i'm sure :)	15:06
jlaska	adamw: what's the upstream work you're doing? re: shell?	15:06
vhumpa1	I reached up to some upstream people and the response I got was that it was an non-issue	15:07
* j_dulaney sort of expected as much		15:07
jlaska	vhumpa1: oh rats, so they're not interested in a solution that better distinguishes duplicate application names in the menu?	15:08
vhumpa1	Basically, we are free to do what we want about this issue, but they want to have nothing to with it	15:08
adamw	jlaska: oh, no, metaphorically swimming upstream	15:08
adamw	jlaska: as in freeing myself from giant piles of email	15:08
jlaska	#info Upstream GNOME not interested in resolving duplicate application names - Fedora free to resolve as it sees fit	15:08
jlaska	adamw: oh oh roger :)	15:08
j_dulaney	If we were to submit a patch or some such, would they actually apply it?	15:09
vhumpa1	jlaska: I really just have the same input as I told you on Friday	15:09
jlaska	vhumpa1: right on	15:09
* j_dulaney notes that he was literally going upstream yesterday, in a boat		15:09
vhumpa1	Since, it an issue of when you have multiple environments mixed up, it is people's problem	15:09
jlaska	Upstream is focusing only on their desktop experience, not when you mix applications from multiple DE's ?	15:10
vhumpa1	And they don't want to have design decision driven by this	15:10
jlaska	okay	15:10
vhumpa1	jlaska: exactly	15:10
jlaska	vhumpa1: is this important enough that we want to continue persuing options?	15:10
adamw	vhumpa1: how about the parallel discussion about stuff like the GenericName field and app descriptions in tooltips?	15:11
vhumpa1	We are free to make a path or gnomeshell extension - but should not "expect them to condone it" :)	15:11
vhumpa1	jlaska: A good question, I think it is, yet not with very high priority	15:12
jlaska	#info We are free to make a path or gnomeshell extension - but should not "expect them to condone it"	15:12
vhumpa1	adamw: I believe that is the same stuff	15:12
vhumpa1	adamw: I mean that is what I was asking for the upstream opinion for	15:13
adamw	so, no movement there either? hum.	15:13
vhumpa1	adamw: renaming the desktop files in Fedora packing process seems like a no-go now based on some input I got	15:13
j_dulaney	What about just editing the menu names in the .desktop file?	15:14
vhumpa1	Ah sorry for mistyping, that is what I ment in the previous post	15:14
adamw	from a fedora packaging perspective?	15:15
j_dulaney	Ah	15:15
vhumpa1	Yep	15:15
j_dulaney	How so?	15:15
j_dulaney	It doesn't seem like it would be difficult.	15:15
* adamw doesn't see anything specifically forbidding it in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Desktop_files		15:15
vhumpa1	We take the desktop files from upstream... So they'd have to be modified with each new version etc... if I am not mistaken	15:15
jlaska	maintenance?	15:15
vhumpa1	jlaska: exactly	15:15
adamw	vhumpa1: i've modified .desktop files before, it's not terribly hard	15:15
j_dulaney	Could not a script be created?	15:16
vhumpa1	adamw: definitely not :) Depends on if maintainers would be willing to do so	15:16
j_dulaney	Include it as an automated part of the build process so that it wouldn't be forgotten	15:16
adamw	you can usually run a sed command inside the spec	15:16
jlaska	so ...do we want to take this to the packaging-list with suggestions for updating the Desktop_files guidance?	15:16
vhumpa1	j_dulaney: I suppose so, that it could be automated from inside spec files somehow	15:17
j_dulaney	jlaska +1	15:17
adamw	well, this is only feedback from one upstream	15:17
vhumpa1	jlaska: might be worth it	15:17
adamw	have we looked at all the current name collisions and seen how many actually involve GNOME packages? (and how many involve *two* GNOME packages?)	15:17
jlaska	good question	15:17
jlaska	what's the scope of the problem space?	15:17
j_dulaney	adamw: I can think of one such within Gnome	15:18
vhumpa1	i'd say, it would not be more than 10-15 packages	15:18
j_dulaney	The Update/Updates thing	15:18
vhumpa1	even less if we target really only the most obvious one	15:18
j_dulaney	vhumpa1: +1	15:18
vhumpa1	ones	15:18
adamw	j_dulaney: i think one of those is a Fedora package, not a GNOME one	15:19
vhumpa1	Still: how exactly to rename them and how is an question	15:19
adamw	oh, no, they're both from gnome-packagekit. i lose.	15:19
adamw	i think we could prevail upon hughsie to fix that one, though.	15:19
vhumpa1	Might bring some unhappiness from some upstream people if we rename some apps in a way they dont like it	15:19
adamw	yeah, it's a slightly touchy subject	15:20
adamw	i think we should check on the other collisions and see what upstream projects they involve	15:20
j_dulaney	vhumpa1: Of course, in some instances, we are the upstream...	15:20
jlaska	anyone want to pull together a complete list of the collisions?	15:20
* j_dulaney can		15:20
jlaska	s/want to/want to volunteer/	15:20
jlaska	thanks j_dulaney	15:20
jlaska	#action j_dulaney - will gather a full list of the application name collissions	15:21
vhumpa1	j_dulaney: you can find a sketch of such in the testlist discussion	15:21
jlaska	anything we need to discuss before we have the complete list of collisions?	15:21
jlaska	or will that list be used to figure out step#2?	15:21
j_dulaney	vhumpa1: Roger	15:21
jlaska	anything else to cover on this topic?	15:22
adamw	i think that's important to figuring out step #2	15:23
jlaska	yeah, that makes sense	15:23
jlaska	okay, getting ready to move on then	15:23
jlaska	thanks all for the update ... we'll follow-up on the list with this topic	15:24
jlaska	#topic AutoQA updates	15:24
adamw	brb, nature calls	15:24
jlaska	kparal is out today ... tflink, can you guide us through the latest and greatest?	15:24
jlaska	quick give adamw action items!	15:24
tflink	not a problem	15:24
tflink	proposed #action adamw finish AutoQA 0.5.0	15:24
jlaska	ack!	15:25
jlaska	:)	15:25
j_dulaney	LOL	15:25
j_dulaney	+1	15:25
jlaska	actually ... adamw is really good at giving out action items to me ... so I'll be +0 on this :)	15:25
tflink	We've been working to test and finish up AutoQA 0.5.0 and at the moment we're hoping to finish up and release this week some time	15:25
jlaska	#info We've been working to test and finish up AutoQA 0.5.0 and at the moment we're hoping to finish up and release this week some time	15:26
tflink	the major features are bodhi comment email reduction and better log data presentation (in HTML)	15:26
* jlaska loves the error highlighting in the HTML reports		15:26
tflink	we still have 2 issues to work out (that I'm aware of) - jskladan has submitted a patch for one and I'm still working on the other	15:27
tflink	that's about all I can think of to say from AutoQA land. Look for a new release announcement later this week!	15:27
jlaska	tflink: given the testing you guys have already done ... does it seem feasible to resolve those 2 issues and release this week?	15:28
tflink	jlaska: I think so. jskladan's patch looks good and I'm still having issues reproducing the last bug	15:29
jlaska	tflink: cool, are you getting what you need out of the test instance we setup?	15:30
tflink	if I still can't reproduce it in the next couple of days, I'm of the opinion that we can ship with it and fix it if it becomes a problem	15:30
jlaska	okay	15:30
jlaska	#info we still have 2 issues to work out (that I'm aware of) - jskladan has submitted a patch for one and I'm still working on the other	15:30
jlaska	#info Look for a new release announcement later this week!	15:30
tflink	to reproduce that bug? No, that setup isn't set up for reproducing the issue	15:30
jlaska	this is the email issue, right?	15:30
tflink	yep - the wonders of tight coupling!	15:31
jlaska	would it help if you had autoqa-results-staging@ ?	15:31
* vhumpa1 goes back to studies		15:31
jlaska	tflink: on fedorahosted i mean, instead of your private setup?	15:31
jlaska	vhumpa1: good luck!	15:31
vhumpa1	jlaska: thx! will need it	15:31
tflink	jlaska: it wouldn't matter. The SMTP traffic is being blocked	15:31
adamw	#action vhumpa1 finish autoqa 0.5.0	15:31
tflink	either fedorahosted or my list are outside the network and affected	15:31
jlaska	adamw: strikes!	15:31
tflink	and the emails that go out to that list are different	15:32
jlaska	I see	15:32
tflink	the issue has to do with the bodhi comment emails	15:32
jlaska	ah!	15:32
tflink	which are disabled on the test system	15:32
jlaska	tflink: thanks for the details	15:33
tflink	np	15:33
jlaska	okay, if nothing else on the autoqa front, we'll move on	15:33
jlaska	fingers crossed for a successful autoqa release this week	15:33
tflink	that makes at least two of us. I want to get this stuff into production	15:33
jlaska	oh well, I might as well #info something ...	15:33
jlaska	#info Fedora infrastructure team planning to move existing autoqa systems on July 12 ... jlaska working with smooge+nirik to prepare install/configure new servers (prod + stage) ahead of time	15:34
jlaska	so thanks to those two for providing guidance, and what is shaping up to be a much more official setup	15:35
jlaska	more news @ 11	15:35
j_dulaney	Try to have 0.5.4 or .5 out by then?	15:35
jlaska	who knows what %{version} we'll be at then :)	15:35
jlaska	okay ... moving on ...	15:36
jlaska	#topic R^3 - Retrospective recommendation review	15:36
jlaska	#link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_15_QA_Retrospective#Recommendations	15:36
jlaska	I finally pulled together the retrospective feedback into some recommendations	15:36
jlaska	I've blogged and fired this off to the list to the thunderous sound of crickets	15:36
jlaska	if you have a moment, please review what I've documented on the page so far	15:37
jlaska	some of these things are already inprogress (b/c you guys naturally like to fix problems)	15:37
jlaska	s/guys/people/ :)	15:37
jlaska	there aren't a lot of earth shattering changes proposed imo ... but of course, it would be nice to have some input	15:38
jlaska	some highlights ...	15:38
* j_dulaney likes		15:38
jlaska	Since the Alpha's have always slipped, and each time it's due to live image-related problems (creation or install)	15:38
* adamw will have feedback soon		15:38
jlaska	I thought we should ask to have live images included during TC1 (updated SOP), and also with the acceptance test runs leading up to the TC	15:39
jlaska	I've got a few items on the list that we'll need to approach other teams on	15:39
jlaska	for example ... there are 3 items that need to be reviewed with rbergeron	15:39
jlaska	same for rel-eng (likely dgilmore)	15:40
adamw	yay more lives	15:40
* j_dulaney notices that he now can set blocker status.		15:40
j_dulaney	Is that across the board for all Bugzilla account holders, or just those with a FAS?	15:41
jlaska	j_dulaney: related to a feature awilliam requested maybe?	15:41
jlaska	.bug 707252	15:41
zodbot	jlaska: Bug 707252 Allow any registered user to change the Blocks: field - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707252	15:41
adamw	yeah, i've been waiting on that one for a bit	15:41
j_dulaney	jlaska: Indeed	15:41
adamw	j_dulaney: so far it's been that you need editbugs privileges to set that field	15:42
adamw	which packagers and bugzappers and rh staff get	15:42
jlaska	okay ... so please all take a minute to review, add feedback, tell me what sucks or is missing	15:42
jlaska	(in as constructive a way as possible of course) :)	15:42
jlaska	I'd like to start converting these tasks into tickets and begging for volunteers	15:42
jlaska	if there is something you like on the list, and want to get started on ... by all means, go for it	15:43
j_dulaney	adamw: So, it is across the board now, then?	15:43
jlaska	#info I finally pulled together the retrospective feedback into some recommendations. I'd like to start converting these tasks into tickets and begging for volunteers. if there is something you like on the list, and want to get started on ... by all means, go for it	15:43
* j_dulaney wonders about how to prevent things like the GlibC almost-foulup		15:43
jlaska	#info j_dulaney noted that bugzilla now allows any logged in user to set the Blocks field	15:43
jlaska	any other comments/thoughts/concerns on this?	15:44
jlaska	if folks are okay with this process/format ... I'll also add a ticket for me to SOP this	15:44
adamw	j_dulaney: i dunno, i hadn't heard of any change	15:44
jlaska	okay, I'll stay tuned to the list for ideas	15:46
jlaska	thanks all!	15:46
jlaska	#topic Open Discussion - <your topic here>	15:46
jlaska	I had one item I just remembered ... but someone else can go first	15:46
jlaska	actually ... my topic was a bout whether we should include athmane's security test matrix in F16 release validation runs	15:47
jlaska	but I think I'll actually just add that to the retrospective recommendations	15:47
* j_dulaney raises hand		15:48
jlaska	#info jlaska asked whether we should include athmane's security test matrix in the list of F16 release validation matrices (refer to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Athmane/Fedora_15_Security_Lab_Testing)	15:48
adamw	i'd say definitely, and one thing i'm trying to do is come up with a third test matrix for releases which will include those and a few other tests that aren't really install or desktop	15:48
j_dulaney	Btrfs test case creation	15:48
adamw	but i've been terminally short on round tuits :(	15:48
jlaska	adamw: nice, I think I've got that suggestion from you on the retrospective	15:49
j_dulaney	adamw: Know the feeling	15:49
jlaska	j_dulaney: re: btrfs ... do you mean tests related to installing systems with btrfs partitions?	15:49
jlaska	or more about post-install btrfs tasks?	15:49
jlaska	(or both)	15:49
j_dulaney	For instance:	15:50
j_dulaney	Both	15:50
j_dulaney	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jdulaney/Draft_Testcase_Mount_btrfs	15:50
j_dulaney	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jdulaney/Draft_Testcase_btrfs_migration	15:50
jlaska	j_dulaney: I've got it on the retrospective to talk with rhe about adding installer coverage for btrfs (actually, it was her idea)	15:50
jlaska	perhaps your additional tests might line up with the additional stuff adamw is talking about	15:51
j_dulaney	Indeed	15:51
jlaska	definitely as package specific tests to start with	15:51
j_dulaney	adamw: Let's talk on this later this week?	15:51
j_dulaney	when I have time?	15:51
jlaska	Okay .... last call for open-discussion topics ...	15:52
jlaska	I'll #endmeeting in 2 minutes	15:52
* jlaska sets fuse		15:52
jlaska	1 minute until #endmeeting ...	15:53
adamw	j_dulaney: sure	15:54
jlaska	alright ... thanks everyone!	15:54
j_dulaney	What about, say Wednesday?	15:54
jlaska	I'll send minutes to the list later today	15:54
jlaska	#endmeeting	15:54

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