QA/Meetings/20121203

Attendees

• adamw (118)
• tflink (63)
• Viking-Ice (45)
• jreznik (17)
• kparal (13)
• jskladan (6)
• zodbot (5)
• maxamillion (4)
• mel- (4)
• pschindl (4)
• Southern_Gentlem (2)
• nirik (1)
• mkrizek (1)
• satellit (1)

Agenda

• Previous meeting follow-up
• Fedora 18 Final status/planning
• Test case / criteria revision
• Blocker Meeting Scheduling and Length
• Open floor

Previous meeting follow-up

• tflink to ensure some kind of upgrade documentation is ready for beta availability tomorrow - this was done
• tflink to brief #fedora ops and fedora-user-list regulars on fedup - not done yet, passed to adamw
• adamw to co-ordinate with anaconda team on TC1 date planning - not done yet but planned for same day, TC1 expected to land during the week
• jskladan to review final criteria and test cases for obvious revision candidates - passed on to pschindl, he has completed work but needs to send email
• viking-ice or tflink to try and get a fedup design document out of wwoods - closest thing we have is this blog post

Fedora 18 Final status/planning

• Beta docs: There was a Beta release announcement which mentioned fedup and kparal and adamw worked on commonbugs
• To request a release note for a bug, set fedora_requires_release_note flag to ?
• Potential problem areas: fedup was noted as the big one, jreznik planned to check on it

Test case / criteria revision

• No new criteria proposals at present, adamw, kparal and pschindl all had some in pipeline

Blocker Meeting Scheduling and Length

• Suggestion of holding meetings at different times to encourage more participation tabled till F19
• Some discussion of an idea of holding more but shorter blocker meetings, no definite decision raised
• In-bug voting generally considered good to reduce blocker meeting burden, but generates BZ spam

Open floor

• Enterprise storage to be covered next week

Action items

• adamw to brief #fedora ops and fedora-user-list regulars on fedup
• jreznik to draft a list of required functionality for fedup for Final
• adamw to put 'enterprise storage support in newui' on next week's agenda

IRC Log

adamw	#startmeeting Fedora QA meeting	16:01
zodbot	Meeting started Mon Dec 3 16:01:56 2012 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	16:02
zodbot	The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa'	16:02
jreznik	and a good afternoon/evening for the rest :)	16:02
adamw	#topic roll call	16:02
* kparal still here		16:02
* mkrizek is here		16:02
* tflink is here		16:02
* pschindl is here		16:02
* jreznik is here		16:02
* nirik is lurking, ping if needed.		16:02
* jskladan still lurks		16:02
adamw	morning everyone	16:03
* maxamillion is here		16:04
* Viking-Ice fetches coffee		16:04
adamw	#topic previous meeting follow-up	16:05
adamw	oooh. coffee. good idea.	16:05
maxamillion	+1	16:05
adamw	so we have a giant pile of stuff here	16:05
adamw	"tflink to ensure some kind of upgrade documentation is ready for beta availability tomorrow"	16:05
adamw	i believe that got done?	16:05
* jreznik thinks so too		16:06
Viking-Ice	I'm starting to get a bit worried upgrading encrypted partitions	16:07
tflink	yeah, it got mostly done	16:07
Viking-Ice	mean upgrading + encrypted partitions	16:07
tflink	done enough for beta, anyways	16:07
tflink	Viking-Ice: yeah, I want to give that a test - it sounds like there may be dragons in there	16:07
kparal	I didn't see any problems except for the timeout	16:08
adamw	#info this was done - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedUp#How_Can_I_Upgrade_My_System_with_FedUp.3F	16:08
adamw	gr	16:08
adamw	#undo	16:08
zodbot	Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x2b6039d0>	16:08
adamw	#chair kparal tflink viking-ice	16:08
zodbot	Current chairs: adamw kparal tflink viking-ice	16:08
adamw	#info "tflink to ensure some kind of upgrade documentation is ready for beta availability tomorrow" - this was done: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedUp#How_Can_I_Upgrade_My_System_with_FedUp.3F	16:08
tflink	there are some issues with the release notes, but I think those are getting taken care of	16:08
* tflink will check on that		16:09
adamw	"tflink to brief #fedora ops and fedora-user-list regulars on fedup" - did that happen?	16:09
* satellit late and listening		16:09
tflink	not so much and it shows - it looks like many people are using old instructions for testing	16:09
adamw	okay	16:10
adamw	do you want to take it again or should I?	16:10
adamw	or anyone else?	16:10
tflink	either way, I'm not so sure who the best people to ping are	16:10
Viking-Ice	kparal, the timeout issue is present in current GA afaik ( unless it has been fixed have not tested it recently ) just wait entering the password for let's say 5 minutes ( cant remember what the default is ) and you get dropped to systemd shell	16:11
tflink	I think that's known, though	16:11
tflink	there are multiple bugs filed about it	16:11
adamw	yeah, one for dracut and one for systemd.	16:12
tflink	two for systemd, I think	16:12
kparal	Viking-Ice: it's present in Beta, yes. and the timeout is much shorter, I think 1-2 minutes	16:12
jreznik	that's #881670 at least	16:12
adamw	#info "tflink to brief #fedora ops and fedora-user-list regulars on fedup" - this was not done yet	16:12
tflink	one for regular, one for fedup	16:12
adamw	#action adamw to brief #fedora ops and fedora-user-list regulars on fedup	16:12
tflink	it shouldn't cause problems that aren't workaround-able by rebooting, though	16:12
adamw	it's a bug party!	16:12
Viking-Ice	the problem with fedup is that people start upgrade and go doing something else	16:12
adamw	"adamw to co-ordinate with anaconda team on TC1 date planning" - yeah, so, oops.	16:13
adamw	dgilmore just poked me about this this morning, so i guess we'll work it out after the meeting. but we probably should start doing TCs this week. any objections to that?	16:13
tflink	none here	16:13
* jreznik is ok with TCs this week		16:13
Viking-Ice	not the more the merrier  ;)	16:13
Viking-Ice	mean no	16:13
adamw	#info "adamw to co-ordinate with anaconda team on TC1 date planning" - not done yet, will do today, TCs likely to land this week	16:15
adamw	"jskladan to review final criteria and test cases for obvious revision candidates"	16:15
adamw	jskladan?	16:15
* jskladan is skilled in delegation		16:15
jskladan	pschindl did it	16:16
pschindl	adamw: I did it, but haven't yet sent the mail	16:16
jskladan	he just needs to send the email IMHO	16:16
pschindl	I'm going to send it after this meeting	16:16
adamw	damnit, petr, stop slacking on jskladan's work ;)	16:16
pschindl	:)	16:16
adamw	#info "jskladan to review final criteria and test cases for obvious revision candidates" - passed on to pschindl, he has completed work but needs to send email	16:17
* jskladan is good at training up good interns ;)		16:17
tflink	or slacking off, depends on how you look at it :-P	16:18
adamw	truly, you are on the road to project colada	16:18
adamw	#info "viking-ice or tflink to try and get a fedup design document out of wwoods" - speaking of projects, how is bloodfromastone going?	16:18
adamw	alternatively: project excalibur	16:18
tflink	not a whole lot of change as of late	16:18
Viking-Ice	we need booze lot of booze to get that information	16:19
tflink	someone from design (I don't remember who off the top of my head) has started to look @ the gui for gedup-client	16:19
Viking-Ice	not the cheap stuff I might add ;)	16:19
tflink	as far as a design document goes, the current "design document" is ... (searching for a link)	16:19
tflink	http://ohjeezlinux.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/fedup-a-little-background/	16:20
adamw	#info "viking-ice or tflink to try and get a fedup design document out of wwoods" - currently rejoicing in the title of 'design document' is http://ohjeezlinux.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/fedup-a-little-background/	16:20
tflink	there has been some initial work to change mirror manager such that --instrepo won't be required anymore and the .treeinfo will be signed	16:20
* tflink is a little behind on fedup bugs right now - too much blocker bug happy fun time		16:21
jreznik	btw do we have a list of required work that has to be done for fedup for final?	16:21
tflink	nothing official, no	16:21
* jreznik will start working on it as we really need it (and also opinion from FESCo what they require for final - gui is known...)		16:22
adamw	sounds like a plan	16:22
jreznik	to avoid late surprises...	16:22
adamw	#action jreznik to draft a list of required functionality for fedup for Final	16:22
adamw	fffff	16:23
adamw	okely dokely	16:23
adamw	#topic Fedora 18 Final status/planning	16:23
tflink	jreznik: late surprises? we never get those :)	16:23
adamw	not sure what tflink meant by 'beta docs status'?	16:23
adamw	we have a release announcement which mentioned fedup (yay) and kparal and I worked on commonbugs	16:23
tflink	followup from last week to make sure we got everything	16:24
jreznik	adamw: thanks for help with the announcement!	16:24
tflink	at some point, we might want to think about coordinating better with docs about release notes - there was a mention of a bz flag for highlighting issues but that doesn't need to happen today	16:25
tflink	better/differently	16:25
adamw	yeah, there is one, i kinda assume people know about it, but maybe not.	16:26
adamw	i use it now and again.	16:26
* tflink had never heard of it before that devel@ thread		16:26
adamw	welp, the 'fedora_requires_release_note' flag is it, folks.	16:27
adamw	i think you set it to ? .	16:27
adamw	okay, the other thing was "Final: potential sore points, areas that need testing?", which i guess we've kind of been covering :)	16:31
adamw	anything else we didn't cover yet?	16:31
Viking-Ice	bootup + black screen	16:32
tflink	fedup is mostly what I'm worried about	16:32
Viking-Ice	I think I saw people mentioning that it was not only happening with the ati drivers	16:32
Viking-Ice	i'm free of it with 3.7 rc kernels	16:33
adamw	Viking-Ice: well, i mean, as i explained in a mail, 'it boots to a black screen' is one of the most generic symptoms we *have*.	16:34
adamw	a few people seeing that alone doesn't tell us much useful - could be five different bugs.	16:34
Viking-Ice	yeah they need to ssh into the machine and grap the log	16:35
Viking-Ice	adamw, anyway I dont think those are 5 different bugs thou I think they all relate to that grub gfxpayloud stuff that we changed between releases	16:36
adamw	what changed there?	16:38
adamw	don't think i'm up on that one	16:38
Viking-Ice	the gfxpayload settings	16:39
adamw	i mean, what changed specifically	16:39
adamw	or are you just talking about that we put in the theming for grub2?	16:40
adamw	we were modesetting in f17, i think, but without theming	16:40
tflink	I thought that there was a theme in F17 but it might have been added post-release	16:40
adamw	okay, anyhow, in general: if we have people hitting black screens, we need more data.	16:42
Viking-Ice	hm looks like I never mentioned that on the bug report	16:44
Viking-Ice	well I mentioned it to airlied	16:44
Viking-Ice	in anycase the "it boots to a black screen" is a regression in my case	16:45
adamw	oh, you're hitting it yourself? well, should be easy enough to mess with the grub config and see if that fixes it?	16:45
Viking-Ice	F16/F17 ( and pre 3.6 kernel ) worked just fine	16:45
Viking-Ice	adamw, I know it fixes it	16:46
Viking-Ice	well removing that line atleast does	16:46
adamw	ah, okay.	16:46
adamw	well, if it looks like other people have the same problem, elevate it to proposed blocker...	16:46
adamw	moving on, in the interests of time	16:47
adamw	#topic Test case / criteria revision	16:47
adamw	do we have much here?	16:47
adamw	i don't see any proposals since memory test	16:47
adamw	i'm still not getting to the partitioning criteria :(	16:47
tflink	it sounds like we're waiting a bit on petr's email	16:48
* kparal didn't manage to write up the kickstart proposal		16:48
kparal	somewhere in the queue	16:49
adamw	#info no new criteria proposals at present, adamw, kparal and pschindl all have some in pipeline	16:49
adamw	#topic Blocker Meeting Scheduling and Length	16:51
adamw	tflink, want to take this one?	16:51
tflink	sure	16:53
tflink	there have been some complaints/suggestions around the blocker meetings recently	16:53
tflink	one was the time is inconvenient for some people and it might better to not always use the same time if we want more participation	16:54
tflink	which may be true, but I'm tempted to leave that one alone for now	16:54
tflink	ie, leave the discussion around that for post-f18	16:54
tflink	the other is about frequency and duration	16:54
tflink	any thoughts on whether the current format of 3 hour meetings at least once a week vs. 1 hour meetings several times per week?	16:55
adamw	i prefer getting it done in one go	16:55
adamw	there's quite a bit of 'overhead' which gets multiplied with multiple meetings	16:55
tflink	yeah, but we tend to lose people after a while	16:55
adamw	obviously, though, 3x3 hour meetings is the worst of the worst :)	16:56
jskladan	^ :)	16:56
Viking-Ice	dont we have criteria that hits "* Put advanced storage (filtering, multipath/iscsi/zfcp dialogs) back in." item ( from post-f18 newui TODO on anaconda list )	16:56
Viking-Ice	is anaconda in f18 in good shape for "enterprise storage"	16:56
Viking-Ice	?	16:56
Viking-Ice	?	16:56
Viking-Ice	dont we have criteria that hits "* Put advanced storage (filtering, multipath/iscsi/zfcp dialogs) back in." item ( from post-f18 newui TODO on anaconda list )	16:56
Viking-Ice	is anaconda in f18 in good shape for "enterprise storage"	16:56
jreznik	but seriously - is that even possible? looking on proposed blocker bugs list?	16:56
Viking-Ice	adamw, do you have any clue on the enterprise storage part of anaconda	16:57
tflink	yeah, I don't think anyone likes the current method	16:57
tflink	Viking-Ice: that seems to be a bit off topic	16:57
Viking-Ice	you where speaking of the criteria to begin with	16:57
tflink	but installing to iSCSI, FC, FCoE etc. is not in F18, will return in F19 IIUC	16:57
tflink	I was?	16:58
adamw	Viking-Ice: like half an hour ago?	16:58
adamw	so we tried this thing this week where tflink categorized the bugs for on-bug voting	16:58
adamw	what did everyone think about that?	16:58
Viking-Ice	adamw, more like 10 minutes	16:58
Viking-Ice	and I'm the actual one that was proposing we go for one hour meetings	16:58
adamw	Viking-Ice: still, we moved on to a new topic since then...there's always open floor if you want to bring up something from before	16:58
adamw	otherwise we just get confused	16:58
Viking-Ice	adamw aha	16:58
* maxamillion is almost always confused anyways		16:59
adamw	=)	16:59
Viking-Ice	more frequently	16:59
adamw	Viking-Ice: since we're discussing the length of blocker meetings now, talking about enterprise storage criteria seems a bit out of place :)	16:59
* maxamillion is just getting worse at multi tasking ... $day_job is more busy than $old_day_job		16:59
Viking-Ice	adamw, you weren't when I asked those questions	16:59
Viking-Ice	you conveniently ignored it	16:59
adamw	Viking-Ice: er - i set the topic at xx:51 to "Blocker Meeting Scheduling and Length"	17:00
adamw	you asked your questions at xx:56	17:00
adamw	after there had already been several minutes of discussion on the blocker meeting length topic	17:00
Southern_Gentlem	move on and deal with this later	17:00
tflink	yep	17:00
Viking-Ice	adamw, no I re-asked those question at that time	17:00
tflink	the blocker meeting is supposed to be starting soon	17:00
kparal	(now)	17:01
Viking-Ice	yeah I proposed for 3x1 hour or 5x1 meeting instead of 3 hours meeting	17:01
adamw	Viking-Ice: oh. i never got the originals. maybe they were affected by that netsplit i see in the history. sorry	17:01
tflink	I didn't see them either	17:01
* jreznik does not have that question neither...		17:01
Southern_Gentlem	perfer we dont have that many blockers so 1 -1 hr meeting can deal	17:01
adamw	that's obviously the best	17:02
adamw	but it seems unrealistic	17:02
tflink	especially right now	17:03
adamw	how can we have such a low blocker count without evaluating proposed blockers and rejecting some? which is...what we do in the meeting? :)	17:03
jreznik	clean-up in tickets should help a little - /me voted in several bugs today	17:04
adamw	yeah, i think that was a good idea	17:04
adamw	is anyone worried about covering at least 'obvious' bugs with in-bug voting?	17:04
adamw	it seems like the best way to reduce the load a little	17:04
tflink	yeah, I need to go through and modify the ones that have enough -1s or +1s	17:04
adamw	ah, i was about to ask if you'd done that	17:04
tflink	I'm making the list for today's meeting from bugs that weren't on the 'more obvious' list	17:05
tflink	we have enough to go through that it shouldn't be an issue	17:05
adamw	sounds good	17:05
adamw	shall we take a vote on the 'many short meetings' proposal?	17:05
adamw	or more discussion on it?	17:05
Viking-Ice	should we have it 1 hour or 1 and half hour	17:06
kparal	if the obvious list is compiled by someone and sent to the list, I'm OK. just going randomly though blocker list doesn't seem great	17:06
Viking-Ice	( takes 10 minutes to start )	17:06
tflink	kparal: I sent the list out to test@ on friday	17:06
kparal	tflink: yeah, I know	17:06
tflink	ok, you meant in general	17:06
adamw	right, you're saying it should always be done that way, make it a process?	17:06
kparal	yes, something like that	17:07
kparal	it's better to have a list of obvious blockers, and then people can vote in the bugzilla or say "no this is not obvious"	17:07
adamw	maybe we should have some kind of threshold at which the 'formal on-bug voting' process kicks in - >20 proposed blockers or something	17:07
kparal	if we don't have the list, each person have a different opinion what is obvious	17:07
adamw	sure	17:08
jreznik	kparal: but you can still vote and other people can say no	17:08
tflink	yeah, but I think that's a bit unavoidable for now	17:08
kparal	jreznik: without the list I don't know they voted	17:08
adamw	Viking-Ice: i'd prefer 1.5 to 1, yeah, the 10 minute overhead is significant	17:08
tflink	the point of going through and doing some sorting is to reduce the number of bugs to discuss in meetings - I don't see a way to do that without one person doing the initial sorting	17:08
jreznik	would it be possible to parse the bug for "-1/+1 blocker" in the current blocker bug list and show it?	17:09
tflink	which is unavoidably biased to a certain point	17:09
Viking-Ice	so try 3x1.5 ( monday/wednesday/friday )	17:09
jreznik	tflink: but yeha, someone has to do the initial sort	17:09
tflink	jreznik: yeah, that wouldn't be too hard in principle - the hard part is making sure to catch all the minor variations in +/-1	17:10
tflink	it might be interesting to add some support for flagging "obvious" bugs in the tracker app	17:10
tflink	but there is no way I'm going to get to that until after F18	17:10
adamw	okay, so sounds like we're broadly on board with the in-bug voting, i'm not hearing much discussion of 'multiple short meetings'	17:11
adamw	and we're 10 minutes over time	17:11
tflink	I think it's an interesting idea but I also think we need to get through the monster list sooner than later	17:11
Viking-Ice	so should we discuss in-bug the gray area we might be hitting	17:11
tflink	so for now, I'm -1 on the idea of shorter meetings	17:12
* tflink emphasizes "for now" as in at least until we get through the initial list		17:12
Viking-Ice	I'm not so sure that maintainers will be happy about the bug spam we introduce by voting in the bugs themselves	17:12
* adamw is +/-0 - personally i prefer longer-but-fewer, but i certainly acknowledge the problem of losing people as the meetings go on		17:12
adamw	Viking-Ice: that's a good point, actually, hadn't thought of that	17:13
adamw	maybe we should check on devel@	17:13
adamw	#info viking-ice points out that a drawback of in-bug voting is bugzilla spam	17:13
jreznik	let's go through the current list and we will see how many left - we can be flexible	17:13
adamw	#info aside from that, general support for in-bug voting on 'obvious' blockers when the blocker count is high, but it should be a defined process	17:13
adamw	#info no-one seems to have strong feelings either way on the multiple-short-meetings plan, but we don't have time to thrash it out further today	17:14
tflink	I think that the blocker process could use some work, but that doesn't help for now	17:14
adamw	anyone want to take an action item for considering a formal in-bug-review process further?	17:14
tflink	I'm not against the idea, but I don't really want to do it right now	17:15
* tflink won't stop anyone else from doing it, though		17:15
adamw	i guess everyone's a bit overloaded at present	17:15
adamw	let's go on to open floor so we can discuss viking's missed question and get to blocker review	17:16
adamw	#topic open floor	17:16
kparal	I'm not really against in-bug voting, but I really like meeting voting more	17:16
adamw	Viking-Ice: sorry your criteria question got missed earlier, what was it again?	17:16
Viking-Ice	adamw, let's just add enterprise storage support in anaconda ( if any ) to next meeting item and start working on the blocker bugs	17:17
adamw	okay	17:17
adamw	#info viking-ice is concerned about storage support in newUI but meeting has overrun so we'll cover it next week	17:17
adamw	#action adamw to put 'enterprise storage support in newui' on next week's agenda	17:17
Viking-Ice	*enterprise*	17:17
adamw	yeah, got it in the action item :)	17:17
Viking-Ice	;)	17:17
adamw	anything else for open floor?	17:18
mel-	what does 'open floor' mean?	17:19
adamw	topics that weren't covered elsewhere in the meeting	17:19
adamw	though we'd like to finish quickly to get on to the blocker review meeting	17:19
adamw	did you have something to bring up quickly?	17:19
jreznik	blocker fun! any other topic could be re-raised after it... if not serious one	17:20
mel-	adamw: well, i need to fill a fedup bug. dunno of that is appropriate here	17:20
mel-	s/of/if/	17:20
adamw	mel-: are you having trouble filing it in bugzilla?	17:21
mel-	adamw: no, i think will be fine :)	17:23
adamw	okay, let's move on to blocker review, we can help mel outside of the meeting	17:23
adamw	thanks for coming everyone!	17:23
adamw	#endmeeting	17:23

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.11.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!