From Fedora Project Wiki
Attendees
- adamw (107)
- j_dulaney (37)
- tflink (32)
- nirik (29)
- kparal (25)
- red_alert (16)
- mjg59 (8)
- brunowolff (6)
- Cerlyn (5)
- zodbot (4)
- kk4ewt (3)
- jskladan (2)
- t8m (2)
- mmaslano (1)
- pschindl (1)
Agenda
Fedora 16 release planning
- Final had been signed off the previous week
- livecd-tools updates needed testing for F14, F15 and F16
- F14 preupgrade still needed a fix for bug #737731
- Common bugs page needed updating for final
Proven tester process
- FESCo had come up with a tentative plan to abandon the proven tester concept
- Group was not strongly opposed but had some concerns:
- a small number of updates where proven tester status made a difference is not the same as zero updates
- if negative karma was handled better, there may have been more cases where pt status might have made a difference
- presence of better test plans for critpath packages may also make a difference
- However, group agreed that the reason for the proposal - updates getting stuck without necessary karma - was valid and should be addressed
- Agreed that those with an opinion on the issue should contribute it to the devel list thread
Fedora 17 pre-planning: anaconda GUI rewrite
- Anaconda team has a complete rewrite of the GUI pending and tentatively planned to land in F17
- adamw will try to co-ordinate with anaconda team to ensure testing can be done as early and often as possible
- tflink proposed two ideas to ensure test images would always be available
- try to keep a stable tree of the non-anaconda-related packages available so issues in the general rawhide package set would not affect install testing
- write some kind of installer image generation tool to make it very easy to spin new installer images with updated anaconda code
- tflink also proposed coming up with a system of web access to some VMs made available for dedicated F17 install testing
- Software acceleration support for GNOME Shell, btrfs migration, and /usr move identified as more areas in need of testing if they actually land in F17
Action Items
- adamw to co-ordinate with anaconda team on f17 re-write test planning
- tflink to evaluate his remote-VM idea some more and report back on how much work it'll be to implement, and available resources
IRC Log
| adamw | #startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting | 16:01 |
|---|---|---|
| zodbot | Meeting started Mon Nov 7 16:01:25 2011 UTC. The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 16:01 |
| zodbot | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. | 16:01 |
| adamw | #meetingname fedora-qa | 16:01 |
| zodbot | The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa' | 16:01 |
| * jskladan tips his hat | 16:01 | |
| adamw | #chair j_dulaney | 16:01 |
| zodbot | Current chairs: adamw j_dulaney | 16:01 |
| adamw | morning folks, who's around? | 16:01 |
| adamw | #topic roll call | 16:02 |
| * tflink is present | 16:02 | |
| * Cerlyn is here | 16:02 | |
| * brunowolff is | 16:02 | |
| * pschindl is here | 16:02 | |
| * kparal is not here | 16:02 | |
| * j_dulaney is here | 16:02 | |
| jskladan | kparal: still away? :) | 16:02 |
| * kparal is partying with hot chicks in Carribean | 16:02 | |
| kparal | or whatever is the spelling | 16:02 |
| j_dulaney | It would seem that brunowolff just _is_ | 16:02 |
| adamw | bruno, indisputably, is. | 16:03 |
| tflink | kparal: and you're still on IRC? /me wonders about you | 16:03 |
| kparal | oh yes, fedora qa meetings are my weakness | 16:03 |
| * j_dulaney wondered about kparal already | 16:03 | |
| * adamw feels bad for the hot chicks | 16:04 | |
| adamw | #topic Fedora 16 release planning | 16:05 |
| * kparal converting all hot chicks to using Fedora | 16:05 | |
| adamw | alright, this is just a kinda general f16 topic | 16:05 |
| adamw | make sure we tie up any loose ends | 16:05 |
| adamw | thanks again to everyone for their great work on validation, of course | 16:05 |
| adamw | we do have the livecd-tools updates to get out for f14, f15 and f16: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test-announce/2011-November/000340.html | 16:06 |
| adamw | i also need to get with hughsie about fixing f14's preupgrade | 16:06 |
| adamw | and we have common bugs to do | 16:07 |
| adamw | can anyone think of anything else? | 16:07 |
| * j_dulaney will test the livecd-tools for F15 | 16:07 | |
| tflink | commonbugs? | 16:07 |
| kparal | already mentioned | 16:08 |
| tflink | huh, I missed it | 16:08 |
| tflink | oh well | 16:08 |
| adamw | you're fired! | 16:08 |
| kparal | :D | 16:09 |
| adamw | man, you're starting early this week | 16:09 |
| brunowolff | I was on the phone at work. | 16:09 |
| tflink | adamw: I see the weekly firings are going to continue past F16 going gold | 16:09 |
| Cerlyn | But with all the layoffs, who is going to test Fedora? | 16:09 |
| adamw | weekly? you're _lucky_ if it's only weekly. | 16:10 |
| adamw | Cerlyn: you are! | 16:10 |
| kparal | adamw, of course | 16:10 |
| kparal | no sleep at all | 16:10 |
| adamw | hehe | 16:10 |
| tflink | adamw: well, there was a 2 week span where I didn't get fired | 16:10 |
| j_dulaney | adamw: I'm sure I can get rbergeron or jsmith to have you fired | 16:10 |
| adamw | man, i must've been slacking | 16:10 |
| adamw | anyhoo | 16:10 |
| adamw | the commonbugs list is pretty long: https://bit.ly/fedora-commonbugs-proposed | 16:11 |
| adamw | so if people can pitch in and help clear it that'd be great | 16:11 |
| adamw | other than that i guess we're good on this topic, yay - finally f16 is more or less behind us | 16:11 |
| adamw | oh, missed one thing - the retrospective | 16:12 |
| adamw | the retrospective is at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_16_QA_Retrospective : just as a reminder, it's where you can put thoughts about the f16 cycle, stuff that went well and stuff that didn't go so well, ideas for how to do things better next time | 16:12 |
| adamw | some time soon i'll go through and pull out action items from it and turn them into trac tickets, and summarize it for the list | 16:13 |
| adamw | so if you have any thoughts about how to make life less stressful next time, add them on there! | 16:13 |
| adamw | alrighty, moving on... | 16:14 |
| adamw | #topic proven tester process | 16:14 |
| adamw | so this one is interesting. at their meeting last week, fesco more or less decided they want to abandon the proven testers process | 16:15 |
| adamw | you can see the meeting log at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-10-31/fedora-qa.2011-10-31-15.03.log.html | 16:15 |
| adamw | mjg notified devel list, too: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-November/158881.html | 16:16 |
| adamw | they did not actually directly notify QA in any way, but never mind. | 16:16 |
| * nirik would like to interject. ;) | 16:16 | |
| adamw | interject away! | 16:16 |
| nirik | we didn't decide anything. ;) | 16:16 |
| red_alert | that first link goes to a QA meeting log, not to fesco :) | 16:16 |
| adamw | sigh, my link skills suck | 16:17 |
| adamw | one more try | 16:17 |
| nirik | we wanted to wait a week for feedback from all groups... including qa. ;) | 16:17 |
| adamw | http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-10-31/fesco.2011-10-31-17.00.log.html | 16:17 |
| nirik | The thought was that proventesters were not that helpfull, and we should continue critpath and all just with no proventesters... s/proventester/logged in karma submitter/ | 16:17 |
| adamw | nirik: ah, okay. of course, it helps to get feedback from qa if you actually tell qa. =) | 16:17 |
| kparal | it means proventester group would be cancelled with no replacement, do I read that correctly? | 16:17 |
| nirik | sorry... we've all been busy. ;( | 16:18 |
| nirik | kparal: well, replaced by 'anyone with a fas account' I guess... | 16:18 |
| kparal | that means no replacement, same process as for all the other packages | 16:18 |
| adamw | kparal: as nirik says, we'd essentially keep the current process except proventesters wouldn't exist and we'd just accept karma from any logged-in user as if it were pt karma as far as the current scoring goes | 16:18 |
| adamw | kparal: critpath would still need higher total karma to be approved - 2 vs 1 | 16:19 |
| kparal | do we accept karma from anonymous users for non-critpath? | 16:19 |
| kparal | I mean no FAS | 16:19 |
| nirik | The thought was that proventesters haven't really made that much difference, so it seems like overhead to have to manage it and try and get people to become them. | 16:19 |
| nirik | kparal: nope. anon still doesn't count. | 16:19 |
| kparal | ok | 16:19 |
| adamw | kparal: no, we don't use the numeric karma from anon users for any package (critpath or non-critpath) | 16:19 |
| Cerlyn | Is there any proof one way or another that proventesters actually test things in a proven way that justifies trying to train people? | 16:20 |
| adamw | nirik: my only worry is as posted to the list: two looks like a very small number but it is not zero, and this is a game where the difference between two and zero could be a substantial one | 16:20 |
| nirik | so, I don't think this is something we need to do instantly... if everyone would like more time to look at stats and mull it over thats cool with me. ;) | 16:20 |
| red_alert | proventesters are not specially trained :) | 16:20 |
| j_dulaney | Cerlyn: I try to do so | 16:20 |
| kparal | Cerlyn: they confirmed they read the guidelines. which might be more than ordinary testers | 16:20 |
| nirik | Cerlyn: the devel list post from mjg59 had some stats... | 16:20 |
| kparal | #link http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/104084.html | 16:21 |
| adamw | there's also a (rather informal) process whereby people who submit updates and get dumb feedback from proventesters can come and complain to us about it, and the pt gets educated. that's happened a few times. | 16:21 |
| nirik | true. | 16:22 |
| adamw | nirik: i also think there have been cases where we _could have used_ proventester karma to prevent some updates going out | 16:22 |
| nirik | although we could also educate 'normal' testers. ;) | 16:22 |
| adamw | but didn't, because negative karma is currently handled poorly | 16:22 |
| nirik | yeah, could be... | 16:22 |
| j_dulaney | adamw: negatice karma could certainly be improved | 16:23 |
| j_dulaney | Even if we keep proventestor | 16:23 |
| j_dulaney | +s | 16:23 |
| adamw | nirik: there've been a couple of cases where updates have gone out in cases like '+1 proventester, +1 regular user, +1 regular user, -1 proventester, SUBMITTED TO STABLE!, -1 proven tester, -1 proven tester, -1 regular user, PUSHED TO STABLE!' | 16:23 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: yeah, to a degree they're separate issues, but if we had better handling of negative karma it may have changed the pt stats. | 16:24 |
| red_alert | crit path packages actually should have a thorough test guide which proventesters can follow - right now they are just normal testers that *try* to take things a bit more serious but often lack the detail knowledge nethertheless | 16:24 |
| adamw | there was a proposal, for e.g., to disallow any update with negative karma from a proven tester from going through | 16:24 |
| adamw | red_alert: yeah, we've been working on the test guide side of things for a while, but it's one of the victims of limited resources | 16:24 |
| j_dulaney | adamw: That would be a good way to handle things | 16:25 |
| adamw | going back to negative karma - and there's also the possibility of blocking any update which is submitted after passing the criteria but, before being pushed, drops to failing the criteria | 16:25 |
| j_dulaney | Indeed | 16:25 |
| adamw | so i think it might be worth considering ways of improving the handling of negative karma before deciding to dump the pt concept. especially since it's something that would be hard to get back | 16:25 |
| adamw | if we ever cancel it we need to be damn sure it's okay to cancel it, because if we cancel proventesters then six months later put it back in, people might feel like they were being jerked around. | 16:26 |
| nirik | yeah, not sure how much can be done in the current 1.x bodhi framework, but perhaps. | 16:26 |
| tflink | I think that we're missing part of the why this was proposed, though | 16:26 |
| red_alert | the process as its done right now doesn't work (i.e. is no improvement to not having pts) but having pts with a better process would surely add to the overall quality | 16:26 |
| nirik | sure, I don't think we want to be hasty... | 16:26 |
| tflink | ie maintainers getting frustrated with their packages stuck in testing due to lack of proventester action | 16:27 |
| nirik | even though proventesters is trival to join, it's a hoop... so many people just don't bother. | 16:27 |
| adamw | tflink: yeah, it's important to consider that | 16:27 |
| Cerlyn | tflink: I think its more a lack of karma for packages in general, although I haven't seen the stats | 16:27 |
| nirik | well, it's mostly the critpath ones... | 16:28 |
| adamw | Cerlyn: nah, the proposals to 'revise' the proventester process always come from people who are frustrated that their updates take a long time to clear it | 16:28 |
| nirik | because non critpath maintainers can push after a while. | 16:28 |
| j_dulaney | tflink: I know that during the latter half of the release process, I tend to focus more on the new release and less on testing updates | 16:28 |
| tflink | so if we object to getting rid of the proventester process, do we have any solutions to the root of their complaints? | 16:29 |
| j_dulaney | For instance, right now I don't have a box with F15 | 16:29 |
| j_dulaney | Although I'll be reinstalling it here shortly on my test box | 16:29 |
| tflink | I'm guessing here, but I assume that there wouldn't be so much of a push if the delays weren't there | 16:29 |
| adamw | tflink: fair point | 16:29 |
| nirik | well, to some extent, the 'allowing to push after 2 weeks with no - karma' would help | 16:29 |
| adamw | fesco was considering that for a while, and our position was basically 'we'll get back to you after f16', aside from the pt meetings nirik's been running | 16:30 |
| j_dulaney | Which I haven't been able to make due to class at that time | 16:30 |
| nirik | (which haven't really been all that well attended. ;) We did get a few things moving, but not much... | 16:30 |
| brunowolff | We could still keep the proven tester group for a while even if we relax the karma requirements. | 16:30 |
| tflink | nirik: the timing wasn't the greatest with the crazy that F16 release brought | 16:31 |
| nirik | true. | 16:31 |
| nirik | brunowolff: yep. | 16:31 |
| adamw | so i guess we don't have an entirely concrete response to the proposal - we have concerns but recognize the reasons people don't like the process | 16:32 |
| brunowolff | Maybe down the road we will count proven tester votes more strongly, but still enough enough normal karma to OK an update. | 16:32 |
| adamw | oh, one other thought on the stats | 16:32 |
| nirik | perhaps everyone could air their concerns on the devel list thread... | 16:32 |
| nirik | and we can see where we end up next week? | 16:33 |
| adamw | i assume the stats made the assumption that the proventester feedback on any update would still have been present but treated it no different from regular feedback | 16:33 |
| adamw | so, that's not necessarily a safe assumption: proventesters may feel a stronger 'responsibility to test', and if you cancel the process, they might stop doing so | 16:33 |
| nirik | yeah, although you would have to ask mjg59 for sure. | 16:33 |
| adamw | but that's hard to gauge. | 16:33 |
| adamw | nirik: sounds good | 16:33 |
| nirik | yeah, very hard to quantify | 16:33 |
| j_dulaney | I know that until about Beta of a release, I make it part of my daily ritual to pull from updates testing and put everything through its paces | 16:35 |
| j_dulaney | I know not how many others do that. | 16:35 |
| adamw | i think there were some stats on total pt feedback from luke recently too | 16:35 |
| * j_dulaney does not have everything that is in critpath installed, however | 16:35 | |
| red_alert | I would propose to have a QA/proventester meeting during FUDCon Blacksburg and try to come up with a beter pt-process there | 16:35 |
| adamw | it would certainly be a nice thing to do at a fudcon if enough interested parties were there, for sure | 16:35 |
| j_dulaney | red_alert: Not a bad idea | 16:35 |
| adamw | if people would wait that long | 16:35 |
| nirik | yeah, it's a while from now... but possibly | 16:36 |
| red_alert | getting rid of the pt-process doesn't sound very time-sensitive, though | 16:36 |
| mjg59 | It's not. But satisfying the concerns of maintainers is important. | 16:36 |
| mjg59 | The risk isn't so much individual packages. If people feel that the critpath process is unreasonable then the risk is that there's a backlash against the entire testing process. | 16:37 |
| red_alert | maybe deactivate the process in the meantime, then? | 16:37 |
| adamw | mjg59: as noted, the two week delay might sate the baying hordes for now =) | 16:37 |
| Cerlyn | Is there a need for this to be voted upon at the fesco meeting following this one? | 16:37 |
| adamw | mjg59: er, the two-week timeout thing for critpath | 16:37 |
| mjg59 | adamw: The two week delay is an admission of absolute failure | 16:37 |
| mjg59 | The process needs to work without that | 16:38 |
| adamw | i didn't say otherwise, i said it might avoid a major backlash, which is a different question. | 16:38 |
| red_alert | add the two week delay admission until we had the chance to fix the process, then? because right now it seems to be total failure until fixed :) | 16:38 |
| adamw | i don't really want to re-open the whole debate about whether it's a good thing in this meeting, we have other topics to cov.er | 16:38 |
| mjg59 | Looking through the stats there are actually more cases of proventesters inappropriately blocking a package than there are of the pt process preventing bugs getting through | 16:39 |
| mjg59 | Which isn't to slight any of the individual proventesters involved | 16:39 |
| mjg59 | It just means it's questionable as to whether the requirement makes an overall positive difference to the quality of our updates | 16:40 |
| tflink | mjg59: by inappropriately block, do you mean by not providing karma or providing negative karma where it wasn't warranted? | 16:40 |
| adamw | yes, we already covered that at the start of the topic, 20 minutes ago | 16:40 |
| adamw | are we going to get anywhere new, here, or should we move on? | 16:40 |
| mjg59 | tflink: Providing negative karma due to either an unrelated issue or a misunderstanding of the package | 16:40 |
| j_dulaney | adamw: I reckon moving on might be a good thing | 16:41 |
| adamw | moving along then - we clearly haven't reached a complete conclusion on this topic yet, and we're not going to do it in the next five minutes | 16:42 |
| adamw | as nirik suggested, please everyone with concerns, post your thoughts to the devel list thread, and fesco will consider them | 16:42 |
| adamw | #agreed group has various perspectives on the proven tester issue, we will respond to the devel list thread and follow developments with fesco | 16:42 |
| adamw | #topic fedora 17 pre-planning: anaconda GUI rewrite | 16:43 |
| adamw | so, you know what the end of the f16 cycle means - time to start worrying about f17! | 16:43 |
| tflink | yay! | 16:43 |
| * kparal expected some pause | 16:43 | |
| kparal | trip to hawaii, etc | 16:43 |
| kparal | nevermind | 16:43 |
| adamw | kparal: i thought you were there already? | 16:44 |
| red_alert | finally! I've been waiting for the f17 cycle ever since the last readiness meeting's end ;D | 16:44 |
| kparal | for the rest of you | 16:44 |
| adamw | for anyone who doesn't know, one of the major features planned for fedora 17 is a complete re-design of the anaconda GUI - not just a cosmetic change to how it looks, but the actual workflow is to be completely changed | 16:44 |
| adamw | red_alert: :) | 16:45 |
| kparal | adamw: how realistic is that is will be done in f17? | 16:45 |
| kk4ewt | adamw, *crossing fingers* | 16:45 |
| kparal | it seems like a really big task | 16:45 |
| red_alert | kparal: depends on the number of slips we accept? ;) | 16:45 |
| adamw | kparal: very, they're already coding it. | 16:45 |
| adamw | red_alert: correct answer ;) | 16:45 |
| kparal | ok | 16:45 |
| j_dulaney | My wondering is how soon we can start testing | 16:46 |
| adamw | so, obviously we want to try and avoid f16-style crazy stress scenarios here, as far as possible | 16:46 |
| * j_dulaney is thinking that as soon as it starts hitting Rawhide nightlies, testing will begin for him | 16:46 | |
| adamw | i've thought for a while we should work directly with the anaconda team to get involved through the whole process and get testing done as early and often as possible | 16:46 |
| tflink | +1 | 16:47 |
| adamw | i'm happy to work on that, or if anyone else would like to, feel free :) | 16:47 |
| * tflink wonders if it would be better to start with one point of contact | 16:47 | |
| adamw | yeah, i did say 'or' | 16:48 |
| tflink | I can't imagine that it'll help if multiple people start asking them about their testing plans | 16:48 |
| red_alert | don't we just need to know which specific nightlies they consider worth of testing and then report bugs, that's it? :) | 16:48 |
| tflink | adamw: true, just thought that I would mention it. | 16:48 |
| tflink | red_alert: maybe, depends on how we want to proceed and what the anaconda team already has planned | 16:49 |
| red_alert | maybe create a special tracker bug for it, too...or go with F17Blocker already | 16:49 |
| brunowolff | When I can try installing with only 512 MB of memory, I'll be looking at that. | 16:49 |
| j_dulaney | Like I said, as soon as their stuff starts hitting nightlies, test it | 16:49 |
| * kparal notes we have some bugs already that can be assigned to F17Blocker. creating it now would help | 16:49 | |
| adamw | red_alert: it helps to know when they're planning to land changes, what's expected to work, and probably give them input into use cases they may not have considered, on the basis of the test matrix | 16:50 |
| adamw | kparal: i thought i already had, but someone mentioned earlier that they weren't there, i'll do it in a bit | 16:50 |
| tflink | and make sure that we're covering all the changes | 16:50 |
| tflink | our current test matrix doesn't explicitly cover all the gui stuff | 16:50 |
| adamw | kparal: though anyone caan do it, again - process is documented at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Trackers | 16:50 |
| j_dulaney | adamw: I'll be having a bunch of free time starting in a month, so I can do the connecting | 16:51 |
| adamw | starting in a month is a month too late ;) | 16:51 |
| * j_dulaney can start now | 16:51 | |
| j_dulaney | The only real blocker of my time will be finals the first week of December | 16:51 |
| adamw | i think it might be best to have someone who's definitely going to have lots of time for it, which is why i was gonna volunteer | 16:52 |
| j_dulaney | True | 16:53 |
| * nirik looks for more things for adamw to do since he has lots of time. ;) | 16:53 | |
| adamw | nirik: i don't now ;) | 16:53 |
| nirik | too late. rats. ;) | 16:53 |
| adamw | #action adamw to co-ordinate with anaconda team on f17 re-write test planning | 16:54 |
| j_dulaney | Especially since he's firing everyone | 16:54 |
| adamw | missed your spot! | 16:54 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: oh right, i didn't fire nirik yet! | 16:54 |
| red_alert | I | 16:54 |
| adamw | so, tflink already had a few ideas that might help with testing - want to re-air them here tflink? | 16:54 |
| red_alert | I'll monitor adamw's sleeping hours and tell nirik when I spot that he's got time available...i.e. as soon as he sleeps over 4h/night ;) | 16:55 |
| tflink | adamw: I can or we can wait to see what the anaconda team has planned | 16:55 |
| red_alert | adamw: ah, please make sure to get their thoughts on having some anaconda/QA hackfest during fudcon...might be important for my sponsorship request ;) | 16:56 |
| tflink | the first was to make sure that we always have install isos available for testing | 16:56 |
| adamw | red_alert: ooh, yup. | 16:56 |
| j_dulaney | tflink: Pull in rel-eng for that? | 16:57 |
| tflink | which has two parts, keeping a somewhat up-to-date rawhide tree that is stable so that we can test anaconda without worrying about the rest of rawhide | 16:57 |
| tflink | and the second, which is making it easier to build test isos with custom package sets for testing | 16:58 |
| kk4ewt | adamw, so you want hackfest space a Fudcon What days | 16:58 |
| * j_dulaney wonders if we could just test new Anaconda with F16 sicne we know that's stable? | 16:59 | |
| tflink | j_dulaney: that might be another option | 16:59 |
| adamw | kk4ewt: we'll deal with that later | 16:59 |
| kk4ewt | :) | 17:00 |
| red_alert | using the new anaconda with F16 will make upgrade testing rather invalid, though | 17:00 |
| j_dulaney | tflink: Scientific method | 17:00 |
| j_dulaney | Change only one variable | 17:00 |
| tflink | the other different idea is going to be more of a question - would the availability of hardware/VMs affect the amount of testing done on new anaconda? | 17:00 |
| j_dulaney | And this is a huge variable to change | 17:00 |
| tflink | yeah, agreed on that one. upgrade testing could be separate | 17:01 |
| tflink | but I'm not sure about all the implications of trying to test F17 anaconda w/ F16 | 17:01 |
| adamw | tflink: might elaborate on your second idea a bit. only quickly. =) | 17:01 |
| j_dulaney | tflink: if I can get my hands on a larger hardrive for the new laptop, I'll have hardware to test on (and do VM testing, too | 17:01 |
| tflink | my idea was to offer test VMs to people who want to test. Testers would be able to access the GUI installer through a VNC-ish interface | 17:02 |
| adamw | question is, do we have anyone who's dying to help test but has no access to test hardware or a VM? | 17:03 |
| adamw | or is that...not the case? | 17:03 |
| * j_dulaney does not really have hardware right now | 17:03 | |
| kparal | I believe that use case may be pretty valid | 17:03 |
| tflink | adamw: a better way to put it would be: would access to more VMs increase the amount of testing that people would do? | 17:04 |
| j_dulaney | I've got a laptop capable of it, but I don't have a HD and can't afford one | 17:04 |
| t8m | We are supposed to have FESCo meeting here. Will the Fedora QA meeting end soon? | 17:04 |
| mmaslano | adamw: could you end your meeting please? | 17:04 |
| adamw | mmaslano: yeah, sorry, been trying :( | 17:04 |
| adamw | let's end this and move over to #fedora-meeting-1 to conclude | 17:05 |
| tflink | k | 17:05 |
| adamw | why does this happen, btw? didn't we used to have 2 hours between the meetings? | 17:05 |
| brunowolff | As sort of a joint issue, is FESCO going to comment on their election guidelines since j_dulaney is a nominee who doesn't meet the letter of the policy? | 17:05 |
| j_dulaney | So I should stick around? | 17:05 |
| adamw | #agreed meeting to conclude in #fedora-meeting-1 | 17:05 |
| t8m | adamw, we have the start of the meeting UTC based | 17:05 |
| adamw | #endmeeting | 17:05 |
| adamw | #startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting - Part Deux | 17:06 |
|---|---|---|
| zodbot | Meeting started Mon Nov 7 17:06:20 2011 UTC. The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 17:06 |
| zodbot | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. | 17:06 |
| adamw | #topic F17 pre-planning: anaconda UI rewrite | 17:06 |
| adamw | #meetingname fedora-qa | 17:06 |
| zodbot | The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa' | 17:06 |
| adamw | okay, continue! | 17:06 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: so in your case - can you use VM for testing, or is that impractical too? | 17:07 |
| j_dulaney | I can indeed | 17:07 |
| j_dulaney | Use a VM | 17:07 |
| adamw | okay | 17:08 |
| brunowolff | Do you guys know if Live installs are going to change with this? | 17:08 |
| adamw | so access to a VM via a web interface wouldn't help you much, i guess | 17:08 |
| kparal | some people might have too old CPU for KVM. if you don't have hw virt support, it almost doesn't work | 17:08 |
| adamw | brunowolff: yes, live install uses the same UI as regular install. | 17:08 |
| adamw | kparal: yeah, that's a consideration | 17:08 |
| j_dulaney | adamw: I think that would work | 17:09 |
| adamw | kparal: what we're trying to weigh is whether it's worth tflink's time to set up this thing | 17:09 |
| kparal | i understand | 17:09 |
| kparal | what about some survey first? | 17:09 |
| * j_dulaney has no hard drive in his VM capable box | 17:09 | |
| tflink | kparal: yeah, the plan was to ask test@ if that would increase testing | 17:10 |
| tflink | but I thought we were going to wait to see what the anaconda devs had planned first | 17:10 |
| adamw | okay | 17:11 |
| robatino | it could allow faster testing - my machine only has 1 CPU, and even if it didn't it would probably thrash if i tried to do more than one | 17:11 |
| adamw | so the idea's there and seems like people are interested | 17:11 |
| adamw | so we should probably take a look at how much work it's going to be, and what resources we'd have available on the back end | 17:11 |
| robatino | plus it would avoid the downloading step | 17:11 |
| adamw | if we could make this work nicely it'd actually have uses beyond QA, really - could be good publicity | 17:11 |
| tflink | robatino: that's a good point, I hadn't thought about that | 17:11 |
| adamw | ubuntu has this kind of faked up html5 thing on their site somewhere which lets you play around with a desktop a bit without downloading ubuntu | 17:12 |
| adamw | we could go one better =) | 17:12 |
| tflink | adamw: yeah, it could be used as a "look at Fedora X, try it through the interwebs" | 17:12 |
| adamw | http://www.ubuntu.com/tour/ | 17:13 |
| kparal | adamw: actually that's not that good, they have better one inside their software center - you can try almost any application remotely | 17:13 |
| kparal | using nx | 17:13 |
| adamw | kparal: that's a slightly different case, though. | 17:13 |
| kparal | definitely | 17:13 |
| red_alert | nirik has some test systems for package maintainers up and running, maybe it'd be easy for him to set up a couple more for QA folks? | 17:14 |
| adamw | anyhow, yeah, let's say we see possibilities =) tflink can you look into it a bit more and report back? | 17:14 |
| tflink | yeah, can do | 17:14 |
| tflink | s/can/will | 17:14 |
| adamw | okay | 17:14 |
| * kparal notes fesco is just talking about "fixing critpath process" | 17:14 | |
| adamw | #action tflink to evaluate his remote-VM idea some more and report back on how much work it'll be to implement, and available resources | 17:15 |
| adamw | tflink: obviously sounds like you'd want to talk to infra | 17:15 |
| tflink | yeah, HW would be a limiting factor | 17:15 |
| adamw | okay, so before we move on, anyone aware of any other f17 stuff we should plan for? | 17:15 |
| adamw | i've got notes-to-self to look into the btrfs migration and whether this crazy /usr change is actually likely to happen | 17:16 |
| tflink | those are the two that came to mind for me | 17:16 |
| j_dulaney | I don't see btrfs happening | 17:16 |
| j_dulaney | Still no fsch | 17:16 |
| j_dulaney | c/fsch/fsck | 17:16 |
| * j_dulaney can't type sometimes | 17:16 | |
| adamw | well, they have a few months to get it. | 17:17 |
| red_alert | 2D gnome shell will need much QA love too | 17:17 |
| * tflink is looking forward to that | 17:17 | |
| red_alert | but with all you folks using mostly VMs to test, that should be taken care of :) | 17:18 |
| adamw | yeah, apparently we can start testing that now | 17:18 |
| adamw | i was gonna set up a rawhide vm today, because you know, shiny is shiny. =) | 17:18 |
| j_dulaney | Upstream in btrfs there is a lot of pressure for an fsck | 17:19 |
| * nirik couldn't get it to work here, but I might have missed something. | 17:19 | |
| adamw | #info we're tracking btrfs migration, /usr move and 2D shell support as significant features that would be in need of testing | 17:20 |
| adamw | alright | 17:20 |
| adamw | #topic autoqa update | 17:20 |
| adamw | do we have much on the autoqa front or still just getting back in gear? | 17:20 |
| tflink | getting back into gear, mostly | 17:20 |
| * j_dulaney has nothing | 17:20 | |
| tflink | trying to get new features done so that we can start testing them | 17:21 |
| adamw | okay | 17:21 |
| kparal | adamw: do you think we are superhumans like you? we just got back to autoqa today! | 17:21 |
| * kparal has no news to share | 17:21 | |
| * kparal expects being fired | 17:21 | |
| * j_dulaney is surprised he hasn't been, yet | 17:22 | |
| adamw | fired! fired! you're all fired! | 17:22 |
| * adamw chomps on cigar | 17:22 | |
| adamw | #info autoqa is getting back into gear after f16, so no news yet | 17:22 |
| * j_dulaney likes big cigars... | 17:23 | |
| adamw | alright, so i think that's all | 17:23 |
| adamw | #topic open floor | 17:23 |
| adamw | any other business? did i miss anything? is anyone dead of boredom yet? | 17:23 |
| j_dulaney | Do we want to start thinking about Blacksburg hackfests? | 17:23 |
| j_dulaney | Or make that an item for next week? | 17:23 |
| adamw | seems like a next-week kinda thing | 17:24 |
| adamw | since we're 25 mins over time | 17:24 |
| adamw | i'll try and remember to put it on next week's agenda, if i forget can you let me know? | 17:25 |
| j_dulaney | Indeed | 17:25 |
| adamw | okay | 17:27 |
| adamw | let's finish this thing! | 17:27 |
| adamw | 3... | 17:28 |
| adamw | 2... | 17:28 |
| adamw | 1... | 17:28 |
| adamw | FATALITY! | 17:28 |
| adamw | #endmeeting | 17:28 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.8 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!