May 06 08:58:31 --- jlaska has changed the topic to: Fedora QA Meeting | gathering May 06 08:58:32 <-- mcepl has quit (Remote closed the connection) May 06 09:01:27 QA meeting time, show of hands May 06 09:01:55 * adamw shows some leg May 06 09:02:05 :) May 06 09:02:57 adamw: this will be a quick meeting then :) Anyone else around for todays QA meeting? May 06 09:03:29 there should be May 06 09:03:50 i think we have pip lurking May 06 09:03:55 Pip: welcome :) May 06 09:03:59 and viking_ice and wwoods were active on the qa channel May 06 09:04:21 viking said he ran to get coffee so i guess he'll be back in a minute... May 06 09:04:41 * wwoods back May 06 09:04:49 jlaska: I thought you were gonna be gone? May 06 09:04:50 <-- tatica has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) May 06 09:04:56 he lied May 06 09:05:02 wwoods: so did I, appt went much quicker than expected May 06 09:05:24 okya, so I have adamw, Pip wwoods and viking_ice on route May 06 09:05:36 --> tatica (n=tatica@nelug/designer/tatica) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:05:40 --- jlaska has changed the topic to: Fedora QA Meeting | Agenda - https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg00288.html May 06 09:06:00 <-- dkovalsk has quit ("leaving") May 06 09:06:04 I posted a planned agenda, but we can adjust as needed May 06 09:06:12 let's do a quick wrap-up from last week May 06 09:06:24 --- jlaska has changed the topic to: Fedora QA Meeting | previous meeting follow-up May 06 09:06:33 [jlaska] - transfer autoqa tasks into TRAC instance with milestones May 06 09:06:59 --> spoleeba (n=one@fedora/Jef) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:07:07 I lagged on that until this morning ... but started peppering the trac instance with a few milestones and the tasks f13, wwoods and I discussed May 06 09:07:17 The F11 autoqa milestone can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/milestone/Fedora%2011 May 06 09:07:18 <-- giallu has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) May 06 09:07:20 jlaska, Hi May 06 09:07:31 Thanks guys May 06 09:07:36 yeah I've been caught up in F11 testing and some work administrivia, but I'll be working on autoqa stuff after meetings today May 06 09:07:43 I'm here for listening something about QA May 06 09:08:07 --> fcami (n=fcami@fedora/fcami) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:08:10 Pip: great, we're walking through the posted agenda, but please feel free to share thoughts/ideas/opinions May 06 09:08:32 wwoods: sweet, we'll save the rest for the autoqa update shortly ... May 06 09:08:48 # [wwoods] - checking for a bug about an upgrade issue May 06 09:09:09 wwoods: I failed to capture that item last week, you had mentioned you were tracking down a [pre]upgrade issue? May 06 09:09:34 there's a bunch of 'em - hence my near-constant upgrade testing. the first one I don't have a bug ID for, but it's an SELinux issue May 06 09:09:42 been working with dwalsh on that (he pointed it out) May 06 09:10:28 let's see, uh May 06 09:10:55 bug 494995 May 06 09:11:00 Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=494995 high, low, ---, anaconda-maint-list, CLOSED RAWHIDE, Aborting upgrade of F10 to F11-beta leaves system unbootable May 06 09:11:10 are the upgrades your doing match the test procedure lili wrote up, or are these preupgrade? May 06 09:11:28 I've been doing only preupgrade May 06 09:11:52 wasn't sure if there's any test overlap (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Upgrade_system) May 06 09:12:07 bug 496618 May 06 09:12:09 Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=496618 medium, medium, ---, anaconda-maint-list, MODIFIED, bootloader.images.getDefault() returns None May 06 09:12:44 preupgrade does 'update bootloader config' by default May 06 09:12:55 so it would correspond to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_Upgrade_Update_Bootloader May 06 09:13:12 ah nice May 06 09:13:20 <-- fcami has quit ("new kernel, oh cool.") May 06 09:14:11 wwoods: is there additional testing/investigation you'd like folks to help with? May 06 09:14:29 --> RadicalRo (n=radical@77.36.4.49) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:14:32 (on the upgrade front) May 06 09:14:52 yeah - I need to write down a few more upgrade cases May 06 09:15:02 there's a bug with preupgrade + encrypted root right now May 06 09:15:22 <-- lfoppiano has quit ("Ex-Chat") May 06 09:15:28 that's bug 499321 May 06 09:15:29 Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=499321 medium, medium, ---, anaconda-maint-list, NEW, preupgrade backtrace May 06 09:16:03 there was a bug with preupgrade-cli + vnc passwords - bug 498843 - that needs confirmation May 06 09:16:04 Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=498843 medium, low, ---, skvidal, ASSIGNED, Upgrade with VNC asks for password after reboot May 06 09:16:27 same for preupgrade + /boot on RAID - bug 496311 May 06 09:16:28 Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=496311 medium, low, ---, skvidal, CLOSED WONTFIX, Preupgrade fails can't read kick start file May 06 09:17:11 preupgrade-1.1.0pre3 was built yesterday, I'm going to file the update requests sometime today and try to arrange some testing May 06 09:17:36 <-- che has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) May 06 09:17:52 actually, I guess I should wait on the update requests and just do the testing and then build 1.1.0 (final) once it looks OK May 06 09:18:09 so, yeah, look for some new upgrade test cases to be written May 06 09:18:10 seems sensible May 06 09:18:26 --> che (n=che@redhat/che) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:18:29 and then a request for testing help on fedora-test-list May 06 09:18:30 great, upgrades are an area in need of some formal test cases May 06 09:19:05 wwoods: any other updates on that front? May 06 09:19:52 * f13 is here now, sorry May 06 09:19:57 f13: welcome May 06 09:20:01 not really - although I think the virt test day might help with the preupgrade testing - create an F10 VM and upgrade it, and if it fails.. oh well! May 06 09:20:16 true May 06 09:20:22 okay next up ... May 06 09:20:24 * [jlaska] - ensure the failing disk drive issue is tracked in bugzilla and get a Release note documented for running smartctl May 06 09:20:35 I've done nothing on this issue :( May 06 09:20:38 I just noticed a bug about this issue, actually May 06 09:20:54 bug 495956 May 06 09:20:55 Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=495956 medium, low, ---, davidz, CLOSED RAWHIDE, Ignore some failing SMART attributes May 06 09:21:04 I intended to follow-up on the mailing list with the few threads on this topic, but that fell off my radar May 06 09:21:17 new builds have been done and tags requested May 06 09:21:23 so the issue is very much on the developer radar May 06 09:22:10 (davidz/lpoetter are discussing it on the internal RH IRC network right now, in fact) May 06 09:22:12 --> warren (n=warren@redhat/wombat/warren) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:22:23 awesome, thanks to tmraz+davidz for getting that bug filed+processed May 06 09:22:48 should we leave this open for follow-up this week? May 06 09:23:53 I'll keep it open and catch up w/ davidz/lennart May 06 09:24:04 next up ... the general F11-Blocker list scrubbing May 06 09:24:24 <-- itami (n=itami@h219-110-132-244.catv02.itscom.jp) has left #fedora-meeting May 06 09:24:27 * [wwoods] - review F11Blocker SELinux bugs May 06 09:24:30 * [jlaska] - review F11Blocker anaconda bugs May 06 09:24:39 * [adamw] - continue review of X11 bugs and volume control issues May 06 09:24:57 wwoods: do you want to take SELinux first? May 06 09:26:17 --> linuxguru_ (n=linuxgur@unaffiliated/linuxguru) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:26:45 sure? there's not a lot of SELinux-specific stuff that I remember from the blocker list May 06 09:27:30 --> Bouska (n=Pablo@ip-213-49-245-218.dsl.scarlet.be) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:28:01 bug 469257 is MODIFIED - iirc there's mozplugger build that should fix this May 06 09:28:04 Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=469257 medium, medium, ---, than, MODIFIED, selinux policy and mozplugger do not get along May 06 09:28:13 https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/1725 May 06 09:28:25 needs retesting May 06 09:28:41 --> JSchmitt (n=s4504kr@fedora/JSchmitt) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:28:52 adamw: do we have a template/stock_response for needs retesting on bugs? May 06 09:29:07 i don't believe so, but let me check May 06 09:29:26 no May 06 09:29:27 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/StockBugzillaResponses May 06 09:29:34 * jlaska clicky May 06 09:29:50 one could be added there, i suppose May 06 09:29:54 So as a QA guy, python programming is required ? May 06 09:29:55 and bug 490323 looks to be a system-config-date bug May 06 09:29:56 Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=490323 medium, low, ---, nphilipp, MODIFIED, SELinux is preventing gpm (gpm_t) "read" etc_t. May 06 09:30:08 I haven't seen a build for that yet May 06 09:30:15 but I'm not really sure what makes this a blocker May 06 09:30:22 Pip: in general no, only if you're interested in developing python-based test scripts/tools May 06 09:30:35 I see May 06 09:30:43 adamw: the normal workflow will have all these MODIFIED bugs just move to CLOSED RAWHIDE May 06 09:31:05 do folks think there's value in doing a mass update of MODIFIED bugs for retesting? May 06 09:31:27 personally i'm usually in favour of just closing as fixed when the developer checks in something they're pretty sure fixes it May 06 09:31:37 bug can always be re-opened if it turns out not to be fixed May 06 09:31:48 but i'm not sure what the official process is presently, just a tick May 06 09:31:57 * viking_ice jumps in late in the game.. May 06 09:32:32 I can see it either way May 06 09:32:36 same May 06 09:32:40 bah, i can't find the picture. heh May 06 09:32:45 anyone remember where it is? May 06 09:32:48 I don't want to see it go to closed->RAWHIDE until the package has been tagged for rawhide. May 06 09:32:57 important during freezes May 06 09:33:22 but if the maintainer is sure it's fixed, closed is fine. IF they think it's fixed, MODIFIED with a needs retesting flag would be in order May 06 09:33:29 In my opinion the bugs really shouldn't be closed until the package containing the fix is available May 06 09:33:30 we even have a rss feed for bugs that need retesting May 06 09:33:50 under normal circumstances, closing a bug RAWHIDE immediately after a build works OK, 'cuz the build will appear automatically the next day May 06 09:33:52 wwoods: that's what I meant, although waiting a day for the rawhide compose to happen is a bit... lame. May 06 09:34:00 but during a freeze you gotta wait for the tag to happen May 06 09:34:12 if only we had a message bus that could tell us when a package is actually available and automatically close the bug for us... May 06 09:34:18 =) May 06 09:34:22 f13: can you post on the test list how to subscribe etc for the retesting bugs May 06 09:34:22 * adamw still looking for that darn picture May 06 09:34:26 <-- cassmodiah has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) May 06 09:34:42 or put that on the QA space on the wiki May 06 09:34:51 I thought it was May 06 09:34:59 I thought that's where I got it from, the triage pages somewhere May 06 09:35:14 triagers != testers May 06 09:35:21 --> cassmodiah (n=cass@fedora/cassmodiah) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:35:32 yeah, I'm not sure where I got it May 06 09:35:38 clearly this means the wiki isn't done yet, heh May 06 09:35:47 a living document :) May 06 09:35:51 :) May 06 09:35:53 http://feeds.feedburner.com/NeedsRetesting May 06 09:35:55 that's the feed May 06 09:35:58 f13: thx May 06 09:36:13 3 bugs May 06 09:36:24 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Join listed there May 06 09:36:25 actually i'm surprised developers don't complain about this May 06 09:36:32 adamw: in what way? May 06 09:36:35 it's another area i had experience of at mdv May 06 09:36:52 when i first designed the triage process there, bugs couldn't be closed until the fixed package was available (whatever that meant for the release in question) May 06 09:36:53 that the bugs don't get tested, or they sit there in MODIFIED? May 06 09:37:02 there is some RHT history here May 06 09:37:07 but the maintainers whined like hell so it got changed to "you can mark it as fixed as soon as you check it into SVN" May 06 09:37:14 f13: ok I need to start putting together some testers/reporters page under the QA namespace May 06 09:38:18 gack May 06 09:38:29 my vpn connection died right at " f13: ok I need to start putting together some testers/reporters page under the QA namespace" May 06 09:38:31 what'd i miss? May 06 09:38:31 f13: ok May 06 09:38:33 but in rawhide, we leave it up to our maintainers to twiddle states without a whole lot of guidance. May 06 09:38:38 I think in RHEL, it started with some documentation/guidance on the lifecycle ... and the tooling suported it May 06 09:38:47 nod May 06 09:38:48 <-- jwb has quit (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)) May 06 09:38:50 we have some guidance May 06 09:39:04 definitely ... is it worth thinking about documenting/defining a bug's lifecycle for rawhide then? May 06 09:39:11 in RHEL, developers rarely have to tiddle a bug status, once they've done a build and threw it at the errata system, the errata system takes care of all bug state maintenance. May 06 09:39:11 can we deliver rss feed per component ( thinking a bit ahead here ) May 06 09:39:11 bodhi does that for us to some extent May 06 09:39:11 viking_ice: I don't know, do some research? (: May 06 09:39:19 --> jwb (n=jwboyer@24-247-58-139.dhcp.aldl.mi.charter.com) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:39:29 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow May 06 09:39:42 there's the pic May 06 09:39:42 that's what i was lookin for. May 06 09:39:44 this mostly concerns itself with updates May 06 09:39:52 (wiki search for "life cycle" turned it up) May 06 09:40:01 I know, it's weird, our wiki search actually works May 06 09:40:11 i searched 'bug cycle' May 06 09:40:13 no joy there May 06 09:40:15 anyhoo May 06 09:40:23 that clearly covers stable releases, so yeah, there's a hole there May 06 09:40:55 not much of a hole though May 06 09:40:55 and we split. May 06 09:40:55 *sigh* May 06 09:40:58 oh for the love of... May 06 09:41:13 looks like most of us are still here though May 06 09:41:20 <-- kital has quit (Remote closed the connection) May 06 09:41:23 except for wwoods May 06 09:41:25 * viking_ice has a reliable internet connection.. May 06 09:41:34 yes true May 06 09:41:35 it's not about *your* connection May 06 09:41:36 --> Pikachu_2014 (n=Pikachu_@85-169-120-252.rev.numericable.fr) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:41:37 viking_ice: this is a network split May 06 09:41:38 just what side of the split you're on May 06 09:41:51 always on the side that works apparently.. May 06 09:41:54 really the only thing missing in this graphic for rawhide is the parts after MODIFIED May 06 09:41:59 yeah May 06 09:42:18 --> Khaytsus (n=Khaytsus@theblackmoor.net) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:42:24 so a new mini-decision tree May 06 09:42:29 update release ---> Yes May 06 09:42:30 | May 06 09:42:30 as i said, personally i'm in favour of letting devs close the bug as soon as they commit and tag (if it's outside of a freeze) May 06 09:42:32 No May 06 09:42:47 --> ln- (n=lauri@192.194.168.130) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:42:48 simpler for everyone, usually correct, and easy enough to handle if it's not: just re-open the bug May 06 09:43:15 I think we can do better long term, but given where we are, yeah I agree May 06 09:43:48 --> hpachas-PE (n=hpachas@200.37.120.18) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:44:06 okay, so what's the summary for the bug life cycle ... need-retest? May 06 09:44:29 so, proposal: we allow that, devs can also use 'modified' to request testing of rawhide bugs prior to closing if they like, but if they do, the bugs can be set to CLOSED RAWHIDE automatically (or manually, or semi-automatically) if no re-testing actually happens within, oh, two weeks? May 06 09:44:33 needretest is useful if the maintainer wants to get more validation of the bug May 06 09:44:36 but not necessary May 06 09:45:01 true, it fits the opt-in approach common now with our handling of bugs May 06 09:45:15 adamw__: we should probably match that timeout up with a timeout for NEEDINFO requests. May 06 09:45:18 Some of them just close it with WORKSFORME others ask for retesting... May 06 09:45:28 i mean, it's rawhide. y'know. we're not working with RHEL levels of quality here. heh. May 06 09:45:31 WORKSFORME isn't a valid closure for a fixed bug May 06 09:45:35 right May 06 09:45:40 it's a closure for "NOTABUG" but not as mean May 06 09:45:42 the valid closure for fixed rawhide bugs is RAWHIDE, and nothing else May 06 09:45:54 or "i can't reproduce and there's no way i can fix it if i can't reproduce" May 06 09:46:13 adamw__: are we disallowing the use of CLOSED->UPSTREAM? May 06 09:46:20 ? May 06 09:46:31 that's not a closure for a bug fixed in rawhide directly, though May 06 09:46:42 you don't use it at the point the bug's fixed May 06 09:46:49 <-- Pikachu_2014 has quit (Remote closed the connection) May 06 09:46:49 no, it's not, however it does get used. May 06 09:47:06 if we're going to define policy, might try to cover the usage of that s well. May 06 09:47:08 as i said, RAWHIDE is the only resolution for *a bug a developer just fixed by checking some code into rawhide* :) May 06 09:47:16 yeah, we're a bit off-topic now though May 06 09:47:22 and that's part of something bugzappers is working on right now May 06 09:47:23 <-- herlo has quit (kornbluth.freenode.net irc.freenode.net) May 06 09:47:24 <-- G has quit (kornbluth.freenode.net irc.freenode.net) May 06 09:47:24 <-- ivazquez has quit (kornbluth.freenode.net irc.freenode.net) May 06 09:47:27 so may as well leave it alone here May 06 09:47:34 --> ivazquez (n=ivazquez@fedora/ignacio) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:47:34 --> G (n=njones@fedora/G) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:47:34 --> herlo (n=clints@fedora/herlo) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:47:43 --> pravin_s (n=psatpute@nat/redhat-in/x-7c6d0a8fbcee5081) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:47:43 --> ricky (n=ricky@fedora/ricky) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:47:46 adamw__: anything we need to get down for next week here, or continue discussion in the BugZapper meetings? May 06 09:47:50 --> spoleeba (n=one@fedora/Jef) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:47:50 --> syph3r (n=syph3r@ACA41647.ipt.aol.com) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:47:50 i think we settled the important bit...and i can take an action item to update the wiki page May 06 09:48:01 What if we can't resolve all the bugs reported by the release day ? May 06 09:48:11 that never happens May 06 09:48:13 Pip: heh, if only we could :) there's a process for that May 06 09:48:33 --> Pikachu_2014 (n=Pikachu_@85-169-120-252.rev.numericable.fr) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:48:34 Pip: bugzappers has a process for managing all open bugs in rawhide when a release is made; basically they get changed to be for that release May 06 09:49:08 adamw, The entire life cycle is controlled or designed by ... the Fedora architect ? May 06 09:49:12 so when we release 11, all open rawhide bugs will be changed to be 11 bugs May 06 09:49:32 --- jlaska has changed the topic to: Fedora QA Meeting | autoqa update May 06 09:49:34 Pip: er...it's controlled or designed by us, and the bugzappers, and the maintainers, in a chaotic and loosely-defined fashion, like everything else around here =) May 06 09:49:44 the most recent report that I filed that is supposed to be fixed was set on MODIFIED status.. May 06 09:49:48 held together w/ bubble gum and chicken wire May 06 09:49:51 oh hey! we're back! May 06 09:50:00 --> openpercept (n=openperc@unaffiliated/openpercept) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:50:00 wwoods: welcome to the dark side May 06 09:50:03 wwoods: sorry, you got caught on the wrong side of splitsville May 06 09:50:07 welcome to the world of tomorrow. May 06 09:50:31 Pip: practically speaking, we'll change the document, let people know, hopefully everyone agrees and it will be applied in practice, if not it gets revisited somehow in the future May 06 09:50:40 Pip: it's a fairly vague way of doing things but mostly it works :) May 06 09:50:48 adamw: if you come up with good policy, that will help me when designing the message bus and tools on top of it to automate some of that policy May 06 09:50:59 sure May 06 09:51:03 so that we can take the bug status management hassle out of the hands of maintainers/triagers and put it into software. May 06 09:51:06 i'll drop a quick note on the discussion here to -devel-list later May 06 09:51:19 I see May 06 09:51:42 <-- JSchmitt has quit (Remote closed the connection) May 06 09:51:44 okay, unless any other points ... changing topics to autoqa May 06 09:51:46 so, we're running over, jlaska, take us to the bridge :) May 06 09:52:03 we always ( well most of the time ) run over.. May 06 09:52:03 (cvs changelog mentions "resolves bug #foo" and some bit twiddles bug #foo to the right state, new rawhide report changelog mentions fixing bug #foo, we twiddle bug state accordingly, etc...) May 06 09:52:08 wwoods: we touched on it briefly earlier, but do you want to give an update on the autoqa project May 06 09:52:10 --> jcollie (n=jcollie@fedora/jcollie) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:52:46 no major changes to report - we've been discussing things that need doing May 06 09:52:49 --> JSchmitt (n=s4504kr@fedora/JSchmitt) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:53:10 including 1) handling the F9 'newkey' repos for post-repo-update tests May 06 09:53:21 I beat together an example of a conflicts finder, discovered some issues along the way May 06 09:53:36 and 2) scheduling/queueing tests so they don't all run at once May 06 09:53:38 I'm going to rewrite the finder a bit to make it more conform to the future of yum-utils software May 06 09:54:17 I note that the beaker setuphowto has been updated: https://fedorahosted.org/beaker/wiki/SetupHOWTO May 06 09:54:23 f13: I'm psyched about the conflicts detection, thanks for your efforts there May 06 09:54:34 wwoods: nice! May 06 09:54:47 --> than (n=than@nat/redhat/session) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:54:48 wwoods: that's mostly with respect to setting up the lab-mgmt component May 06 09:54:48 jlaska: yeah, I'm a bit excited about it too as it's something that needs some real attention May 06 09:55:32 jlaska: right - that side is kind of working from the top down - machine/distro management May 06 09:55:43 right on May 06 09:55:45 --> inode0 (n=inode0@fedora/inode0) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:55:45 and it seems like we're working the other way - start with the tests we want to run and write stuff around 'em May 06 09:55:56 I hope we meet in the middle somewhere May 06 09:56:21 --> Bouska (n=Pablo@ip-213-49-245-218.dsl.scarlet.be) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:56:23 I'm not too concerned, bpeck was excited to see you use the rhtslib format May 06 09:56:40 probably I should discuss scheduling and things with bpeck et. al. to make sure anything we duct-tape together will be compatible with whatever they may be working on May 06 09:57:02 (side note: I just updated https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow to be more explicit about closed and modified as discussed above) May 06 09:57:11 adamw: thx! May 06 09:57:37 wwoods: not a bad idea, just to keep a running list of possible pain points May 06 09:58:42 --> jcm_ (n=jcm@dallas.jonmasters.org) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 09:58:54 wwoods: take a look at the tickets I assigned too. Please let me know if these are representative of what needs tackling this month for F11 May 06 09:59:11 right, will do May 06 09:59:31 okay ... changing gears ... May 06 09:59:41 --- jlaska has changed the topic to: Fedora QA Meeting | volume control update May 06 10:00:29 adamw: wanted to give you a chance to update folks on where things are with FESCO's volume control decision May 06 10:00:58 --> smooge (n=smooge@nausicaa.unm.edu) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 10:00:59 --> crossbytes (n=crossbyt@fedora/crossbytes) has joined #Fedora-Meeting May 06 10:01:23 it's all done May 06 10:01:34 ? May 06 10:01:39 gst-mixer is in f11 repos and in comps May 06 10:01:41 Are them both installed or May 06 10:01:42 sweet and simple! May 06 10:01:50 will be installed by default for f11 release (default dvd release, and gnome spin) May 06 10:01:57 it is the old gnome-volume-control May 06 10:02:06 testing is appreciated - basically, make sure it works for you as it did in f10 May 06 10:02:20 it is on the menus in Sound & Video with the name 'Advanced Volume Control' May 06 10:02:21 for the record: it *wasn't* in F11Preview or earlier, so anyone who installed their system before F11 might want to install gst-mixer by hand May 06 10:02:32 pavucontrol will not be shipped by default for f11 May 06 10:02:56 so there will be two mixers, the new gnome-volume-control (a Pulse-style mixer) and gst-mixer May 06 10:02:59 that's that. :) May 06 10:03:36 adamw: a fitting short summary for that one May 06 10:03:44 thanks for your efforts here May 06 10:04:16 --- jlaska has changed the topic to: Fedora QA Meeting | F-11-GA May 06 10:04:17 so In f12 we can have both pidgin and empathy install ( easing the migration process ) May 06 10:04:37 by install I mean installed.. May 06 10:05:17 I think by going ahead and choose this method after feature freeze is opening a can of worms.. May 06 10:05:24 but ok May 06 10:06:06 we're running late, but I did want to bring up the topic of test summary reports May 06 10:06:19 <-- mintos has quit ("Leaving") May 06 10:06:47 * viking_ice notes that perhaps f13 and or wwoods mention the removal of alpha milestone.. for the record May 06 10:06:58 ah, yes, that's worth a moment too May 06 10:06:59 my thinking is this would provide a summary of testing against F11 release candidates ... list of known issues, items tested, items not tested May 06 10:07:00 that's a good point May 06 10:07:16 thanks for reminder, we'll bring that up too May 06 10:07:17 --> tagoh3 (n=tagoh@66.187.238.200) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 10:07:23 jlaska: a release-wide summary? May 06 10:07:36 wwoods: starting with milestone specific summary of what we know May 06 10:08:04 well if we are going to produce summaries we should do so on each miles stone ( track progress ) May 06 10:08:42 specifically around the release candidate drops, I'd like to document/formalize the expectations around them May 06 10:09:08 is this not something we should implement in the F12 cycle? May 06 10:09:18 most certainly May 06 10:09:38 --> openpercept_ (n=openperc@unaffiliated/openpercept) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 10:09:49 on the test summary angle, I'm curious how folks feel about it May 06 10:10:10 who releases the rc's ... when do they do it, would providing guidance from fedora qa help? May 06 10:11:20 f13: would defining the handoff be helpful for you when deciding to push a RC out to mirrors? May 06 10:11:39 * viking_ice is totally lost with the test summary angle.. first what do we want to summarize ? May 06 10:11:39 yeah, I hate making that call by myself. May 06 10:11:49 although often it's late at night and nobody is around. May 06 10:12:08 f13: should we get it in the schedule at a reasonable time for folks? May 06 10:12:29 I think we can experiment with it in F12 May 06 10:12:53 yeah that's definitely a good time to get things going, but I was curious if there were any baby steps we could try now May 06 10:12:58 nothing major May 06 10:13:15 do we want/need to puch rc to the mirrors ( use shared torrent only ) May 06 10:13:27 not enough time for RC to go to mirrors May 06 10:13:32 thought so May 06 10:13:34 when the RC drops the C and become R it has to go May 06 10:13:56 well, hmm May 06 10:13:58 --> Matias_Arg (n=root@host57.190-136-240.telecom.net.ar) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 10:14:10 f13: what's tough for me is that I don't know when they'll land May 06 10:14:13 do we usually put the RC bits on the mirrors and just keep them locked as we make new RCs? May 06 10:14:30 no May 06 10:14:31 and then I'd like to improve the data needed when go/no_go time comes May 06 10:14:35 <-- openpercept has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) May 06 10:14:38 we put them in the stage spot May 06 10:14:52 I also put them if I have time on the master mirror but locked to the other mirrors May 06 10:15:07 once mirrors get a hold of content, there is high likelyhood of leaks May 06 10:15:31 --> RodrigoPadula (n=Rodrigo@189.106.49.230) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 10:16:15 <-- syph3r has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) May 06 10:16:19 f13: is there value in us spending some time to outline how it works now? May 06 10:16:25 true - and we really don't want incomplete RCs leaked as "final" May 06 10:17:13 I'd like to figure out the best way for QA to engage with how the RC's are built ... and how best to provide feedback May 06 10:17:19 jlaska: as a separate meeting, sure. May 06 10:17:26 jlaska: since it involves more than just QA and me May 06 10:17:36 ah great point May 06 10:17:52 f13: who should the participants be? May 06 10:18:09 --- openpercept_ is now known as openpercept May 06 10:18:43 QA, releng, um... May 06 10:18:45 <-- crossbytes has quit ("Ex-Chat") May 06 10:18:47 --> mcepl (n=mcepl@nezmar.jabbim.cz) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 10:18:48 <-- Pikachu_2014 has quit (Remote closed the connection) May 06 10:18:54 hrm. May 06 10:19:00 sig leaders I suppose May 06 10:19:21 f13: okay, I'll catch up with you after this for some guidance. May 06 10:19:25 here lies the problem. The more people we include the longer it takes to reach a decision. The less people we include the more chance there is for missing something. May 06 10:19:44 certainly May 06 10:19:56 at this point I'm more in data gather mode May 06 10:20:09 k May 06 10:20:27 is not QA an Releng enough ? the sig needs to follow that what ever comes out of it? May 06 10:20:52 viking_ice: could be enough. May 06 10:21:01 --- jlaska has changed the topic to: Fedora QA Meeting | Open Discussion May 06 10:21:05 --> fbijlsma (n=fbijlsma@p54B2CF17.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 10:21:34 faster decision being made that decision can then just be revisited if needed May 06 10:21:48 viking_ice: you raised the discussion around dropping the Alpha milestone May 06 10:21:51 hard to revisit a decision to release bits to the mirror. May 06 10:22:09 ok May 06 10:22:20 if nothing else, we can document how it works now May 06 10:22:25 --> Pikachu_2014 (n=Pikachu_@85-169-120-252.rev.numericable.fr) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 10:22:41 which will be a big help when that bus that keeps hitting people comes around May 06 10:23:45 Yes a decision was made on the last FESCo meeting about dropping the alpha milestone ( see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/Meetings/2009-may-04 ) May 06 10:23:58 that wasn't a FESCo meeting May 06 10:24:02 that was a releng meeting May 06 10:24:12 and it was a decision to propose dropping it May 06 10:24:26 I meant Releng meeting sorry my bad ( link correct ) May 06 10:24:56 f13: where does the proposal go now, how can people get involved? May 06 10:25:43 <-- sdziallas has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) May 06 10:26:04 Now it went to the mailing lists where there has already been some discussion, and ultimately it goes to FESCo May 06 10:26:05 well we need to remove any reference to alpha I suppose ( wiki work ) May 06 10:26:27 --> ppeev (n=ppeev@88.203.247.82) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 10:26:34 that is if approved.. May 06 10:27:15 perhaps a summary of why this was propose and what benefits it has over the current process is in order? May 06 10:27:17 <-- No5251 has quit ("Wenn du den Fnord nicht siehst, kann er dich auch nicht essen.") May 06 10:27:22 <-- warren has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)) May 06 10:27:25 <-- ppeev (n=ppeev@88.203.247.82) has left #fedora-meeting May 06 10:27:32 * poelcat wonders how it would help QA May 06 10:27:41 it's not in the meeting notes? huh May 06 10:27:55 I outlined some of why in the mail response I made. May 06 10:28:07 my initial concern is that it will impact when we can start F12 test days May 06 10:28:18 not really May 06 10:28:26 (ok, side note again: i got inspired, and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow is now, er, a lot better. and bigger. and in the right order.) May 06 10:28:36 anyway the Alpha release sets unrealistic expectations for the release, since it usually doesn't contain most of the features that are supposed to be in the release May 06 10:28:51 and it takes time away from other, more focused testing May 06 10:28:55 https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-May/msg00227.html is the start of the thread. May 06 10:28:56 jlaska: We compose a live image for each test day right :) May 06 10:28:57 and time away from regular development May 06 10:29:13 viking_ice: we can and do ... when they work May 06 10:29:17 f13: thanks May 06 10:29:27 jlaska: I would assume that test days can still be done, perhaps even earlier if a given feature is ready for some form of testing May 06 10:29:34 thus no impact on when we start test days ( as long as the images work ) May 06 10:29:52 basically alpha was dubious. It doesn't match what is typically called an "Alpha" in software dev, particularly because it was made public and not an internal thing May 06 10:29:54 right - it's much more valuable to have focused test days for the features that *are* ready May 06 10:30:09 rather than an alpha image that has a bunch of random crap in various stages of completion May 06 10:30:10 then again a semi working rawhide is needed ( atleast for the components that are being tested ) May 06 10:30:12 that didn't always work as expected May 06 10:30:15 the most value I saw out of it was a "known good starting point" to get on rawhide, and we've failed at that more often than not May 06 10:30:44 has that ever been a good starting point May 06 10:30:47 with F12 being so short, the F11 GA can provide the "known good" to get on rawhide. May 06 10:30:58 until we get to Beta May 06 10:31:44 f13: I'm a fan of milestones, while it's often difficult to meet them, I'm not sure I fully understand the motivation to drop them May 06 10:31:46 https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-May/msg00311.html sums up my thoughts pretty well. May 06 10:32:08 f13: okay, we'll keep things short here and folks can follow up with any concerns May 06 10:32:24 jlaska: I'm a fan of useful milestones. the most often feedback I get on the Alpha milestone from developers is that it's a useless distraction that keeps them from getting things ready in time for Beta. May 06 10:32:47 * viking_ice says go forward with it.. May 06 10:33:06 +1 for f13 May 06 10:33:14 +1 May 06 10:33:53 I agree on the useful point, I'm just not sure I understand the response May 06 10:33:56 Worst case scenario we revert to previous process during F13 cycle ( or revisited and improve ) May 06 10:34:04 --> biertie (n=bert@117.56-247-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 10:34:15 yep May 06 10:34:23 like everything, its an experiment. May 06 10:34:28 * jlaska missing cause/effect May 06 10:34:45 We tried to make alpha a non-blocking freeze to remove some of the delays, but that didn't work for some critical parts of development, anaconda being one of them. May 06 10:35:19 jlaska: this isn't specifically an attempt at fixing something wrong, first and foremost it's an attempt to maximize the very small development time for F12 May 06 10:36:18 --> neverho0d_ (n=psv@62.68.142.115) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 10:36:41 we also get rid of alpha not working nuance ( testers just install a working copy and upgrade ) May 06 10:37:09 my cautionary note is that the test days aren't freebies. We've had a few fail to start since we were blocked by other bugs (sometimes anaconda, sometimes not) May 06 10:37:44 I just worry that if there's no incentive to line content up in time ... hosting successful test days may be impacted May 06 10:37:48 ah yes we need schedual better what to test and when in the process ( mostly our fault ) May 06 10:38:29 for instance no DE related testing until Beta ( though experience should have tough us that by now ) May 06 10:38:45 as in no gui test until beta May 06 10:38:48 --> lfoppiano (n=lfoppian@fedora/lfoppiano) has joined #fedora-meeting May 06 10:39:03 viking_ice: there are a lot of factors when it comes to scheduling them, I'm not ready to accept the blame on that one :) May 06 10:39:20 f13: thanks for the links ... I'll reply with any concerns on the list May 06 10:39:52 hear you man perhaps you should get wider feed back on what to test and when May 06 10:39:53 <-- Nirmal has quit ("Leaving") May 06 10:40:06 so some of that blame can be shared :) May 06 10:40:21 viking_ice: we did ... and we'll do it again for F12 May 06 10:40:33 okay folks, any other discussion topics May 06 10:41:07 not for me May 06 10:41:18 nothing from me.. May 06 10:41:35 I'm good May 06 10:42:13 okay folks ... thanks for your time! May 06 10:42:21 minutes will be on the list soon