From Fedora Project Wiki
Attendees
- adamw (269)
- tflink (78)
- kparal (71)
- j_dulaney (57)
- bcl (30)
- twu (27)
- wwoods (21)
- brunowolff (15)
- pschindl (11)
- zodbot (6)
- rbergeron (4)
- mkrizek (4)
- jskladan (3)
- Cerlyn (3)
- maxamillion (3)
- satellit_laptop (1)
- mmaslano (1)
- rmarko (1)
- Viking-Ice (1)
- limburgher (1)
- nirik (1)
- Southern_Gentlem (1)
Agenda
- Previous meeting follow-up
- Fedora 17 Beta status / blocker review
- 'Project' status
- Test Day report
- Upcoming QA events
- AutoQA update
- Open floor
Previous meeting follow-up
- adamw to bug j_dulaney to bug Sugar test day folks: this was done, and the event happened successfully
Fedora 17 Beta status / blocker review
- RC1 is out and needs all Beta tests completed
Blocker review
- AGREED: rhbug:804514 is a blocker per the criterion about a 'basic video' install option being present and the one about installs that are done according to the other criteria booting to a functional desktop
- AGREED: rhbug:806749 is accepted as a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options"
- AGREED: rhbug:806708 is a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options", needs more info
- AGREED: we need to know if rhbug:806931 affects non virt-install cases to determine blocker status - punt until next meeting
- AGREED: rhbug:805166 is not a blocker per anaconda team's statement that using root= in this way is not supported or expected to work
- AGREED: rhbug:806962 is a blocker per criterion "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media", in the case of DVD or boot.iso written to USB with l-i-t-d
- AGREED: rhbug:806867 is a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade installation from a clean, fully updated default installation (from any official install medium) of the previous stable Fedora release, either via preupgrade or by booting to the installer manually. The upgraded system must meet all release criteria"
- AGREED: rhbug:806931 is accepted as a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to use all kickstart delivery methods"
- AGREED: rhbug:806784 is a blocker per criterion "The installer must be able to create and install to software, hardware or BIOS RAID-0, RAID-1 or RAID-5 partitions for anything except /boot"
- AGREED: rhbug:806466 is rejected as blocker but accepted as NTH (not serious enough to break any criteria)
- AGREED: rhbug:806664 is accepted as NTH while we're at it (both make ootb network behaviour somewhat icky)
- AGREED: rhbug:804522 is a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to create and install to software, hardware or BIOS RAID-0, RAID-1 or RAID-5 partitions for anything except /boot"
'Project' status
- See the on-list discussion
- Discussion was tabled till the following week due to lack of time
Test Day report
- Sugar Test Day on 03-22 - turnout was low, but the few who attended performed an impressive amount of testing
Upcoming QA events
- Kdump Test Day on 03-27
- GNOME Shell software rendering Test Day on 03-29
- Beta Go/No-Go scheduled for 03-28
AutoQA update
- No news!
Open floor
Action items
- kparal to propose revised criteria to cover split installs (installer sourced from one repo, packages from internet repos)
- wwoods to ensure anaconda docs are updated to reflect what repo= is supposed to be capable of
IRC Log
| adamw | #startmeeting Fedora QA meeting | 15:00 |
|---|---|---|
| zodbot | Meeting started Mon Mar 26 15:00:06 2012 UTC. The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 15:00 |
| zodbot | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. | 15:00 |
| adamw | #meetingname fedora-qa | 15:00 |
| zodbot | The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa' | 15:00 |
| adamw | #topic roll call | 15:00 |
| * pschindl is here | 15:00 | |
| * j_dulaney cranks the bagpipes | 15:00 | |
| * Cerlyn is here | 15:00 | |
| * jskladan here | 15:00 | |
| adamw | morning everyone, it's happy fun meeting time in happy fun qa land where the happy fun beta blockers make us all fun and happy | 15:00 |
| * twu twu is here | 15:00 | |
| * kparal is all fun and happy | 15:00 | |
| adamw | wait, these aren't aspirin. | 15:00 |
| j_dulaney | adamw: Are you on something? | 15:00 |
| * tflink is here | 15:01 | |
| * mkrizek is here | 15:01 | |
| Cerlyn | beta blockers can be avoided by eating more beta carotene | 15:01 |
| jskladan | adamw: My Little Blocker Friendship, you say... | 15:02 |
| * nirik is lurking | 15:02 | |
| * maxamillion is here | 15:02 | |
| adamw | #chair tflink kparal | 15:02 |
| zodbot | Current chairs: adamw kparal tflink | 15:02 |
| * brunowolff is here for 1/2 hour, then work meeting | 15:03 | |
| adamw | wow, full house, huh | 15:03 |
| adamw | okey dokey, let's get rolling | 15:03 |
| adamw | #topic previous meeting follow-up | 15:03 |
| adamw | #info "adamw to bug j_dulaney to bug Sugar test day folks" - I did that, the page got lots of nice test cases, and much fun was had by all. | 15:04 |
| adamw | aaaaaand that's all i got for previous meeting follow up. anything I missed? | 15:04 |
| adamw | guess not | 15:05 |
| adamw | #topic Fedora 17 Beta status / blocker review | 15:05 |
| adamw | so, we got RC1 done Friday and now we need to get all the testing done | 15:05 |
| adamw | #info Beta RC1 was built Friday afternoon and now needs testing | 15:06 |
| * maxamillion is downloading now | 15:06 | |
| twu | yeah, we have done some tests in the day working | 15:06 |
| adamw | yup, i see that | 15:07 |
| twu | but still have some bugs | 15:07 |
| adamw | looks like quite a few bugs have been filed, so we should probably check those for blockers | 15:07 |
| brunowolff | I was able to do an install from a live image to a laptop. It went fine. (Though I had to tweak anaconda as the machine only has 512 MiB of memory.) | 15:07 |
| j_dulaney | I thought that limit was supposed to be removed | 15:08 |
| j_dulaney | It seems rather artificial | 15:08 |
| brunowolff | I think they are waiting for testing to see what the new limit should be. | 15:08 |
| brunowolff | It would be nice to lower it for final. | 15:08 |
| adamw | we need to test it | 15:09 |
| adamw | i think right after noloader landed, anaconda team did some tests and found they couldn't install with 512MB | 15:09 |
| adamw | but now it sounds like that's changed... | 15:09 |
| brunowolff | I didn't test a normal install, just the live install and that may make a difference. | 15:10 |
| j_dulaney | adamw: I never had trouble installing with 512MB | 15:10 |
| rmarko | same here | 15:11 |
| adamw | in F15 and F16 it was definitely unsafe. | 15:11 |
| j_dulaney | BTW, for the record, I am now running F17 as my primary OS | 15:11 |
| adamw | anyhoo | 15:11 |
| adamw | i'm just running through the bugs that have been reported so far and nominating some as blockers, then we can do some blocker review... | 15:11 |
| twu | now gnome3 can work fine on kvm :) | 15:11 |
| maxamillion | twu: +1 | 15:12 |
| adamw | yeah, that's nice. | 15:12 |
| * twu have a question | 15:12 | |
| j_dulaney | twu: It could for the past couple of months | 15:12 |
| j_dulaney | Since early in Alpha phase | 15:12 |
| tflink | j_dulaney: spice has had some issues as of late | 15:12 |
| twu | j_dulaney: yeah, it is | 15:13 |
| * satellit_laptop fine on Virtualbox also | 15:13 | |
| j_dulaney | tflink: I haven't seen any | 15:13 |
| * j_dulaney will test post-meeting | 15:13 | |
| twu | how can we see the changes made in anaconda just before we start testing | 15:14 |
| adamw | nearly there... | 15:14 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: until last week shell on KVM would crash regularly. | 15:15 |
| adamw | twu: how do you mean? | 15:15 |
| adamw | twu: something other than looking at the anaconda changelog? | 15:15 |
| twu | adamw: yes | 15:15 |
| j_dulaney | Do a diff? | 15:16 |
| j_dulaney | It's all Python | 15:16 |
| j_dulaney | adamw: Ah, I'd forgotten about that | 15:16 |
| adamw | look at the git log? | 15:17 |
| pschindl | for example: it would be nice, if we know about changes in installer parameters (like repo=... -> inst.repo) | 15:17 |
| twu | adamw: does it have something like "release note"? | 15:17 |
| * twu agree with pschindl | 15:18 | |
| pschindl | they haven't changed their wiki. It is hard to test, when everything is different then in the previous version | 15:18 |
| adamw | whew, okay. sorry about that | 15:19 |
| tflink | pschindl: yeah, dracut is like that too | 15:19 |
| adamw | afaik, no, not really. all you get is the rpm changelog, git log, maybe the Bodhi update page. | 15:19 |
| tflink | bad tflink for not fixing it since that's been off since at least F16 | 15:19 |
| * adamw gets the list of proposed blockers | 15:19 | |
| adamw | okay, let's do our impromptu blocker review | 15:20 |
| mkrizek | last update of release notes was back in 2002 :) http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=anaconda.git;a=blob;f=docs/anaconda-release-notes.txt;h=167411cb19791a6712bf48b76541ebf0d2eab710;hb=HEAD | 15:20 |
| adamw | looks like it could do with a bit of an update :P | 15:21 |
| adamw | for the record, i'm using http://ur1.ca/8t8f7 as the proposed blocker list, as the wikified one won't have caught up with my changes | 15:21 |
| adamw | #topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804514 | 15:22 |
| tflink | adamw: it only gets updated ~ every hour | 15:22 |
| adamw | yes. | 15:22 |
| kparal | we can fix that, but I don't know who manages it | 15:22 |
| adamw | jlaska, as far as anyone does. i think. | 15:22 |
| kparal | zodbot is able to receive notifications in the matter of minutes | 15:22 |
| tflink | kparal: the wiki page or anaconda release notes? | 15:22 |
| kparal | wiki page | 15:22 |
| adamw | anyhow | 15:22 |
| tflink | kparal: that would be jlaska | 15:23 |
| adamw | this one sounds like Shell tries to run after a vesa install, and fails. | 15:23 |
| adamw | has anyone else tried that? | 15:23 |
| kparal | not me | 15:23 |
| adamw | so for me this is a blocker | 15:24 |
| adamw | criteria: alpha "The boot menu for all installation images should include an entry which causes both installation and the installed system to use a generic, highly compatible video driver (such as 'vesa'). This mechanism should work correctly, launching the installer and attempting to use the generic driver" combined with "Following on from the previous criterion, after firstboot is completed and on subsequent boots, a system installed according to any | 15:24 |
| adamw | of the above criteria (or the appropriate Beta or Final criteria, when applying this criterion to those releases) must boot to a working graphical environment without unintended user intervention. This includes correctly accessing any encrypted partitions when the correct passphrase is supplied" | 15:24 |
| adamw | zoiks. | 15:24 |
| adamw | it'd be nice to have confirmation from one other tester though at least | 15:24 |
| tflink | I can give it a try | 15:25 |
| adamw | any votes on blockerinessA? | 15:26 |
| twu | when I leave the office, my 32 bit's still running, sorry for that :) | 15:26 |
| tflink | if it is what it sounds like, +1 blocker | 15:26 |
| brunowolff | Assuming this happens reliably, I am +1 blocker. | 15:26 |
| mkrizek | seems like a blocker to me too | 15:26 |
| kparal | +1 blocker | 15:26 |
| * brunowolff is off to another meeting | 15:26 | |
| j_dulaney | +1 block | 15:27 |
| twu | +1 block | 15:27 |
| j_dulaney | er | 15:27 |
| Cerlyn | I installed with xdriver=vesa , but I don't recall seeing a menu choice to force it | 15:27 |
| adamw | propose #agreed #804514 is a blocker per the criteria about a 'basic video' install option being present and the one about installs that are done according to the other criteria booting to a functional desktop | 15:27 |
| adamw | Cerlyn: it's under 'advanced options' or something. | 15:27 |
| kparal | ack | 15:27 |
| j_dulaney | ack | 15:28 |
| tflink | ack | 15:28 |
| pschindl | ack | 15:28 |
| adamw | #agreed #804514 is a blocker per the criterion about a 'basic video' install option being present and the one about installs that are done according to the other criteria booting to a functional desktop | 15:28 |
| adamw | #topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806749 | 15:29 |
| adamw | this also seems like a straightforward blocker, and has a confirmation in the matrix (failures listed from hongqing and cra) | 15:29 |
| tflink | yeah, +1 blocker | 15:30 |
| adamw | looks to prevent NFS install and hence break alpha "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options " | 15:30 |
| kparal | interesting, I tried that right now | 15:30 |
| kparal | I didn't encounter that | 15:30 |
| j_dulaney | +1 blocker | 15:30 |
| kparal | I'm missing more information from hongqing. which compose? which arch? | 15:30 |
| bcl | kparal: I asked him to rerun with rd.debug and serial so all the details can be captured. | 15:31 |
| adamw | kparal: the matrix says x86_64, but don't know if he used DVD or netinst. | 15:32 |
| kparal | I used i386 netinst | 15:32 |
| tflink | adamw: for a NFS install, does it matter? | 15:32 |
| kparal | anyway, blocker +1 | 15:32 |
| bcl | +1 | 15:32 |
| adamw | tflink: if kparal couldn't reproduce, possibly? :) | 15:32 |
| tflink | or is this just an NFS repo failure instead of nfsiso | 15:32 |
| adamw | this is nfs repo failure, but there's a bug for nfsiso failing too. | 15:33 |
| bcl | I think it is related to the symlink wwoods addded. | 15:33 |
| bcl | not an nfs problem. | 15:33 |
| adamw | propose #agreed 86749 is accepted as a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options". note kparal reports a successful nfs install so we should compare notes | 15:33 |
| twu | I encounter this bug on i386 | 15:33 |
| adamw | ah, so three fails... | 15:34 |
| adamw | kparal: you're weird. | 15:34 |
| adamw | :P | 15:34 |
| kparal | I did not report successful install. I just didn't see *this* bug :) | 15:34 |
| twu | I tested the i386 DVD | 15:34 |
| adamw | kparal: ah | 15:34 |
| adamw | propose #agreed 86749 is accepted as a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options". note kparal reports not seeing this bug, so we should compare notes | 15:35 |
| kparal | ack | 15:35 |
| j_dulaney | ack | 15:35 |
| twu | ack | 15:35 |
| tflink | ack | 15:35 |
| adamw | #agreed 86749 is accepted as a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options". note kparal reports not seeing this bug, so we should compare notes | 15:35 |
| adamw | you all fail. | 15:35 |
| adamw | #undo | 15:35 |
| zodbot | Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Agreed object at 0x2cdbd610> | 15:35 |
| adamw | #agreed 806749 is accepted as a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options". note kparal reports not seeing this bug, so we should compare notes | 15:35 |
| adamw | that's why we do proposed, y'all. =) | 15:35 |
| adamw | #topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806708 | 15:36 |
| tflink | adamw: you're the one who typo'd | 15:36 |
| adamw | aaand here's the nfsiso failure. | 15:36 |
| adamw | it was an intentional typo just to see if you'd notice. honest! | 15:36 |
| kparal | wasn't that supposed to be fixed in anaconda 17.14? | 15:36 |
| adamw | a very similar one was supposed to be fixed, yeah | 15:37 |
| adamw | but cra seems pretty clear he's on beta rc1 | 15:37 |
| adamw | https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804813 was the previous bug | 15:37 |
| tflink | as written, +1 blocker | 15:37 |
| adamw | the effect is the same (nfsiso borked) but it's clearly not the same bug | 15:37 |
| pschindl | +1 blocker | 15:38 |
| adamw | sounds like we could do with others testing this and confirming, and adding the info needed if it fails | 15:38 |
| j_dulaney | +1 blocker | 15:38 |
| twu | I hate this bug, so +1 blocker :) | 15:38 |
| bcl | the repo=nfs* bugs are different than this one. | 15:39 |
| adamw | that means extra fun times for you! | 15:39 |
| adamw | propose #agreed #806708 is a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options", needs more info | 15:40 |
| bcl | in those cases I think it loses the network when it turns on NM. In this case he's modifying the repo entry. | 15:40 |
| pschindl | ack | 15:40 |
| bcl | so don't lump them all with this one. | 15:40 |
| adamw | we're not proposing any dupage. | 15:40 |
| tflink | ack | 15:41 |
| twu | ack | 15:41 |
| adamw | #agreed #806708 is a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options", needs more info | 15:41 |
| adamw | #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806931 | 15:41 |
| adamw | grr | 15:41 |
| adamw | #undo | 15:41 |
| zodbot | Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x21cee810> | 15:41 |
| adamw | #topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806931 | 15:42 |
| adamw | so this is the one you two are discussing in #anaconda right now, right? | 15:42 |
| kparal | yes | 15:42 |
| adamw | i'd be more comfortable taking this as a blocker if you could reproduce without using virt-install... | 15:42 |
| kparal | good idea | 15:42 |
| kparal | I hate manual tinkering with initrd, but I'll do that | 15:43 |
| tflink | I'd be interested in seeing if the impregnated initrd test case fails | 15:43 |
| adamw | the criterion wasn't really written with the scenario of using an external tool that does various other things as well as pass a kickstart in mind | 15:43 |
| tflink | since that would be the same mechanism | 15:43 |
| adamw | tflink: we have a test case for that one, right? | 15:43 |
| tflink | yep | 15:43 |
| adamw | so yeah, do that. | 15:43 |
| adamw | other votes? | 15:43 |
| bcl | -1 | 15:43 |
| tflink | punt til' we know whether it's anaconda or virt-install | 15:43 |
| adamw | bcl: -1 on what grounds? do you have sufficient info now to determine it's not a blocker | 15:44 |
| adamw | ? | 15:44 |
| kparal | I'd also wait a while until we know more | 15:45 |
| kparal | I'm working on it right now | 15:45 |
| bcl | I don't think we should block on virt-install not working. | 15:45 |
| adamw | bcl: well, i said it would be good to see if this also affects non-virt-install use of initrd injection | 15:45 |
| adamw | but -1 is a vote to reject it as a blocker immediately, without finding that out | 15:46 |
| bcl | I don't mean that we won't try to sort it out and fix it, just that it not working shouldn't (IMHO) block Beta. | 15:46 |
| bcl | note that I'm not a policy wonk. So my vote may be worthless :) | 15:47 |
| * kparal proposes delay until next meeting | 15:48 | |
| adamw | okay, well we have more votes to delay than to reject, just wanted to check if you knew something we didn;t | 15:48 |
| bcl | nope | 15:49 |
| adamw | propose #agreed we need to know if 806931 affects non virt-install cases to determine blocker status - punt until next meeting | 15:49 |
| kparal | ack | 15:49 |
| tflink | ack | 15:50 |
| twu | ack | 15:50 |
| adamw | #agreed we need to know if 806931 affects non virt-install cases to determine blocker status - punt until next meeting | 15:50 |
| adamw | #topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805166 | 15:50 |
| adamw | this one's been hanging around as proposed since tc stage, actually. we never had a clear up/down vote on blocker status/ | 15:51 |
| kparal | comment #10 summarizes it | 15:51 |
| adamw | so the aim here is to source the installer as well as packages via nfs, right | 15:51 |
| kparal | source just the installer | 15:52 |
| adamw | oh, right. | 15:52 |
| kparal | the packages should be taken from default online directories | 15:52 |
| kparal | that's the use case | 15:52 |
| adamw | so you want to get the installer from nfs but packages from internet...right. | 15:52 |
| kparal | yep | 15:52 |
| bcl | I tried this last week, it is a network problem FWIW | 15:52 |
| kparal | bcl: what do you mean by network problem? | 15:52 |
| bcl | it downloads squashfs, switches root and when it turns on NM it stops working. | 15:54 |
| adamw | and this is a new issue because previously just doing a PXE boot would pull in the installer as it was part of the anaconda initramfs. | 15:54 |
| adamw | so we don't have criteria for this.\ | 15:54 |
| * jskladan needs to go afk for 10 minutes | 15:54 | |
| kparal | our criteria concern package repo availability, because we never needed to deal with installer fetching from a remote place | 15:55 |
| adamw | given all of that, i guess i'd vote we should add criteria to the same release level as we have PXE boot, and accept as a blocker. | 15:55 |
| j_dulaney | +1 | 15:55 |
| kparal | adamw: which level is that? | 15:55 |
| kparal | we have to make the criteria more searchable (e.g. add PXE keywords and such) | 15:56 |
| kparal | anyway, +1 | 15:56 |
| bcl | running squashfs over NFS really isn't a good idea, even if it does sorta work. | 15:57 |
| twu | +1 | 15:57 |
| kparal | if it's documented that it doesn't work, I have no problem with it. but there's no documentation whatsoever | 15:57 |
| tflink | +1 | 15:57 |
| kparal | regarding root= option | 15:58 |
| bcl | kparal: well then there's the answer :) | 15:58 |
| adamw | yeesh. sorry guys, my laptop just blackscreened. | 15:58 |
| * adamw catches up | 15:58 | |
| kparal | I don't understand why it should work with repo= option and shouldn't work with root= option | 15:58 |
| adamw | bcl: doesn't that leave us with an effective regression in capabilities between loader and noloader though? | 15:59 |
| kparal | repo= just adds a definition of online repos, nothing more | 15:59 |
| adamw | how are you supposed to do a PXE install but use internet package sources? | 15:59 |
| bcl | adamw: nfs is way more fragile than http which pulls it all down and then runs it. | 16:00 |
| * Viking-Ice joins in late | 16:00 | |
| bcl | I don't know if we've ever supported running stage2 from nfs. | 16:00 |
| twu | just add "repo=http://....." to the boot arguments? | 16:00 |
| * adamw notes we don't seem to have pxe criteria anyhow. sigh | 16:00 | |
| kparal | twu: right, http works. that's the current workaround | 16:01 |
| twu | I feel like the pxe just refer to the kernel boot stage | 16:02 |
| j_dulaney | Hmm | 16:02 |
| kparal | this is not just about pxe. the same applies for VM boot from kernel pair | 16:02 |
| adamw | so we can either require this to work via NFS, or say that if you want to direct boot anaconda via nfs you have to provide repo=http for it to pull the squashfs from... | 16:03 |
| adamw | mmf. feels like we kinda need someone to step back and do an overview of what we actually expect to work here, then re-evaluate? | 16:04 |
| kparal | repo= is a superset of root=. nfs works with repo=, but doesn't work with root=. seems really weird to me saying nfs is not supported for root=. | 16:04 |
| bcl | how do you boot initrd via nfs? you can't, you have to pxe or local boot it. | 16:04 |
| adamw | kparal: yeah, that did seem odd. | 16:04 |
| * rbergeron peeks in between meetings, ugh | 16:04 | |
| adamw | rbergeron: if i were you i'd peek right back out again | 16:04 |
| j_dulaney | Ugly in here | 16:04 |
| * kparal votes for a blocker, until anaconda publicly documents what should work and what should not | 16:05 | |
| wwoods | kparal: you're wrong about repo | 16:05 |
| kparal | currently it seems to me this should work | 16:05 |
| rbergeron | adamw: OOK, a squirrel | 16:05 |
| kparal | wwoods: welcome | 16:05 |
| rbergeron | err, look, /me sighs at less funny with bad keyboard | 16:06 |
| wwoods | stage2= and method= are deprecated in favor of "repo=" | 16:06 |
| j_dulaney | Squirrel? | 16:06 |
| rbergeron | j_dulaney: it's running around with my ADD meds. | 16:06 |
| wwoods | "repo=" gives the location of an *installable tree* - i.e. package repo + .treeinfo file + install.img etc | 16:06 |
| kparal | and root image | 16:06 |
| wwoods | kparal: that's 'install.img', yes | 16:06 |
| kparal | ok | 16:07 |
| kparal | it's called squashfs.img in my tree | 16:07 |
| adamw | propose #agreed defer #805166 and ask anaconda team to clearly document supported methods for remote retrieval of installer in the noloader era, then update criteria to reflect this | 16:07 |
| wwoods | "root=live:nfs:..." is not something we've supported in any release | 16:07 |
| tflink | ack | 16:07 |
| j_dulaney | ack | 16:07 |
| kparal | ack | 16:07 |
| twu | ack | 16:07 |
| pschindl | ack | 16:07 |
| wwoods | (in theory it *should* work but there seems to be some problem with the ifcfg/dhcp lease handover) | 16:07 |
| wwoods | it's already documented. it's repo= | 16:08 |
| kparal | wwoods: what if I don't have the whole installable tree mirrored? | 16:09 |
| kparal | just boot images | 16:09 |
| wwoods | that's still repo= | 16:09 |
| adamw | so basically it's not considered supported to try and pass root=(someremotesource)? repo= should always be used | 16:09 |
| kparal | but I want to fetch installer from LAN | 16:09 |
| wwoods | correct | 16:09 |
| j_dulaney | In that case | 16:09 |
| j_dulaney | Maybe -1 blcoker | 16:09 |
| adamw | okay, that seems clear enough. in that case, -1 blocker. | 16:09 |
| wwoods | kparal: that's fine. repo={http,https,nfs,ftp} | 16:09 |
| adamw | so you can pass repo= for a location which does in fact contain packages, but does contain the installer | 16:10 |
| kparal | wwoods: my use case is installer from LAN and packages from Internet | 16:10 |
| adamw | and anaconda should deal correctly with that? | 16:10 |
| wwoods | as long as there's a .treeinfo file that points to the [stage2] mainimage it should work | 16:10 |
| adamw | sigh. | 16:10 |
| adamw | does NOT in fact contain packages | 16:10 |
| wwoods | yes. | 16:10 |
| adamw | it'll let you use remote repos. okay. | 16:10 |
| kparal | wwoods: please document all of this. I'm sure it doesn't work in all cases you mentioned | 16:10 |
| kparal | wwoods: here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Options | 16:11 |
| wwoods | fine, then that's a bug | 16:11 |
| wwoods | but the existing documentation is the expected behavior | 16:11 |
| adamw | "repo= | 16:11 |
| adamw | This option tells anaconda where to find the packages for installation. This option must point to a valid yum repository. " | 16:11 |
| kparal | "This option must point to a valid yum repository" | 16:11 |
| kparal | adamw: you're faster | 16:11 |
| kparal | so Packages/ must be present | 16:11 |
| adamw | (even though later on it contradicts itself and allows you to use ISOs.) | 16:11 |
| wwoods | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Options#method | 16:12 |
| * j_dulaney should note that he does have a package | 16:12 | |
| adamw | wwoods: it rather looks like the repo= section should be revised to be more accurate for noloader, and we should also get the installation guide updated. | 16:13 |
| wwoods | basically, method= and stage2= used to be how you did this. now you just do repo=. we'll update the docs accordingly. | 16:13 |
| wwoods | s/noloader/reality/ - noloader has not changed any of this | 16:13 |
| adamw | wwoods: well, as kparal explains it, before noloader, just pxe boot would pull in the installer, because it was part of the initramfs. | 16:13 |
| adamw | or was that an earlier change than noloader? | 16:14 |
| wwoods | in f15 and f16, yes. in every release prior, no | 16:14 |
| adamw | point. | 16:14 |
| kparal | I'm 100% sure that missing yum repository in the repo= location aborts installation. I reported bug about it. I can dig it up | 16:14 |
| kparal | so that would be blocker instead | 16:14 |
| wwoods | kparal: if that's the case I'll make sure we have some alternate method to boot with just images | 16:14 |
| twu | wwoods: thanks, and does the 'askmethod' not using any more in the future? | 16:14 |
| adamw | we'd still need to revise the criteria, if we actually wanted to consider this kind of split install blocking. | 16:15 |
| adamw | all the criteria have ever said is that remote package sources have to work. | 16:15 |
| wwoods | twu: 'askmethod' is gone - choose your method/repo argument at the boot prompt | 16:15 |
| kparal | wwoods: ok, I supposed that's what root= is for | 16:15 |
| adamw | so, anyhow, this is getting messy | 16:15 |
| wwoods | anyway, yes, docs will get revised | 16:15 |
| adamw | propose #agreed 805166 is not a blocker per anaconda team's statement that using root= in this way is not supported or expected to work | 16:15 |
| j_dulaney | ack | 16:15 |
| twu | wwoods: thanks! | 16:16 |
| adamw | propose #action wwoods to ensure anaconda docs are updated to reflect what repo= is supposed to be capable of | 16:16 |
| * kparal links 790348 | 16:16 | |
| tflink | ack | 16:16 |
| kparal | ack | 16:16 |
| twu | ack | 16:16 |
| adamw | propose #action kparal to propose revised criteria to cover split installs (installer sourced from one repo, packages from internet repos) | 16:16 |
| adamw | and also we probably need a pxe criterion. heh. | 16:16 |
| tflink | adamw: ack on the docs action | 16:17 |
| j_dulaney | ack | 16:17 |
| kparal | ack, but blocked on:wwoods action | 16:17 |
| * twu agree :) | 16:17 | |
| adamw | cool. | 16:18 |
| adamw | #action kparal to propose revised criteria to cover split installs (installer sourced from one repo, packages from internet repos) | 16:18 |
| adamw | #action wwoods to ensure anaconda docs are updated to reflect what repo= is supposed to be capable of | 16:18 |
| adamw | #agreed 805166 is not a blocker per anaconda team's statement that using root= in this way is not supported or expected to work | 16:18 |
| adamw | whew. | 16:18 |
| j_dulaney | http://www.math.vt.edu/people/jbwillia/computer.gif | 16:18 |
| j_dulaney | After that | 16:18 |
| adamw | heh. | 16:19 |
| twu | ha ha | 16:19 |
| adamw | well, great, now i had to switch computers the proposed blocker list is in a different order. siiiigh | 16:19 |
| adamw | #topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806962 | 16:19 |
| adamw | so, l-i-t-d dvd.iso doesn't work | 16:20 |
| adamw | tflink: right? | 16:20 |
| tflink | I'm +1 on this for consistency's sake - IIRC, we tell people to use l-i-t-d instead of dd for bootable USB install media | 16:21 |
| tflink | adamw: not as far as I can tell | 16:21 |
| * tflink use --format and --reset-mbr | 16:21 | |
| tflink | used | 16:21 |
| bcl | yeah. | 16:21 |
| adamw | criteria-wise, this is a conditional breakage of "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media" (alpha) for the case 'DVD image written to USB with l-i-t-d" | 16:22 |
| j_dulaney | Is this a l-i-t-d bug, or a F17 bug? | 16:22 |
| adamw | i actually should probably propose explicit criteria revisions to cover USB writing of media, but it's so common these days I'm certainly +1 | 16:22 |
| adamw | probably the former, right bcl? | 16:23 |
| tflink | j_dulaney: I think that something changed w/ noloader such that l-i-t-d doesn't work any more | 16:23 |
| bcl | adamw: yes | 16:23 |
| j_dulaney | Ah | 16:23 |
| tflink | so a little bit of column A, little bit of column B | 16:23 |
| tflink | but the fix will be in livecd-tools | 16:23 |
| tflink | I think, anyways | 16:23 |
| bcl | tflink: repo seems to override root. I had to split the usb into 2 partitions for noloader. | 16:24 |
| j_dulaney | Well, then, wouldn't that be -1 blocker, then? | 16:24 |
| bcl | tflink: I'm leaning towards anaconda-dracut right now. | 16:24 |
| j_dulaney | Since the fix is livecd-tools? | 16:24 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: no, but it would mean the blocker didn't block image spins. | 16:24 |
| j_dulaney | Ah | 16:24 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: that's how we've usually handled these before. | 16:24 |
| adamw | we take the bug as a blocker, but when it's in say livecd-tools or preupgrade, that's understood to mean that the tool has to be fixed by release time, not that we delay the image composes. | 16:24 |
| tflink | j_dulaney: I can create the usb on F17 if that would make you feel better :) | 16:25 |
| j_dulaney | LOL | 16:25 |
| tflink | bcl: I certainly trust your judgement more than mine on where the issue is | 16:25 |
| * j_dulaney unwads his panties | 16:25 | |
| bcl | thanks ;) | 16:25 |
| bcl | I'm +1, I think it demonstrates a bug with root and repo interaction. | 16:26 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: i think i even put a reference to this kind of situation in the sop | 16:26 |
| adamw | +1 blocker | 16:26 |
| bcl | in anaconda-dracut. | 16:26 |
| j_dulaney | Righteo | 16:26 |
| j_dulaney | +1 blocker | 16:26 |
| j_dulaney | adamw: Who reads the SOP :) | 16:26 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: yeah, docs are for wusses :) | 16:27 |
| adamw | propose #agreed 806962 is a blocker per criterion "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media", in the case of DVD or boot.iso written to USB with l-i-t-d. note it's one of the blockers where we require the tool to be updated by release time rather than delaying the composes | 16:28 |
| tflink | ack | 16:28 |
| tflink | scratch that - nack | 16:28 |
| adamw | patch? | 16:28 |
| j_dulaney | Real Furry Creatures from Alpha Centaurii don't use docs at all! | 16:28 |
| tflink | the bug isn't in l-i-t-d | 16:28 |
| tflink | its in anaconda-dracut which would block image compose | 16:28 |
| adamw | oh, right. bcl, agree? | 16:29 |
| bcl | yes | 16:29 |
| adamw | patch: | 16:29 |
| adamw | #agreed 806962 is a blocker per criterion "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media", in the case of DVD or boot.iso written to USB with l-i-t-d | 16:29 |
| adamw | simples! | 16:29 |
| tflink | ack | 16:29 |
| adamw | whew, i think i finally bored everyone to sleep. | 16:30 |
| adamw | oh, and i missed the propose from that one, so it's in effect. whee. | 16:30 |
| tflink | adamw: now you know how I feel during the blocker review meetings :) | 16:30 |
| adamw | #topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806867 | 16:31 |
| adamw | tflink: hey, i was doing them when you were just a pup ;) | 16:31 |
| j_dulaney | LOL | 16:31 |
| tflink | point taken | 16:31 |
| adamw | this seems like a straightforward preupgrade fail, hence blocker per the beta preupgrade criterion | 16:31 |
| adamw | +1 | 16:31 |
| tflink | isn' | 16:31 |
| brunowolff | +1 blocker | 16:31 |
| adamw | tflink: i think i was in charge of the infamous one which went on for seven hours, with a lunch break./ | 16:32 |
| tflink | t this a dupe? | 16:32 |
| adamw | tflink: possibly, i didn't look for dupes. of what, though? it's different from the preupgrade bug we had pre-RC. | 16:32 |
| adamw | that was the root= issue. | 16:32 |
| j_dulaney | +1 | 16:32 |
| bcl | looks like preupgrade needs to be updated for noloader | 16:32 |
| pschindl | +1 blocker, I have met this when I was using inst.repo=hd:.. option too | 16:32 |
| adamw | at least, i think it's different. | 16:32 |
| mkrizek | +1 | 16:32 |
| tflink | adamw: I thought the one that seems to have been closed was about handling usrmove | 16:33 |
| tflink | come to think of it, that might have been upgrading w/ anaconda | 16:33 |
| tflink | +1 blocker, though | 16:33 |
| adamw | yeah, the pre-rc one hit the 'no or empty root= parameter' kernel panic | 16:33 |
| adamw | post-rc we get a dracut error, so clearly, different. | 16:33 |
| tflink | adamw: I don't think I've had the pleasure of a 7 hour review yet and hopefully it'll stay that way | 16:34 |
| adamw | heh | 16:34 |
| j_dulaney | I'll skip such | 16:34 |
| adamw | you can never leave | 16:34 |
| j_dulaney | I have class in a while | 16:35 |
| adamw | propose #agreed 806931 is a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade installation from a clean, fully updated default installation (from any official install medium) of the previous stable Fedora release, either via preupgrade or by booting to the installer manually. The upgraded system must meet all release criteria" | 16:35 |
| j_dulaney | ack | 16:35 |
| pschindl | ack | 16:35 |
| tflink | ack | 16:35 |
| brunowolff | ack | 16:35 |
| adamw | #agreed 806931 is a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade installation from a clean, fully updated default installation (from any official install medium) of the previous stable Fedora release, either via preupgrade or by booting to the installer manually. The upgraded system must meet all release criteria" | 16:35 |
| adamw | okay, circling back briefly: | 16:35 |
| adamw | #topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806931 (redux) | 16:35 |
| adamw | this is the virt-install one again | 16:35 |
| kparal | see comment 5 | 16:35 |
| adamw | kparal just confirmed it happens with no virt-install involved, just per the initramfs-injection test case | 16:35 |
| adamw | so in that case i'm +1 blocker as we still have that "The installer must be able to use all kickstart delivery methods" beta criterion. | 16:36 |
| tflink | +1 blocker | 16:36 |
| kparal | +1 blocker | 16:36 |
| j_dulaney | +1 blocker | 16:36 |
| adamw | propose #agreed 806931 is accepted as a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to use all kickstart delivery methods" | 16:37 |
| tflink | ack | 16:37 |
| pschindl | ack | 16:37 |
| adamw | #agreed 806931 is accepted as a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to use all kickstart delivery methods" | 16:37 |
| adamw | #topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806784 | 16:37 |
| bcl | kparal: thanks. | 16:37 |
| kparal | bcl: doing my best | 16:38 |
| adamw | as described this is a blocker, though it'd be good to have confirmation (BIOS RAID can be temperamental) | 16:38 |
| j_dulaney | +1 blocker, looks pretty clear | 16:38 |
| tflink | as described +1 blocker | 16:38 |
| adamw | i can confirm this locally when i have a chance (I have bios raid test config) | 16:38 |
| tflink | would be nice to have more HW info, though | 16:38 |
| tflink | in case this is like the NVRAID bug from F16 | 16:39 |
| tflink | or any of the intel raid bugs | 16:39 |
| adamw | yeah, exactly | 16:39 |
| adamw | pdc is triggering vague bells somewhere | 16:39 |
| tflink | pdc? | 16:39 |
| adamw | ahh, promise. | 16:39 |
| tflink | oh, the device | 16:39 |
| adamw | in the kickstart. yeah. | 16:40 |
| tflink | isn't that technically HW RAID, then? | 16:40 |
| adamw | mine is an intel controller, so pretty different. | 16:40 |
| adamw | no | 16:40 |
| tflink | then how is your setup HW RAID? Isn't it the same thing? | 16:40 |
| adamw | it's just a particular brand of dumb motherboard bios raid | 16:40 |
| adamw | i have both | 16:41 |
| adamw | HW RAID controllers look to anaconda exactly like a SATA drive or something | 16:41 |
| * tflink is not completely convinced | 16:41 | |
| adamw | the kernel doesn't even know there's RAID involved, really. all it sees is a disk. | 16:41 |
| tflink | but this doesn't need to be solved here | 16:41 |
| adamw | so it shows up as /dev/sdX | 16:41 |
| tflink | just like bios raid, no? | 16:41 |
| adamw | no. | 16:41 |
| adamw | BIOS RAID needs an OS driver. | 16:41 |
| tflink | so does my fancy LSI RAID card | 16:42 |
| adamw | anyhow | 16:42 |
| adamw | this is definitely bios raid, not hardware raid. i'm right, just trust me. =) | 16:42 |
| tflink | like I said, doesn't need to be figured out now | 16:42 |
| adamw | even if it was hardware raid it'd be a blocker, so kinda academic. | 16:42 |
| tflink | I'm not agreeing with your diagnosis, just tabling the discussion | 16:42 |
| tflink | yep, exactly | 16:42 |
| brunowolff | I think we should mark this +1 blocker and then reconsider if it turns out to be dependent on specific hardware. | 16:42 |
| adamw | propose #agreed 806784 is a blocker per criterion "The installer must be able to create and install to software, hardware or BIOS RAID-0, RAID-1 or RAID-5 partitions for anything except /boot" | 16:43 |
| brunowolff | ack | 16:43 |
| tflink | ack | 16:43 |
| adamw | even the criterion is the same =) | 16:43 |
| j_dulaney | ack | 16:43 |
| adamw | #agreed 806784 is a blocker per criterion "The installer must be able to create and install to software, hardware or BIOS RAID-0, RAID-1 or RAID-5 partitions for anything except /boot" | 16:43 |
| adamw | #topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806466 | 16:43 |
| adamw | we're nearly done, btw. | 16:43 |
| tflink | good, isn't fesco going to kick us out in a few minutes? | 16:44 |
| adamw | i thought they go in like 1-2 hours, not now | 16:44 |
| tflink | I thought that there was a meeting 2 hours after us | 16:44 |
| adamw | oh,. no. you're right | 16:44 |
| adamw | speed up! | 16:44 |
| adamw | so anaconda writes an ifcfg file, but it says ONBOOT=no so the network doesn't come up after boot. | 16:45 |
| kparal | history repeats itself | 16:45 |
| limburgher | adaw: 15 minutes, though that's up for discussion. | 16:45 |
| adamw | this combines with #806664 to be slightly icky, really. | 16:45 |
| tflink | not sure this is blocker, regardless of how nice it might be to fix it | 16:46 |
| adamw | but still, we're in about the same state we were with tc2, ironically, where you have to do 'dhclient' to get the network up. and we considered that nth. | 16:46 |
| adamw | fixing either bug would make things better. | 16:46 |
| adamw | i guess to be consistent we should probably take both as nth. | 16:46 |
| tflink | yeah, I'd be OK with NTH | 16:46 |
| j_dulaney | Nice to have, maybe, blocker, no | 16:46 |
| adamw | okay, sounds like a consensus | 16:46 |
| adamw | in the interests of time i'm gonna stop doing proposed | 16:46 |
| bcl | hmm, I swear ifup eth0 working for me with a RC2 minimal install... | 16:46 |
| brunowolff | NTH sounds reasonable | 16:47 |
| adamw | #agreed 806466 is rejected as blocker but accepted as NTH (not serious enough to break any criteria) | 16:47 |
| adamw | bcl: see, i thought so too, then i re-tested it, and it failed. | 16:47 |
| adamw | bcl: try it again | 16:47 |
| adamw | haha. the bugs are anagrams. | 16:47 |
| adamw | #agreed 806664 is accepted as NTH while we're at it (both make ootb network behaviour somewhat icky) | 16:47 |
| adamw | #topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804522 | 16:48 |
| adamw | this is a software RAID test case failure, hence seems solidly blockerish. | 16:48 |
| kparal | adamw: how many more on the list? | 16:48 |
| adamw | criterion "The installer must be able to create and install to software, hardware or BIOS RAID-0, RAID-1 or RAID-5 partitions for anything except /boot " | 16:48 |
| tflink | +1 | 16:48 |
| adamw | i think this is the last. | 16:48 |
| kparal | +1 | 16:49 |
| pschindl | +1 | 16:49 |
| adamw | we do have a couple more agenda items, though probably everyone's lost the will to live by now. | 16:49 |
| adamw | #agreed 804522 is a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to create and install to software, hardware or BIOS RAID-0, RAID-1 or RAID-5 partitions for anything except /boot" | 16:49 |
| j_dulaney | +1 blocker | 16:49 |
| adamw | okay, i think that's all the proposed. we don't have time to review the accepted | 16:49 |
| adamw | lots for anaconda team to be getting on with :/ | 16:49 |
| adamw | i'll go through and secretaryize post-meeting. | 16:49 |
| brunowolff | +1 blocker on 804522 | 16:49 |
| adamw | I propose we delay the 'project' status discussion to next week, we don't have time for it | 16:50 |
| adamw | anyone object? | 16:50 |
| j_dulaney | Nope | 16:50 |
| brunowolff | That can wait. | 16:50 |
| tflink | agreed | 16:50 |
| adamw | #agreed agenda item "'Project' status" is tabled until next week due to lack of time and rapidly decreasing will to live | 16:50 |
| adamw | #topic Test Day report | 16:51 |
| adamw | so we had Sugar test day on 03-22 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2012-03-22_Sugar_Desktop | 16:51 |
| adamw | on the minus side only satellit_ and cerlyn showed up, on the plus side they did an incredible amount of work | 16:51 |
| adamw | looks like a successful event by the 'results' yardstick | 16:51 |
| j_dulaney | adamw: I tested, too, but didn't put up my results | 16:52 |
| * j_dulaney needs to do so | 16:52 | |
| adamw | #info Sugar test day had low turnout - only satellit_ and cerlyn - but they achieved an impressive amount of testing | 16:52 |
| adamw | #info j_dulaney also tested but has not yet filed results | 16:52 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: thanks! | 16:52 |
| adamw | oh, i see one result from Frederick Grose also. | 16:52 |
| adamw | #topic upcoming QA events | 16:53 |
| j_dulaney | I've got to bug out | 16:53 |
| adamw | we have a couple of test days coming up this week - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2012-03-27_Kdump , https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2012-03-29_Gnome_Shell_Software_Rendering | 16:53 |
| j_dulaney | Time for class | 16:53 |
| adamw | kdump test day needs its matrix extending but otherwise looks okay | 16:53 |
| adamw | oh, they also copy/pasted 'live image' from the sugar test day and that needs fixing, heh | 16:53 |
| adamw | shell test day has a note saying they'll get the test cases in by wed | 16:54 |
| adamw | so those look like they're in hand, but we should get to publicity | 16:54 |
| adamw | the go/no-go is set for wednesday, so lots of crazy blocker fixing and RC2 spinning needs to be done between now and then | 16:54 |
| adamw | release readiness is thursday | 16:54 |
| tflink | looks to be a wonderfully fun week! | 16:55 |
| adamw | #info kdump and software rendering test days set for tuesday and thursday, both need some more prep but look to be broadly in hand | 16:55 |
| adamw | #info go/no-go is wednesday (schedule) and release readiness is thursday | 16:55 |
| adamw | okay, we have four minutes for a quick autoqa update | 16:55 |
| adamw | #topic autoqa update | 16:55 |
| adamw | tflink, kparal - go! | 16:55 |
| * mmaslano reminds FESCo meeting starts in 5 minutes | 16:55 | |
| kparal | for the sake of time | 16:56 |
| kparal | no updates | 16:56 |
| tflink | same here | 16:56 |
| adamw | mmaslano: that's why i'm typing so frantically. =) | 16:56 |
| adamw | kparal: what are we going to do with the other 3.5 minutes?! | 16:56 |
| kparal | I can repeat it | 16:56 |
| * adamw lays down a beat | 16:56 | |
| adamw | no updates no updates. n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-no-n-n-n-n updates-dates-dates. | 16:56 |
| kparal | no. updates. | 16:56 |
| adamw | #info the AutoQA news is, there is no news (for time reasons) | 16:57 |
| adamw | #topic open floor | 16:57 |
| adamw | and we have a whole 2.5 minutes for open floor | 16:57 |
| adamw | any substantial discussions we can do in 2.5 minutes? anyone? bueller? | 16:57 |
| * Southern_Gentlem shoots the meeting and puts it out of its misery | 16:58 | |
| adamw | Southern_Gentlem: on behalf of everyone: thanks | 16:58 |
| * adamw sets fuse for 1 minute | 16:58 | |
| * tflink sheds a tear for the poor QA meeting | 16:59 | |
| brunowolff | I was hoping for a beef miracle of no slip this release. That's going to be tough now. | 16:59 |
| adamw | thanks for showing up and mostly surviving without permanent brain damage, folks | 16:59 |
| adamw | brunowolff: never say die! | 16:59 |
| adamw | brunowolff: also, blame wwoods. | 16:59 |
| tflink | brunowolff: they don't call it a miracle for nothing :) | 16:59 |
| adamw | #endmeeting | 16:59 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.8 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!