From Fedora Project Wiki
Attendees
- adamw (106)
- tflink (39)
- Viking-Ice (33)
- j_dulaney (22)
- Martix (17)
- nirik (10)
- zodbot (4)
- robatino (4)
- jreznik (3)
- misc (2)
- nb (1)
- abadger1999 (1)
- mkrizek (1)
- satellit_e (1)
- pschindl (1)
- viking-ice (0)
Agenda
- Previous meeting follow-up
- Call for Test Days
- Trac tickets CCed to list
- Open floor
Previous meeting follow-up
- adamw to write a second draft (of the automatic blocker proposal) with andre's proposed changes and stronger explanation not to put 'grey area' bugs in the automatic blocker list - this was done
- We agreed that second draft is ready to go into production
- adamw to draft up changes to the blocker bug meeting SOP for 3-hour hard limit, no-reviews-during-qa-meetings, and a dedicated channel for meetings, send to list for further discussion - this was done
- j_dulaney, tflink, viking-ice, jreznik all vote +1 on changes: adamw would like more releng/devel feedback before going to production
- viking-ice to discuss the 'smoke test for spins' idea further with nirik and cwickert - not yet done
Call for Test Days
- tflink suggests an upgrade test day, but notes issues with timing - we can try to co-ordinate with wwoods to handle that
Trac tickets CCed to list
- What do we do about overly development-y trac tickets being CCed to test@?
- viking-ice notes the qa trac was originally intended solely as a 'qa task management' thing, not for devel
- tflink is provisionally +1 to at least a separate mailing list for qa-devel
- Everyone agrees in general that having the bugs in QA trac and the discussion spammed to test@ is a bad idea
- tflink will weigh various possible responses and make a detailed proposal to the list
Open floor
N/A
Action items
- adamw to push 'automatic blocker' proposal to production
- adamw to try and gather a bit more feedback on blocker process changes this week
- viking-ice or adamw to file a trac ticket for the smoke-test-for-spins idea
- tflink to take a look at the question of tracking qa tool discussion and bugs/tickets and make a broad proposal about what to do
IRC Log
| adamw | #startmeeting Fedora QA meeting | 16:01 |
|---|---|---|
| zodbot | Meeting started Mon Feb 25 16:01:27 2013 UTC. The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 16:01 |
| zodbot | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. | 16:01 |
| adamw | #meetingname fedora-qa | 16:01 |
| zodbot | The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa' | 16:01 |
| adamw | #topic roll call | 16:01 |
| * adamw is here, also an idiot. | 16:01 | |
| * tflink is here ... in both channels :) | 16:01 | |
| * satellit_e listening | 16:01 | |
| * mkrizek is here | 16:01 | |
| * j_dulaney sends more fail to adamw | 16:02 | |
| * Martix smells dead shark | 16:02 | |
| Martix | meat | 16:02 |
| nb | hi | 16:02 |
| * jreznik is around, idiot as always :) | 16:03 | |
| * adamw is also on a bus to whistler and phoning this one in | 16:03 | |
| adamw | alrighty! | 16:03 |
| * pschindl is here | 16:03 | |
| adamw | #topic Previous meeting follow-up | 16:04 |
| adamw | note on this one - we may want to go a little more in depth on each of these, as they're kinda topics in their own right | 16:05 |
| adamw | "adamw to write a second draft (of the automatic blocker proposal) with andre's proposed changes and stronger explanation not to put 'grey area' bugs in the automatic blocker list" | 16:05 |
| adamw | so I did that, and sent it to the list; not much further feedback, does that mean everyone's OK with it? | 16:05 |
| tflink | yeah | 16:06 |
| adamw | https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2013-February/113909.html | 16:06 |
| adamw | cos if no-one yells, I'm gonna go ahead and put it live | 16:07 |
| robatino | i was wondering if the boot criteria is hardware-specific and if that will cause problems | 16:07 |
| robatino | since it may fail to boot only on some platforms | 16:07 |
| * j_dulaney is +1 | 16:08 | |
| * Viking-Ice joins in | 16:08 | |
| adamw | robatino: i tried to word it quite specifically | 16:08 |
| Viking-Ice | ship igt | 16:09 |
| Viking-Ice | mean ship it | 16:09 |
| Viking-Ice | ;) | 16:09 |
| adamw | robatino: 'conditional failure is not an automatic blocker' basically means 'if it boots for anyone, it's not an automatic blocker' | 16:09 |
| adamw | i could try and make that wording less legalistic :) | 16:09 |
| robatino | ok, but if it fails to boot for one person they'll have to check with others before making it an automatic blocker | 16:09 |
| robatino | which seems to make it similar to the situation with regular blockers | 16:10 |
| j_dulaney | Comment to that affect? | 16:10 |
| adamw | robatino: we can see how it shakes out in practice; what i'm thinking is that, usually, we get a pretty good handle on the actual cause of major bugs quite quickly | 16:10 |
| Viking-Ice | yup | 16:10 |
| tflink | yeah, that sounds like a plan to me | 16:10 |
| adamw | it should be pretty clear if we know the actual cause of a bug whether it's a 'total DOA' or not | 16:10 |
| adamw | you know, if the cause is 'we left vmlinuz off the image', then...:) | 16:10 |
| adamw | #info "adamw to write a second draft (of the automatic blocker proposal) with andre's proposed changes and stronger explanation not to put 'grey area' bugs in the automatic blocker list" - this was done: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2013-February/113909.html | 16:11 |
| adamw | #agreed second draft is ready to go | 16:11 |
| adamw | #action adamw to push 'automatic blocker' proposal to production | 16:11 |
| adamw | okay, on to: | 16:12 |
| adamw | "adamw to draft up changes to the blocker bug meeting SOP for 3-hour hard limit, no-reviews-during-qa-meetings, and a dedicated channel for meetings, send to list for further discussion" | 16:12 |
| adamw | I also did that: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2013-February/113910.html | 16:12 |
| adamw | only really got one reply so far, from jaro: I was expecting more discussion | 16:12 |
| * j_dulaney votes to put it into effect | 16:13 | |
| * tflink should have replied on-list but is +1 on the changes | 16:14 | |
| adamw | i'd feel more confident with a bit more list feedback, but hey | 16:14 |
| Viking-Ice | sorry I've been to busy here in brno to catchup in what's been happening on all the mailing list but then again I'm kinda obvious +1 to those changes ;) | 16:15 |
| tflink | I think that the only changes we haven't already been doing is the channel for meetings and the no-blocker-stuff-during-qa-meetings | 16:15 |
| * nirik thinks all those make sense. | 16:16 | |
| jreznik | adamw: consider it as my +1, I don't really see a need for further discussion | 16:16 |
| tflink | but we can wait another week for comments, it's not like we have a blocker meeting this week | 16:16 |
| jreznik | and we can always revisit... | 16:16 |
| adamw | tflink: true | 16:16 |
| adamw | #info "adamw to draft up changes to the blocker bug meeting SOP for 3-hour hard limit, no-reviews-during-qa-meetings, and a dedicated channel for meetings, send to list for further discussion" - this was also done, https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2013-February/113910.html | 16:16 |
| adamw | #info j_dulaney, tflink, viking-ice, jreznik all vote +1 on blocker process changes | 16:17 |
| adamw | #action adamw to try and gather a bit more feedback on blocker process changes this week | 16:17 |
| adamw | "viking-ice to discuss the 'smoke test for spins' idea further with nirik and cwickert" - viking, nirik, did you guys get anywhere with this? | 16:17 |
| nirik | nope. | 16:18 |
| adamw | concise! | 16:18 |
| adamw | maybe we should have a trac ticket so we don't lose the idea, or something | 16:18 |
| Viking-Ice | Well I actually met with cwickert here in brno but this topic eluded our discussion | 16:19 |
| Viking-Ice | yeah we should add it the trac so it wont get lost | 16:19 |
| adamw | #action viking-ice or adamw to file a trac ticket for the smoke-test-for-spins idea | 16:19 |
| adamw | an action item to file a trac ticket...mmm, I can smell the bureaucracy | 16:20 |
| adamw | #topic Call for Test Days | 16:20 |
| adamw | so, many thanks to martix for taking charge of test days for this cycle | 16:20 |
| adamw | #chair tflink viking-ice | 16:21 |
| zodbot | Current chairs: adamw tflink viking-ice | 16:21 |
| adamw | (forgot) | 16:21 |
| Martix | your welcome :-) | 16:21 |
| adamw | martix sent out the call for test days: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2013-February/113900.html | 16:21 |
| adamw | we have quite a few submitted and planned already, it looks like, but did anyone have any ideas lying around to add to the list? | 16:21 |
| Martix | I just went through proposals and trying to fit them in schedule right now | 16:22 |
| adamw | #info martix is working proposals into the schedule at present | 16:22 |
| tflink | upgrade might be interesting - a bit difficult to do with timing, though | 16:22 |
| adamw | #info tflink suggests an upgrade test day, but notes issues with timing | 16:23 |
| adamw | we could see if will has a timetable for fedup changes for f19 and try to co-ordinate | 16:23 |
| Martix | 4/04 Printing | 16:23 |
| Martix | 4/11 l10n | 16:23 |
| Martix | 5/02 i18n | 16:23 |
| adamw | the package set is usually stable enough for testing upgrades at least by beta | 16:23 |
| Martix | 5/23 FreeIPA | 16:23 |
| Martix | 5/30 Virtualization | 16:23 |
| Martix | 6/06 SSSDImproveADIntegration | 16:23 |
| j_dulaney | In theory | 16:24 |
| Martix | that list of new proposals | 16:24 |
| Martix | *thats | 16:24 |
| tflink | adamw: true, the only variable then becomes which repos are being used | 16:24 |
| adamw | we can fiddle with that for a test day | 16:24 |
| adamw | sort of thing a test day lets you do, in fact | 16:24 |
| adamw | any other ideas? | 16:24 |
| Viking-Ice | I'm still of the notion we should get rid of that schedule | 16:24 |
| j_dulaney | Is networking on the list | 16:25 |
| j_dulaney | ? | 16:25 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: i believe it's already arranged | 16:25 |
| j_dulaney | Okay | 16:25 |
| adamw | Viking-Ice: how do you mean? | 16:25 |
| Viking-Ice | adamw, instead of fixed schedule with explicit dates available we simply note down the time people want to host test day | 16:26 |
| adamw | Viking-Ice: personally i still kinda like the idea of going mainly with thursdays just to help people fit it in to their schedules | 16:27 |
| Martix | j_dulaney: I can extend "Network Manager Test Day" to "Networking Test Week" | 16:27 |
| adamw | Martix: only if the networking folks feel it's needed, | 16:27 |
| Martix | adamw: right, if they will come with this | 16:27 |
| j_dulaney | Martix: It shouldn't be necessary | 16:28 |
| Viking-Ice | adamw, the down side of that is that people look at a schedule and see the "thursday" they are free is occupied by some other component | 16:29 |
| j_dulaney | The biggest thing I can think of off the top of my head with NM is the arrival (finally!) of a cli | 16:29 |
| adamw | Viking-Ice: yeah, it's a cost/benefit thing indeed | 16:29 |
| Viking-Ice | adamw, hence the schedule is a bad thing and hosting it only on thursday is even worse | 16:29 |
| adamw | Viking-Ice: we should probably make that a separate topic for another meeting though, still two to get through here | 16:29 |
| Viking-Ice | from my pov | 16:29 |
| Martix | j_dulaney: nmcli testing is alredy planned for NM Test Day | 16:29 |
| j_dulaney | Indeed | 16:30 |
| adamw | welp, seems like that's all the ideas... | 16:30 |
| adamw | as a heads-up, i may pop off for a few minutes in 5 mins or so, switching internet connections. anyhow | 16:30 |
| adamw | #topic Trac tickets CCed to list | 16:31 |
| adamw | so there's been some discussion lately about how it may not be good to have lots of development-related tickets CCed to test@ | 16:31 |
| adamw | this is happening because we're using the QA trac instance for tool development | 16:32 |
| adamw | i'm packaging a trac plugin which would allow us to direct the mails for different components to different places, which is one way of addressing the problem | 16:32 |
| * nirik can build the epel version and get it installed later today | 16:32 | |
| j_dulaney | Maybe have a qa-devel list? | 16:32 |
| adamw | another suggestion is to set up another trac instance for tooling, or turn the autoqa trac instance into a more general qa-dev one | 16:32 |
| adamw | nirik: i did a build, didn't submit an update though | 16:32 |
| Viking-Ice | <shrug> plugs +1 to separate qa-devel trac instance for qa related development work | 16:32 |
| Martix | my apologize, I just closed bunch of previous Test Day tickets :-) | 16:33 |
| j_dulaney | No, that's not devel | 16:33 |
| adamw | i think either approach would work, i don't really mind which - i figure tflink and martix and kparal maybe get the biggest say in what fix to pick, as they're the ones doing most of that work | 16:33 |
| j_dulaney | Martix: That happens | 16:33 |
| adamw | Martix: that's fine, those tickets are appropriate for the list | 16:33 |
| Viking-Ice | fedora-qa was never supposed to be used for anything else but request from the community | 16:33 |
| * tflink doesn't care a whole lot either way about where the tickets live | 16:33 | |
| adamw | #info viking-ice says the qa trac was originally intended solely as a 'qa task management' thing, not for devel | 16:33 |
| nirik | which doesn't mean it can't be used for other things now. | 16:34 |
| Viking-Ice | yes an request tracker not bug tracker | 16:34 |
| nirik | anyhow, whatever works. | 16:34 |
| adamw | i don't really see a huge difference between the two approaches in the end, they'd achieve the goal, and either is pretty easy to do. | 16:34 |
| tflink | but I'm +1 to at least discussing a qa-devel@ list - it's been on my list of things to propose | 16:34 |
| adamw | #info tflink is provisionally +1 to at least a separate mailing list for qa-devel | 16:35 |
| * j_dulaney is also +1 | 16:35 | |
| Viking-Ice | +1 to seperated mailing list and a trac instance | 16:35 |
| adamw | i can see that a line between 'community tasks' and 'tool development' is a reasonable line to draw between two separate tracs, and it's not like trac instances cost money, so maybe we can just go with that | 16:35 |
| tflink | if we move the blocker tracking app's tickets, I'd rather move to a separate instance instead of to autoqa trac, though - more granularity in ticket assignment | 16:36 |
| adamw | nirik: is there a process you can point to for setting up a new trac instnace? just file a ticket with releng? | 16:36 |
| adamw | er, admin | 16:36 |
| nirik | adamw: file a ticket with infras | 16:36 |
| tflink | yeah, the biggest cost would be my time in configuring stuff and moving tickets | 16:36 |
| * j_dulaney can do that | 16:36 | |
| nirik | a new trac will cost eleventy million dollars! (well, ok, not really, just file a ticket. ;) | 16:37 |
| adamw | tflink: best do it early when there isn't a lot of work to do then i guess | 16:37 |
| Viking-Ice | tflink, well arent you the one that's causing this mess in the first place with all your development ;) | 16:37 |
| adamw | #info to get a new trac instance we just file a ticket with websites | 16:37 |
| adamw | tflink: yes, damnit, stop making awesome tools ;) | 16:37 |
| tflink | j_dulaney: if you're talking about the ticket moving and configuration, I'd rather have myself or mkrizek do that since we'll be the ones using it most for now | 16:37 |
| j_dulaney | No, I meant file the ticket | 16:37 |
| j_dulaney | And sit on nirik to do it :) | 16:37 |
| adamw | whoops, i've gotta drop out briefly, back in ~5 | 16:37 |
| tflink | Viking-Ice: I suppose that's one way to think of it :-P | 16:37 |
| adamw | tflink and viking can drive | 16:37 |
| tflink | less tool work means more time for other tasks :-D | 16:38 |
| tflink | anywho, I'm fine with whichever approach as long as we decide sooner than later | 16:38 |
| tflink | trac is trac for the most part - migrating will mess up a few minor things relating to ticket numbers but these are small issues | 16:39 |
| Viking-Ice | Well I'm +1 to seperated mailing list and a trac instance | 16:39 |
| nirik | you could try the cc thing and if it doesn't work do a new one? | 16:39 |
| * nirik doesn't have a horse in the race | 16:39 | |
| tflink | nirik: did agilo ever get back into fedorahosted or is there still a conflict with another plugin? | 16:40 |
| Viking-Ice | So I propose that we create qa-devel mailing list and qa-devel trac instance | 16:40 |
| nirik | tflink: it conflicts. ;( | 16:40 |
| tflink | Viking-Ice: if we do that, I'd like to combine that mailing list with autoqa-devel | 16:41 |
| tflink | but I also want to send that proposal out to the list (autoqa-devel@) before actually doing it | 16:41 |
| Viking-Ice | tflink, what does the autoqa people think about that ? | 16:42 |
| Viking-Ice | same thoughts | 16:42 |
| Viking-Ice | so we should postpone until feedback from them? | 16:42 |
| tflink | there have been some small discussions around it - the conclusion was mostly "let's see how many other things qa-devel related have much discussion" | 16:42 |
| j_dulaney | Combine auto-qa list and qa-devel list, but keep seperate tracs for the two | 16:42 |
| tflink | yeah, I'm strongly -1 on moving the blocker tracker app tickets to the autoqa trac | 16:43 |
| Viking-Ice | these project are hosted on fedorahosted right | 16:44 |
| tflink | either way, it might be better to float a proposal on test@ before making changes | 16:44 |
| Viking-Ice | and there they do have their own bug trac right so why not use those then? | 16:44 |
| tflink | Viking-Ice: depends on what's requested | 16:44 |
| tflink | you don't have to request 1:1 trac:repo/project | 16:45 |
| * adamw back | 16:45 | |
| Viking-Ice | tflink, I see well perhaps that's the problem then | 16:45 |
| tflink | Viking-Ice: how so? | 16:45 |
| adamw | tflink: do you want to take an action item to look into the options and make a proposal on what new stuff to create? | 16:45 |
| Viking-Ice | tflink, missing trac instance for those projects | 16:46 |
| Viking-Ice | like upstream bugzillas | 16:46 |
| tflink | eh, I specifically didn't request one | 16:46 |
| * tflink is not thrilled about another trac instance to admin | 16:46 | |
| adamw | yeah, i think one trac for all qa tools might be the best option | 16:47 |
| adamw | trac is kind of a pita to admin | 16:47 |
| tflink | adamw: if we were talking about another bug tracker, maybe | 16:47 |
| tflink | trac isn't really set up to do multiple projects well, IMHO | 16:47 |
| adamw | okay | 16:47 |
| * j_dulaney just thought he saw abadger1999 out of the corner of his eye, but it was someone that looked remarkably like him | 16:47 | |
| abadger1999 | heh | 16:47 |
| adamw | i think we're at the point where it'd be best for someone to go look at the issue and come up with a broader proposal...i think all the stuff to consider has been raised | 16:48 |
| adamw | okay if i give that to you tflink? | 16:48 |
| tflink | yeah, I can do that | 16:48 |
| adamw | #action tflink to take a look at the question of tracking qa tool discussion and bugs/tickets and make a broad proposal about what to do | 16:48 |
| adamw | we can discuss tflink's proposal next week (or when it gets done) | 16:49 |
| adamw | that'll give us more detail to chew on | 16:49 |
| adamw | #agreed everyone agrees in general that having the bugs in QA trac and the discussion spammed to test@ is a bad idea | 16:49 |
| adamw | #topic Open floor | 16:49 |
| adamw | so, anything for open floor, folks? | 16:49 |
| Viking-Ice | audio in desktop criteria | 16:50 |
| Martix | updated https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Fedora_19_test_days with new proposals | 16:50 |
| Viking-Ice | so how do people feel that we add audio to the desktop criteria you know press play and actually get sound of speaker ? | 16:51 |
| adamw | i think we already have that | 16:52 |
| tflink | it's in the test cases, not 100% sure about criteria | 16:52 |
| adamw | Beta #19 | 16:52 |
| adamw | " In most cases, the installed system must be able to play back sound with gstreamer-based applications (see Blocker_Bug_FAQ) " | 16:52 |
| adamw | if anything i think Beta is a bit early, but it's in there. | 16:52 |
| Viking-Ice | alriiighhhty then ;) | 16:53 |
| tflink | nvm, then | 16:53 |
| adamw | 'gstreamer-based applications' is a bit desktop team-specific - that's one of the ones that came straight from desktop team back at FUDCon Whatever and never got 'abstracted' | 16:53 |
| adamw | i can improve that as part of the criteria revision stuff. which i'm still working on. | 16:53 |
| Viking-Ice | I just got asked here in BRNO about that but was unsure if we actual had that | 16:53 |
| adamw | well, there ya go :) | 16:53 |
| tflink | aren't most audio things using gstreamer, anyways? | 16:54 |
| tflink | I didn't think that was gnome-specific | 16:54 |
| adamw | tflink: oh, right, i think KDE defaults to gstreamer backend these days too | 16:54 |
| adamw | they have an abstraction layer on top of gstreamer because, you know, yo dawg i heard you liked audio abstraction | 16:55 |
| tflink | it's maintained outside of the gnome project, anyways | 16:55 |
| Viking-Ice | yup anything else anyone? | 16:56 |
| * adamw sets fuse for 9am | 16:56 | |
| adamw | i have snow to abuse | 16:56 |
| * j_dulaney thinks anyone that actually *likes* snow is clinicaly insane | 16:57 | |
| adamw | i certainly am clinically insane, but i don't think the diagnosis was made on the basis of fondness for snow ;) | 16:57 |
| tflink | j_dulaney: tell that to the huge ski/snowboard industry :) | 16:57 |
| tflink | or ice fisherman | 16:57 |
| misc | adamw: not only on that | 16:58 |
| adamw | misc: they let me out of the institution on weekends! | 16:58 |
| misc | adamw: that's not because everyone is crazy there that you should your employer "the institution" | 16:59 |
| * j_dulaney would much rather it be 100 F | 16:59 | |
| adamw | misc: haha. | 16:59 |
| tflink | j_dulaney: and you call me crazy ... | 16:59 |
| adamw | Red Hat: Keeping Crazy Engineers Off The Streets Since 1998 | 16:59 |
| adamw | alrighty, thanks for coming everyone | 16:59 |
| adamw | same time next week | 17:00 |
| adamw | #endmeeting | 17:00 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.11.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!