From Fedora Project Wiki

< QA‎ | Meetings

Attendees

  • adamw (175)
  • dan408 (63)
  • Viking-Ice (46)
  • tflink (38)
  • kparal (20)
  • satellit (5)
  • zodbot (4)
  • pjones (3)
  • misc (2)
  • jskladan (1)
  • mjg59 (1)
  • jskladan_ (1)
  • nb (1)
  • mkrizek (1)
  • pschindl (1)

Agenda

  • Criteria Revision
  • Test Case Revision
  • Fedora 19 feature list review
  • Open floor

Criteria Revision

  • adamw planning to draft a plan for improved presentation of the release criteria. tflink suggests moving the criteria out of the wiki could help, but for F19 for now it's likely to stay in wiki
  • Ideas to keep in mind as part of the plan:
    • kparal - draw a line between simple explanations and lawyerish complex clauses
    • kparal/viking-ice - define terms that we're familiar with but a general reader may not be
    • tflink - ensure there's short text for each criterion for IRC meeting purposes
    • kparal - group the criteria (installation, desktop, networking...)
    • kparal - link to background info on each criterion (esp. discussion when it was created)
    • kparal - some mechanism for tagging criteria - "I hate when I search for PXE, but it is called "network boot" or similar"

Test Case Revision

  • adamw suggested expanding the upgrade test case set a little
  • viking-ice suggested identifying hw-dependent and non-hw-dependent test cases in the matrices
  • kparal said we should finish revising the partitioning criteria
  • adamw thought we could come up with a set of common partitioning operation test cases
  • kparal suggested an explicit Secure Boot criterion
  • We should try and get as much criteria revision and test case revision done before Alpha as possible

Fedora 19 Feature list review

Open floor

N/A

Action items

  • adamw to draft up a proposal for revising the presentation of the release criteria
  • adamw to draft up a kickstart criterion for f19

IRC Log

adamw #startmeeting Fedora QA meeting 16:00
zodbot Meeting started Mon Feb 4 16:00:17 2013 UTC. The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00
zodbot Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:00
adamw #meetingname fedora-qa 16:00
zodbot The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa' 16:00
dan408 here 16:00
adamw #topic roll call 16:00
adamw too early, dan, too early 16:00
* dan408 waves 16:00
* Viking-Ice here 16:00
* mkrizek is here 16:00
* satellit here 16:00
dan408 sorry i'll be later next time 16:00
* nb here 16:00
adamw you better 16:00
* tflink is here 16:00
* kparal here 16:00
dan408 hey nb 16:00
* pschindl is here 16:01
dan408 hey tflink kparal satellit pschindl 16:01
dan408 adamw you should throw chairs at people 16:01
adamw wow, full house 16:01
dan408 hey Viking-Ice 16:01
adamw good point 16:01
dan408 where's jreznik 16:01
* kparal pokes jskladan 16:01
adamw #chair tflink kparal satellit 16:01
zodbot Current chairs: adamw kparal satellit tflink 16:01
adamw funny how all these people somehow don't show up for blocker review ;) 16:01
kparal dan408: I think jreznik was on FOSDEM 16:01
dan408 oh yeah that's right 16:01
kparal or maybe still is 16:01
kparal I don't know how long that lasts 16:02
dan408 yeah fosdem is in full effect 16:02
* jskladan lurks for sure 16:02
misc fosdem finished yesterday 16:02
misc ( and yep, jrzeznik was there, do not remember when he left ) 16:02
adamw so they're probably still hungover? 16:02
dan408 +1 for recovery day 16:02
* adamw still hungover from fudcon 16:03
dan408 you? 16:03
adamw :) 16:03
adamw okay, so - we don't have 'previous meeting followup' this week as there were no action items 16:03
adamw unless anyone has something to pick up that's not in the rest of the agenda? 16:04
adamw https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20130204 16:04
dan408 well i added new nth process 16:04
dan408 but i didnt know if it was in the right place 16:04
dan408 like i told you the other day 16:04
adamw we covered it last week 16:04
dan408 oh ok 16:04
adamw https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20130128#Blocker_process_revision 16:05
adamw alrighty, then straight on to: 16:05
adamw #topic Criteria revision 16:05
adamw i was hoping to have something a bit more concrete for the meeting, but unfortunately not yet 16:05
Viking-Ice I guess we need to add back all the advanced storage stuff in criteria that got "suspended" in f18 16:06
adamw but the idea here is to revamp how we present the criteria somehow - the 'giant list of text bullet points' thing has probably gone as far as it can go 16:06
dan408 i like it 16:06
dan408 but would 16:06
dan408 acceptedblocker 16:06
dan408 acceptedfb 16:06
dan408 be seperate bugs 16:06
dan408 or keywords 16:06
adamw Viking-Ice: yeah, we have some content issues too 16:06
adamw dan408: this is about the criteria - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Alpha_Release_Criteria etc 16:06
tflink and finishing up the storage criteria from F18 16:06
adamw tflink: damnit, stop remembering that 16:06
dan408 well this is going to change isnt it 16:07
tflink it's not like I proposed anything concrete, either :-P 16:07
dan408 for f19 16:07
adamw dan408: well that's what we're talking about :) 16:07
dan408 well 16:07
kparal I would like to see some simplified criteria page digestible by general users. with links to lawyer-like descriptions 16:07
dan408 what's proposed in the new anaconda 16:07
dan408 i mean a lot of it depends on that 16:07
tflink adamw: did you ever make a concrete proposal based on discussions from fudcon? 16:08
adamw tflink: not yet unfortunately 16:08
adamw we never quite got around to drawing up a plan at fudcon, we just kinda talked round the issues, as i recall - i might've whiteboarded some of my crazy thoughts but i think that was all 16:08
kparal and a QA vocabulary with common QA terms 16:08
adamw kparal: also nice 16:08
dan408 i really liked tflink's app 16:09
adamw i've been planning to try and draft up a new way to present them and send it to the list, but to avoid duplication, has anyone else been working down that line? or planning to? 16:09
Viking-Ice I'm not so sure everyone is familiar with QA terms ( think newcomers ) at least not the from the field 16:09
dan408 like i was saying the ability for discussion and voting would make it perfect 16:09
adamw Viking-Ice: yeah i think you and kparal are onto something there, we should have a glossary of some kind 16:09
adamw dan408: again, this is just about presentation of the criteria, we're not talking about the blocker proposal / voting stuff right now 16:09
tflink adamw: nothing concrete or anything that would happen in the near future, no 16:10
dan408 adamw: i know just saying 16:10
kparal adamw: I haven't intended to work on this in the near future, no 16:10
kparal so nothing in my back drawer 16:11
adamw okay, so we got some good 'ideas to put into the plan' already - the legalistic/simple distinction and the glossary 16:11
adamw anyone have any other ideas for me to put in the pot? 16:11
Viking-Ice tflink, had already mentioned an rename of QA to better follow the industry definition but that is a massive ( at least wiki ) work doing so for little no benefit as I see it 16:11
kparal Viking-Ice: rename to what? 16:11
dan408 adamw: just to try to get a better understanding of exactly what's coming so we aren't changing criterion on the fly 16:11
tflink similar to making things simplified, have a shorter "summary" so that they fit in IRC lines 16:11
adamw dan408: that's on the content side, but sure 16:11
adamw #info adamw will be trying to come up with a proposal for better presenting the release criteria 16:12
adamw #info ideas to keep in mind: 16:12
tflink well, either a shorter "summary" or a better way to reference the criteria - rewriting them on the fly during review meetings is not fun 16:12
kparal adamw: also I'd like to see the criteria grouped - for example installation criteria, desktop criteria, networking criteria, etc 16:12
adamw #info kparal - draw a line between simple explanations and lawyerish complex clauses 16:13
kparal but it's highly possible sometimes a criterion would fall into several groups 16:13
adamw #info kparal/viking-ice - define terms that we're familiar with but a general reader may not be 16:13
dan408 dates would be nice 16:13
adamw #info tflink - ensure there's short text for each criterion for IRC meeting purposes 16:13
adamw #info kparal - group the criteria (installation, desktop, networking...) 16:13
tflink kparal: I suspect he is referencing a conversation about "QA" -> "Quality Assistance" instead of "Quality Assurance" but I could be wrong 16:13
adamw dan408: you mean dates of when the criteria were added? 16:14
adamw or what? 16:14
kparal and also a link to a discussion about that particular criterion would be great to have attached. it'd be easy to understand why the criterion was created 16:14
adamw #info kparal - link to background info on each criterion (esp. discussion when it was created) 16:14
Viking-Ice tflink, kparal yup that 16:14
adamw kparal: you and I have all the same ideas I think :) 16:14
dan408 adamw: 1) dates of when all features are supposed to be approved by FESCO 2) deliverables and timelines for each feature 3) QA criterion for each feature (namely critical ones) 16:14
adamw okay, you're still off in the weeds frm the topic we're actually meant to be on... 16:15
adamw we have a feature topic coming up later 16:15
adamw anything else for the criteria presentation? 16:15
kparal one more: tags. I hate when I search for PXE, but it is called "network boot" or similar 16:15
adamw #info kparal - some mechanism for tagging criteria - "I hate when I search for PXE, but it is called "network boot" or similar" 16:16
kparal after the criterion there can be a few tags like "[PXE]" 16:16
dan408 sorry, i guess im always thinking far too ahead 16:16
adamw you gotta let us catch up with you, dan :) 16:16
adamw step away from the delorean 16:16
dan408 inorite 16:16
dan408 im already running rawhide 16:16
Viking-Ice is the criteria something we are going to add to the qa blocker proposal page then text with tags and archive the wiki page ? 16:16
tflink Viking-Ice: possibly but not for F19, I don't think 16:17
adamw Viking-Ice: well that's a possibility, but i was just planning to revise it within the wiki for now 16:17
dan408 well is there anything burning on a stove right now? 16:17
adamw apart from my pancakes? nope 16:18
dan408 cool 16:18
adamw #info criteria revision proposal is just wiki-based for now, but there's a possibility we could move the criteria into the blocker tracking app in future if it gives us useful results 16:18
adamw #action adamw to draft up a proposal for revising the presentation of the release criteria 16:18
dan408 no dates no nothing set in stone yet? 16:18
adamw dan408: for f19? fesco didn't finish the proposed feature list yet i don't think 16:19
dan408 here 16:19
dan408 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/19/Schedule 16:19
tflink which reminds me that I still haven't written anything down about ideas for changing the blocker tracking process as a whole yet (longer term than F19) 16:19
dan408 fesco is still voting on features 16:19
dan408 f19 branch end of feb 16:19
tflink yeah, they're still reviewing features and AFAIK, are planning to look at proposed schedules on wednesday 16:19
adamw they've said they're going to do the schedule when they're done with features, but they're committed to making sure we have a reasonable gap between 'schedule set' and 'alpha release' 16:19
tflink nothing has been finalized yet, though 16:19
adamw yeah, what's on that page right now is probably out of date 16:19
dan408 i proposed a spin, and i dont know if it ever made it to the spins list, jreznik told me the spins process is kind of fubar'd 16:20
adamw okay, this is also not the spins meeting 16:20
adamw i think we've got the criteria, next topic! 16:20
adamw #topic Test case revision 16:20
Viking-Ice dont we have a feature list of what has been accepted since last meeting which we can iterated through 16:20
adamw Viking-Ice: there's a topic for that later, see agenda 16:21
adamw so boblfoot added this, with the comment "Revising of test cases during the F18 Final Test Phase was less than optimal - how to avoid with F19?" 16:21
adamw i guess the takeaway is we should try to make sure we're happy with the test case set by Alpha, as much as possible 16:21
Viking-Ice as well as the criteria I would say 16:22
adamw are there any areas people are particularly worried about wrt the test case coverage? 16:22
adamw yup 16:22
dan408 no 16:22
* adamw gives tflink a donut 16:22
tflink the only one I can think of is graphical upgrades, once the client is finished 16:22
adamw we could probably add a couple other upgrade test cases if we wanted, now we don't have to test both anaconda and preupgrade 16:22
adamw it might be nice to cover the encrypted upgrade case at least, and maybe a couple of package sets 16:23
adamw #info adamw - maybe expand upgrade test case set a little 16:23
tflink yeah, I think the main question is how to do that without duplicating the test case 10 times :) 16:23
adamw :P 16:23
* dan408 proposes a wait and see atitude 16:24
tflink but that's not a problem unique to upgrades 16:24
adamw one thing i'd like to see but realistically may not have time to get done would be some kind of set of storage test cases 16:24
dan408 attitude* 16:24
kparal I think some partitioning criteria could be improved, like "should not crash for invalid operations" in custom part, but not in guided part 16:24
adamw there's no way we can cover everything, but it might be kinda nice to cover a few btrfs, raid, lvm, install-over-previous-partitions kinda thing 16:24
Viking-Ice I think we need to separate test cases into two categories hw related and not hw related 16:24
dan408 they promised to fix a lot of things for 19 16:24
adamw kparal: yeah, that's what tflink mentioned earlier, the partitioning criteria are kinda horrible - they're stuck in the middle of being revised, i was working on it last cycle and just never finished 16:24
* satellit liveinst still not fixed for Soas spin...: ( 16:25
adamw Viking-Ice: they're categorized already but the categories are somewhat old and we could look at revising them 16:25
Viking-Ice there is no point in me adamw tflink dan kparal conducting the same test cases at the same similar time since the outcome can be expected to be the same unless they rely on different hw 16:25
dan408 i refuse 16:25
dan408 i want to see what they propose first 16:25
adamw dan408: the feature for anaconda changes for f19 has already been accepted, you can check it out. there aren't any giant changes besides the re-addition of enterprise storage. 16:26
dan408 lovely 16:26
adamw #info viking-ice - identify hw-dependent and non-hw-dependent test cases 16:26
adamw #info kparal - finish revising the partitioning criteria 16:27
adamw #info adamw - come up with a set of common partitioning operation test cases 16:27
adamw lots of nice ideas there :) 16:27
adamw any others? 16:27
dan408 how about fixing UEFI 16:27
kparal ah, SB criteria, anyone? 16:27
tflink fixing UEFI? 16:27
satellit not showing dd USB booted from in anaconda 16:27
adamw kparal: arguably covered by "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those architectures", but maybe explicit might be better 16:28
adamw #info kparal - explicit Secure Boot criterion? 16:28
dan408 tflink: yes 16:28
pjones dan408: care to be a bit more specific? 16:28
adamw kparal: that's the kind of thing we may be able to do better with the new criteria presentation if i get it right 16:28
dan408 pjones: lots of users having issues with both UEFI and secureboot installs 16:29
tflink dan408: how is that related to criteria? 16:29
dan408 nevermind 16:29
adamw off topic! off topic! awooga. 16:29
mjg59 dan408: They really ought to file bugs, but as noted that's not on topic 16:29
* jskladan_ sometimes hates all teh internetz providers... 16:29
adamw man, spot the people with irc highlighting :) 16:29
Viking-Ice kparal, nr1 test case for SB check if we have certificate that does not expire during the release life time ;) 16:29
pjones Viking-Ice: shouldn't make any difference. validity dates in SB aren't supposed to be being checked. 16:30
adamw okay, any more criteria ideas? 16:30
adamw er, or test case. 16:30
Viking-Ice pjones, ok 16:30
dan408 not really like i said play it by ear 16:30
pjones (and the ones in the cert that signs shim aren't under our control anyway, so criteria won't really help.) 16:30
tflink Viking-Ice: that seems a bit too specific and corner-casey to have an actual test case for it. I'm not saying it isn't an issue, just not sure it needs to be checked for every milestone's TC/RCs 16:31
adamw okay then, moving along 16:31
adamw oh 16:32
adamw #info we should try and get criteria revision and test case revision done before Alpha as much as possible 16:32
adamw #topic Fedora 19 Feature list review 16:32
dan408 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/19/FeatureList 16:32
adamw tflink: did you have anything prepared for this? 16:32
Viking-Ice we somehow need to flag features we have already covered 16:33
adamw there's a list on the agenda 16:33
adamw https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20130204#Fedora_19_Feature_list_review 16:33
adamw "Previous List" 16:33
Viking-Ice adamw, the previous list is just what we thought we should keep an eye out for not all the feature we covered 16:33
Viking-Ice as in total features we covered last week vs a slimmed list what has been approves since then 16:34
dan408 it could be totally different per feature, and with features growing massively i mean we have to decide on a few basic criterion 16:34
adamw Viking-Ice: right, sorry, should've prepared something 16:35
tflink adamw: nothing specific, no. just figured it would be a good thing to bring up 16:35
adamw https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Releases/19/FeatureList&diff=321788&oldid=320463 looks like the change to FeatureList from last time 16:35
adamw i can see a few things on there that look like good test day candidates 16:36
Viking-Ice hmm the feature process should actually somehow tag which criteria each feature hit ( if any ) 16:36
dan408 how do we test 3d printing? 16:36
adamw dan408: we don't! 16:36
Viking-Ice we dont 16:36
dan408 awesome! 16:36
adamw ReplaceMySQLwithMariaDB has been discussed on-list a bit - obviously significant, we don't have much infrastructure for testing it at present 16:36
Viking-Ice adamw, not criteria 16:36
adamw yeah 16:37
Viking-Ice adamw, I would say it's ours to cover criteria items it's theirs ( feature owners ) to cover what's related to their feature 16:37
adamw Viking-Ice: well the 'criterion' to me is pretty simple - anyone using mysql in f18 should get transparently migrated to mariadb in f19 and stuff should keep working 16:37
dan408 symlinks? 16:37
adamw Viking-Ice: well, we're not _just_ doing release validation, qa's remit is broader 16:37
adamw dan408: the technical side isn't our problem 16:38
tflink adamw: that sounds huge, though - how would we approach it? 16:38
adamw but yeah, that one doesn't likely affect the criteria directly 16:38
adamw tflink: you expect me to have *solutions*? wrong number! i only point out problems. 16:38
dan408 i cant remember the last time i ran mysql anyways 16:38
Viking-Ice adamw, have the feature owners provides us with proper testing/debugging instruction or is that just added workload writing that for us so we can properly cover those features? 16:38
adamw Viking-Ice: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ReplaceMySQLwithMariaDB#How_To_Test 16:39
adamw so, not much. 16:39
tflink I wonder if some generic mysql benchmark might work well here 16:40
adamw #info https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ReplaceMySQLwithMariaDB is clearly a significant change but doesn't directly hit the release criteria and it's pretty hard for us to come up with a reasonably scoped test plan 16:40
tflink ie, if the benchmark ran on both mysql and mariadb, that is a decent indication of compat. 16:40
Viking-Ice adamw, yup we need to somehow flag "feature testing day" with only the need to point reporters to the relevant feature and follow what is instructed there 16:40
adamw right 16:40
adamw #info tflink - maybe if we can find a comprehensive mysql benchmark suite and check that runs, it would indicate a good level of compatibility 16:41
adamw Viking-Ice: with the quality of 'testing instructions' we get i think having one day for that for all features would be unworkably broad :/ i think it works better to try and schedule test days for specific features of concern 16:41
adamw we should definitely have a test day for this one for e.g. 16:41
Viking-Ice if mariadb will replace mysql on upgrade we need to cover upgrade tests 16:41
adamw i need to set up the test day stuff for f19 cycle, it's on my todo list for this week 16:42
adamw Viking-Ice: it does, and yeah 16:42
adamw i actually got mariadb in my rawhide update the other day so that part's already working in at least a simple case 16:42
Viking-Ice you need to test it with live data 16:42
adamw #info viking-ice - make sure we cover testing upgrade from f18 to f19 achieves the mariadb swap cleanly 16:42
Viking-Ice samples ( live data samples ) 16:43
adamw sure 16:43
Viking-Ice has mysql been orphaned ? 16:43
tflink I thought that one of the issues with that proposal was the part about not allowing mysql any more 16:44
Viking-Ice if we still ship mysql in f19 I assume this effort is not necessary 16:44
tflink or am I getting my features confused 16:44
Viking-Ice tflink, there where some mixed signals with that 16:44
adamw yeah, it seems to keep changing 16:44
adamw i don't recall precisely what fesco decided 16:44
dan408 mysql is kind of dead 16:45
Viking-Ice on one hand oracle offered to maintain mysql on the other it look like remi hhorak wanted them to fix some issues 16:45
Viking-Ice and they might continue to maintain that 16:45
adamw "AGREED: Feature accepted as proposed (including obsoletion as a transition mechanism). If new MySQL maintainers appear, feature owners are asked to make it possible to install the MySQL stand-alone server (only)" 16:45
adamw that's from the last fesco meeting. 16:45
Viking-Ice I think that all was being decided that no one was going to be picking up mysql and maintaining it 16:46
adamw okay, another one that pops out is Features/SystemdPredictableNetworkInterfaceNames 16:46
adamw i believe that at least it's been agreed to make the Shiny New Scheme use em0 for most 'default onboard' devices so that won't change from biosdevname, which is a win 16:47
adamw so i guess we should make sure that happens, and make sure the new mechanism actually works, and i guess test that whatever's supposed to happen on upgrade happens 16:47
adamw any other things people can think of to check there? 16:47
Viking-Ice adamw, we covered that one last meeting it would be good to get a clear statement from fesco saying we will not be releasing fedora 19 with mysql 16:47
adamw oh sorry 16:47
adamw Viking-Ice: you could probably just ask for clarification on the devel list there 16:47
adamw reply to the fesco minutes post 16:48
tflink Viking-Ice: I thought that F19 would have mysql but that it was going away for 20 16:48
adamw Viking-Ice: ah yeah, predictable names was covered indeed. 16:48
adamw tflink: so clearly we do need clarification :) 16:48
Viking-Ice adamw, iptables/firewalld/arptables etc + something like libvirt might be doing something with hardcoded interface are there first thing that pop up to mind 16:48
adamw #info if mysql is to still be available in f19, check it can be installed and used 16:48
Viking-Ice adamw, if mysql is still available we do nothing 16:49
adamw Viking-Ice: yeah, be good to see what happens with firewalld on upgrade 16:49
tflink vm's might be something to look at - IIRC, it was a bit of an issue with biosdevname 16:49
Viking-Ice adamw, if mysql is not available we do migration tests  ;) 16:49
adamw #info on predictable network names - check behaviour of firewalld and libvirt, particularly on upgrades; check 'em0' is still used by new scheme 16:50
adamw anyone see any other features that raise red flags? 16:50
tflink kscreen, maybe? I assume that the kde folks will have that covered, though 16:51
adamw worth keeping an eye on for kde validation 16:51
* satellit OEM install in anaconda (covered I think) 16:51
adamw #info tflink - KScreen might be worth keeping an eye on for KDE validation 16:51
Viking-Ice what about syslinux 16:51
adamw oh, good one 16:51
adamw #info https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SyslinuxOption also worth testing 16:52
tflink potentially the share system certs 16:52
tflink shared 16:52
adamw it looks like it'll be pretty hidden, but if we have time it'd be good to check it works (syslinux) 16:52
Viking-Ice we probably should add syslinux to criteria 16:52
adamw Viking-Ice: i think maybe for the first release it's in there we don't need to 16:52
adamw since it's only going to be available via kickstart or a secret anaconda parameter 16:53
adamw it might be good as an optional test case though 16:53
Viking-Ice well from my pov we should dot that from the start 16:53
adamw do we really want to block the release for something that's basically a hidden feature, though? 16:53
Viking-Ice installer 16:53
adamw you won't be able to just pick syslinux in the installer interactively 16:54
Viking-Ice no but ks 16:54
adamw eh...personally i'd still vote against it as a criterion but you could draft it up for the list and see what people think 16:54
adamw otherwise we can just test it and maybe consider bugs for freezeexception 16:55
Viking-Ice sorry not following dont we have to cover all ks options 16:55
tflink I don't think it was all, just a subset considered important enough to block over 16:55
adamw right 16:55
tflink with a yet to be determined subset 16:55
Viking-Ice and by we I mean autoqa ( since ks snippes should be automated ) 16:55
adamw actually that's something we need to put an action item on 16:55
* satellit also USB .ks ? 16:56
adamw we agreed in f18 validation to take kickstart stuff on case-by-case basis, but draft up a proper criterion for f19 16:56
adamw but in general we didn't want to block on every possible kickstart option, just some subset 16:56
adamw does someone want to take the action item for that or should I? 16:56
adamw guess that's me then! 16:57
adamw #action adamw to draft up a kickstart criterion for f19 16:57
adamw #info consider whether syslinux should come in the subset of blocking kickstart options 16:57
Viking-Ice well I think autoqa should be able to cover ks installation completely 16:57
adamw in an ideal world, sure 16:57
tflink Viking-Ice: feel free to submit patches 16:57
adamw in practice, we have enough trouble keeping the simplest subset working 16:57
adamw it's an obvious area for development for autoqa, but we can't rely on it yet 16:58
Viking-Ice due to anaconda breakage or how autoqa is handling it 16:58
Viking-Ice ( the trouble keeping simplest subsystem working ) 16:58
adamw i dunno if anyone's looked at exactly what's not working in rats lately 16:58
adamw we only really have tflink and kparal for autoqa and they have other things to work on too :/ 16:58
kparal last time remote syslog was broken in anaconda 16:58
kparal anything that autoqa depends on would have to be an automatic blocker 16:59
kparal regardless criteria 16:59
tflink personally, I think that RATS is broken on a conceptual level, but that's me 16:59
adamw we're getting close to our hour here 16:59
adamw we can put followups to this on the agenda for next week if people want - any specific topics? 16:59
tflink it's not like I have something to replace it right now 16:59
Viking-Ice kparal, I would assume anaonda defaults the online systemd syslogger on for f19 so fetching that log should be easy via some curl magic 16:59
adamw we've got lots of plans for autoqa work, but it all blocks on having the people to do them 17:00
tflink what adamw said 17:00
adamw okay, if anyone wants to add a specific topic from the above to next week's agenda, do go ahead and put it in the wiki 17:00
tflink I can't speak for anyone else but I'd love to work on autoqa but the blocker tracking stuff is a higher priority ATM 17:00
adamw let's finish up for this week 17:01
adamw #topic open floor 17:01
adamw anyone have things for open floor? 17:01
Viking-Ice hm I probably should go ahead and file an rfe for that... 17:01
adamw go for it 17:01
adamw if there's nothing for open floor, setting fuse for 1 minute..hisssss 17:02
tflink snakes?! 17:03
* tflink runs away 17:03
adamw yesss...chase him, my pretties 17:04
adamw ok, thanks for coming everyone! 17:04
adamw all criteria / test case proposals welcomed if people want to work on anything that came up above :) 17:04
adamw i may be out several days this week, btw, looking like a good snow week, so i may not get all my action items done 17:04
adamw same time next week 17:04
adamw #endmeeting 17:04

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

Retrieved from "https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=QA/Meetings/20130204&oldid=322343"