From Fedora Project Wiki
Attendees
- adamw (143)
- dan408\ (77)
- nirik (35)
- jreznik (32)
- tflink (28)
- cwickert (14)
- Southern_Gentlem (5)
- brunowolff (5)
- zodbot (4)
- Martix_ (4)
- dgilmore (4)
- robatino (3)
- Cerlyn (2)
- mkrizek (1)
- pschindl (1)
Agenda
- Fedora 19 retrospective and wrap-up
- Fedora 20 planning
- Taskbot
- Test Days
- Open floor
Fedora 19 retrospective and wrap-up
- The Fedora_19_QA_Retrospective page is now up and ready for feedback
- No-one had any other major post-F19 topics that weren't already in hand
Fedora 20 planning
- nirik and dgilmore will be proposing a new policy for deciding which spins to ship for F20
- adamw will continue with Final criteria rewrite and look at updating the validation test case set
- With the new Changes policy, the F20 'feature list' is Releases/20/ChangeSet
- jreznik would like to see functional validation of Changes for F20
Taskbot
- The current AutoQA setup is running on F17 which will go EOL soon: we may need to spend time moving it to something newer
- tflink says we're hoping to have a functional taskbot in place during F20 cycle
Test Days
- Special out-of-cycle request
- Deferred till next week
Open floor
- The spin-kickstarts package build process has been improved, which may make it less of a pain to do package updates
Action items
- adamw to add an item for Change validation discussion to next week's agenda
IRC Log
adamw | #startmeeting Fedora QA meeting | 15:01 |
---|---|---|
zodbot | Meeting started Mon Jul 1 15:01:54 2013 UTC. The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 15:01 |
zodbot | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. | 15:01 |
adamw | #meetingname fedora-qa | 15:02 |
zodbot | The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa' | 15:02 |
adamw | #topic Roll call | 15:02 |
* pschindl is here | 15:02 | |
* tflink is here | 15:02 | |
dan408\ | hi | 15:02 |
* mkrizek is here | 15:02 | |
* Cerlyn is here | 15:03 | |
adamw | set phasers to FUN | 15:03 |
* jreznik is there, would like to leave a bit earlier, so go on, go on! | 15:03 | |
* brunowolff is here | 15:03 | |
adamw | #topic Fedora 19 retrospective and wrap-up | 15:04 |
adamw | so, we got F19 tested and out the door with only a one week slip - big congratulations to everyone! | 15:04 |
adamw | in case anyone missed the ML message: | 15:05 |
jreznik | yep, thanks everyone! | 15:05 |
adamw | #info I put the retrospective page up recently at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_19_QA_Retrospective | 15:05 |
adamw | you can add feedback on the *QA* process to that page | 15:05 |
Southern_Gentlem | adamw, my question is how the sudo switch is missing from the gnome install | 15:05 |
adamw | Southern_Gentlem: the GNOME team does not want it to be optional. | 15:06 |
adamw | it's by design for that tool. | 15:06 |
adamw | that doesn't quite tie in with anaconda views it, but then i don't think we're quite at the point where GNOME gets to define the UI of *the entire distribution* :) | 15:06 |
Southern_Gentlem | so first boot you have to give admin priviledges to the first user | 15:06 |
adamw | if GNOME was designing the installer, it wouldn't have a switch either: the first user account would always be an admin. | 15:06 |
Southern_Gentlem | something wrong with that | 15:07 |
adamw | if you install GNOME and don't create a user in anaconda, yes. | 15:07 |
* dan408\ sips coffee | 15:07 | |
adamw | so let's see, as well as general f19 stuff, some leading questions... | 15:07 |
adamw | anyone particularly worried about any specific bugs that slipped through the net and have ideas to do anything about them? | 15:08 |
tflink | other than the mac bug? | 15:08 |
dan408\ | no | 15:09 |
tflink | nvm, already on the list | 15:09 |
adamw | including that, if we have anything productive to contribute | 15:09 |
adamw | though personally i'm not hugely concerned about that one | 15:09 |
dan408\ | it's good ol' fedora | 15:09 |
tflink | yeah, I don't have anything to contribute that hasn't already been said | 15:10 |
adamw | can anyone think of any issues we need to document that aren't documented already? | 15:10 |
tflink | I'm minorly concerned about what criteria the cloud folks want to add, but that can wait until they're proposed | 15:11 |
robatino | i'm already seeing bugs 946964/955779 on one of my newly installed F19 boxes. i think it may be a common issue | 15:11 |
dan408\ | nothing really, same usual questions popping up in #fedora | 15:11 |
dan408\ | grub questions, video drivers, getting up and running | 15:12 |
dan408\ | these are pretty much documented | 15:12 |
adamw | cool | 15:12 |
adamw | so no big new stuff | 15:12 |
dan408\ | no. | 15:13 |
dan408\ | i really dont see anything major at the moment | 15:13 |
adamw | robatino: if you can clarify that one it could certainly be a commonbugs candidate, but I haven't had issues using gdm in KVM virt machines | 15:13 |
adamw | thanks dan | 15:13 |
dan408\ | np | 15:14 |
robatino | i'm seeing it on bare metal now (on a machine with blacklisted 82865 video) | 15:14 |
robatino | i'll be investigating more | 15:14 |
adamw | for the record, i've done most of the obvious commonbugs entries, the ones remaining are mostly ones that aren't entirely clear, but i'll take another pass through the list today | 15:15 |
adamw | anything more for f19 or shall we move on to the next one? :) | 15:15 |
jreznik | thanks adamw for commonbugs | 15:15 |
dan408\ | the next one ? | 15:15 |
* dan408\ gets scared | 15:15 | |
adamw | f20! | 15:16 |
dan408\ | NO | 15:16 |
dan408\ | :( | 15:16 |
dan408\ | 2 weeks vacation for all | 15:16 |
adamw | #info Fedora 20 is cancelled, dan408's orders | 15:16 |
dan408\ | not cancelled | 15:16 |
adamw | the official QA dictionary does not know the meaning of the word 'vacation' | 15:17 |
brunowolff | I added a note about getting a TC for the minor spins. | 15:17 |
dan408\ | alright | 15:18 |
adamw | brunowolff: that's really up to releng | 15:18 |
adamw | we don't order them what to build | 15:18 |
adamw | we just ask for a tC | 15:18 |
jreznik | adamw: vacation? is it somehow related to vaca in spanish? :D | 15:18 |
adamw | #topic Fedora 20 planning | 15:19 |
brunowolff | It affected QA of those spins. | 15:19 |
adamw | so F19 is SO last week | 15:19 |
adamw | brunowolff: well, true. | 15:19 |
* nirik would like to clearly propose dgilmore's spins critera for the f20 cycle. | 15:19 | |
adamw | nirik: can you expand on what you mean by that? | 15:19 |
nirik | for tc/rc's we compose all approved spins, but spins must get 2 testers to ack that they passed basic tests. Those that do, are released for that milestone. Those that don't aren't. | 15:20 |
jreznik | for f20 schedule reference - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/20/Schedule (see, no earlier than) | 15:20 |
nirik | if something doesn't get any acks for a cycle, it's dropped. | 15:20 |
dan408\ | can these acks be done via email? | 15:21 |
* nirik was going to write up something for devel/test/spins | 15:21 | |
adamw | dan408\: good question | 15:21 |
nirik | whatever folks would prefer, sure. | 15:21 |
jreznik | nirik: well, we planned it in milano with cwickert too (similar, even for the big spins) - so I'm +1 for that | 15:21 |
nirik | but a wiki might be easier to track | 15:21 |
dan408\ | +1 to a wiki on that | 15:21 |
adamw | we have matrices for desktop spins, we don't print a matrix for every other spin | 15:21 |
jreznik | nirik: or real ticket... | 15:21 |
nirik | yeah, could get confusing tho... with all the spins... | 15:22 |
jreznik | or matrix... | 15:22 |
adamw | a page that just had 'does it boot?' for every spin would be easy to write, i guess. | 15:22 |
* nirik doesn't care how we track it really. | 15:22 | |
adamw | does anyone see a major problem with the policy in general? | 15:22 |
adamw | from a QA perspective? doesn't seem like a problem for us, to me | 15:22 |
nirik | I was thinking: boots, can login, network works? (or any other basic things) | 15:22 |
dan408\ | as long as we aren't dropping spins left and right due to lack of acks, im +1 | 15:22 |
nirik | well, I suspect we will, but we will see. | 15:23 |
adamw | i suspect the *two* tester requirement may be too many | 15:23 |
adamw | we don't get two testers for KDE sometimes, enver mind anything else | 15:23 |
nirik | should it be 1/ | 15:23 |
nirik | ? | 15:23 |
adamw | 1 seems more realistic | 15:23 |
cwickert | hold on | 15:23 |
cwickert | It depends on what you want to test | 15:23 |
adamw | and for a really basic functionality check, i don't see the need for double testing | 15:24 |
nirik | anyhow, I am not saying we approve anything. I am just saying I intend to start a clear dialog on this for f20. ;) | 15:24 |
adamw | cwickert: "<nirik> I was thinking: boots, can login, network works? (or any other basic things)" | 15:24 |
adamw | nirik: sure, understood | 15:24 |
dgilmore | adamw: my thought was the spin maintainer and one other | 15:24 |
cwickert | most spins are based on other spins, so they should have pretty good coverage already | 15:24 |
adamw | #info nirik and dgilmore will be proposing a new policy for deciding which spins to ship for F20 | 15:24 |
cwickert | like the jam-kde spin inherits testing from KDE | 15:25 |
adamw | cwickert: the problem is that just adding packages can bust stuff sometimes, we can't assume a pass for the KDE spin means a pass for all KDE-derived spins | 15:25 |
jreznik | dgilmore: spin maintainer + one other makes sense for me | 15:25 |
nirik | except when it doesn't compose or has other issues. | 15:25 |
adamw | jreznik: i think sometimes, 'spin maintainer' may be all we can get. | 15:25 |
cwickert | all we then need to test is: 1) it composes, 2) it boots, 3) one can login and 4) all applications run as expected | 15:25 |
dgilmore | adamw: i know in the past they have not tested | 15:25 |
adamw | 'all applications run as expected' is a large bear trap | 15:25 |
cwickert | and this should IHNO be done by two people | 15:25 |
cwickert | owner and one more | 15:25 |
adamw | it takes about three hours to run that test for KDE | 15:25 |
dan408\ | +1 cwickert | 15:26 |
adamw | and it's rarely a 100% pass | 15:26 |
nirik | even spin owner is better than what we have now. | 15:26 |
cwickert | s/IHNO/IHMO | 15:26 |
dan408\ | it takes 3 hours to run that test for kde? | 15:26 |
adamw | yup | 15:26 |
dan408\ | is kde really that slow? | 15:26 |
nirik | yeah, all applications is a bit crazy... | 15:26 |
adamw | just launching every damn app in the menus and testing it can do _something_ | 15:26 |
dan408\ | or are you talking about KDE + derivative spins? | 15:26 |
cwickert | adamw: I don't expect it to pass 100, I just expect it to be tested | 15:26 |
adamw | dan408\: no, it just has a lot of apps | 15:26 |
jreznik | dan408\: manually, yes - there are a lot of apps, you have to try to click over, load document | 15:26 |
adamw | dan408\: Desktop has rather fewer, still takes 1-2hrs though | 15:26 |
Cerlyn | testing all apps on something like the security spin would be difficult | 15:26 |
cwickert | adamw: why would it take 3 hours to test kde? | 15:26 |
dan408\ | jreznik: that's what we have you for | 15:27 |
jreznik | definitely time to talk to vhumba about this one | 15:27 |
nirik | I'd be fine with that as an optional. | 15:27 |
cwickert | adamw: you mean according to the criteria I just outlined? | 15:27 |
dan408\ | well KDE is a "release blocking" desktop | 15:27 |
adamw | cwickert: "all applications run as expected" | 15:27 |
adamw | anyhow | 15:27 |
adamw | we don't need to get bogged down in the details | 15:27 |
dan408\ | but for a basic spin you dont need to "launch every app" | 15:27 |
adamw | yeah, that's kinda what I was saying, i don't think that test is even required | 15:27 |
adamw | maybe check the key apps for the spin, sure | 15:27 |
dan408\ | yes. | 15:28 |
dgilmore | so long as people can get in, get online and open a browser is a good start | 15:28 |
dan408\ | i.e. can you open a "konsole" or a "terminal" | 15:28 |
dgilmore | that the apps work as expected is a plus | 15:28 |
* nirik is with dgilmore. We should walk before we run. ;) | 15:28 | |
dan408\ | okay | 15:28 |
dan408\ | i think we are all talking about the same thing here | 15:28 |
adamw | yeah, i think dan's right | 15:29 |
adamw | no-one seems to think the idea is a screaming failure, so let's just wait for the formal proposal and we can bikeshed the details then | 15:29 |
adamw | everyone get your preferred tin of paint ready | 15:29 |
cwickert | adamw: so, how many applications are there in the menu? say 50, starting one takes 10 seconds. that makes it less than 10 minutes. you just fire them up, and see if they start, you don't test each and every menu option | 15:29 |
brunowolff | There are other details regarding arch and whether the image is optical, dd'd to usb or lcti'd to usb that should be considered. | 15:30 |
adamw | cwickert: if you literally just want to see if they run, it might take a bit less. if you want to test at least that you can do some basic operation without it crashing, much longer. | 15:30 |
* nirik notes f19 xfce fails on several apps in that test right now. ;) | 15:30 | |
* cwickert knows | 15:30 | |
dan408\ | heh | 15:30 |
cwickert | LXDE has two fails | 15:30 |
* adamw waves the 'next topic' hammer threateningly | 15:31 | |
dan408\ | maybe there should be a recompose of the live spins | 15:31 |
dan408\ | but i think someone is waving a hammer so i should run | 15:31 |
Southern_Gentlem | a reduction in live spins | 15:31 |
Southern_Gentlem | desktops and provide ks for rest | 15:32 |
adamw | Southern_Gentlem: i don't think there's anything to be gained by arguing about that in a QA meeting. | 15:33 |
adamw | alright | 15:33 |
adamw | so other than this proposal, what do we need to do for F20? | 15:33 |
dan408\ | uh | 15:33 |
nirik | nothing, lets ship it! :) | 15:33 |
adamw | i have a few things lined up: I need to continue revising the final criteria (which got stalled during final validation), and i'd like to go through the whole validation test case set | 15:33 |
dan408\ | how are we pracitcally dealing with "features" | 15:33 |
* nirik runs | 15:33 | |
dan408\ | nirik: you have to compose it first | 15:33 |
nirik | there are no more features. There are now changes. ;) | 15:34 |
adamw | #info adamw will continue with Final criteria rewrite and look at updating the validation test case set | 15:34 |
dan408\ | nirik: right | 15:34 |
adamw | dan408\: is the question 'how do things change for QA with the new Changes process'? | 15:34 |
adamw | if so, excellent question | 15:34 |
dan408\ | yes | 15:34 |
dan408\ | sure | 15:34 |
adamw | nirik: can you help us with that? | 15:35 |
* dan408\ is trying to help with a "change" for 20 | 15:35 | |
nirik | I could try. ;) I don't think things change too much aside from that the 'standalone' ones vs system wide might help with what you need to test? | 15:35 |
dan408\ | i guess for me it was more of a better understanding, and now i guess it's more for adamw to write criteron for standalone vs systemwide changes? | 15:36 |
adamw | i don't know if there's some kind of obvious criterion | 15:37 |
adamw | and i'm not the only one who can write criteria :) | 15:37 |
dan408\ | there is | 15:37 |
adamw | if you think we need one, draft one up | 15:37 |
dan408\ | so i guess there should be a decision of whether certain systemwide changes should be "release blocking" or not | 15:37 |
adamw | the distinction between 'standalone' and 'systemwide' should give us some clues of what to test | 15:37 |
dan408\ | fesco is no longer voting on these things anymore | 15:38 |
adamw | well, what would it mean for a Change to be 'release blocking'? | 15:38 |
dan408\ | they are just proposed | 15:38 |
dan408\ | adamw: Well, do we plan any more anconda "improvements" for 20? | 15:38 |
dan408\ | Gnome 3.10 would be a systemwide change wouldn't it? | 15:38 |
* jreznik would be glad so see qa involved in change process - especially what we miss now is the final ON_QA validation step - especially for the bigger system wide ones... | 15:39 | |
dan408\ | Well what fesco used to vote on, who votes on it now? QA? | 15:39 |
adamw | as in voting on whether features are 'approved'? | 15:39 |
jreznik | dan408\: FESCo still votes on both | 15:39 |
* nirik gets back. what? | 15:40 | |
dan408\ | thank god | 15:40 |
adamw | nirik: who's right, jreznik or dan? | 15:40 |
jreznik | just for systemwide - FESCo wants change by change, for selfcontained - in batch | 15:40 |
nirik | right. | 15:40 |
nirik | actually I thought we were just approving selfcontained unless someone asked for a vote. | 15:40 |
nirik | but either way. | 15:40 |
jreznik | if somebody is not ok with selfcontained being selfcontained - it could be raised to fesco to vote on as nirik says | 15:41 |
* dan408\ thinks all systemwide changes should be approved by fesco | 15:41 | |
nirik | all of them go to devel list for comment. | 15:41 |
adamw | i think that's clearly the case | 15:41 |
nirik | all systemwide ones must be passed by fesco | 15:41 |
adamw | okay | 15:41 |
dan408\ | then self contained can just go to devel list | 15:41 |
adamw | so we don't need to try and take that function over or anything, dan. but thanks for raising it | 15:41 |
dan408\ | right because there's obviously confusion there | 15:42 |
adamw | dan408\: i think everyone's clear that systemwide Changes are reviewed, though. which is the important thing | 15:42 |
dan408\ | so i guess once that's done | 15:42 |
adamw | we should certainly read the threads on devel@ and point out concerns we have with Changes from a QA perspective, btw | 15:42 |
dan408\ | we can get to testing these things | 15:42 |
adamw | i've been doing that, but it'd be great if others can too | 15:42 |
dan408\ | well jreznik needs to send out the list.. | 15:43 |
dan408\ | i kind of made a copy for 20 out of panic | 15:43 |
jreznik | adamw: yes, that's one important thing from qa perspective | 15:43 |
adamw | dan408\: each systemwide Change should show up as its own thread on devel@ | 15:44 |
jreznik | adamw: and that other part is validation of at least of systemwide changes | 15:44 |
dan408\ | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/20/FeatureList | 15:44 |
jreznik | aka is it really implemented? | 15:44 |
dan408\ | there is nothing up there | 15:44 |
adamw | well, that gets back to the question I asked Dan above | 15:44 |
jreznik | dan408\: it's not used anymore | 15:44 |
adamw | what does 'validation' of a feature mean exactly? | 15:44 |
nirik | we should remove/fix that page | 15:44 |
dan408\ | jreznik: which is bad imo | 15:44 |
adamw | that the feature works 100%? that it works at all? that it doesn't cause breakage in anything else? what? | 15:44 |
dan408\ | how do we track this now | 15:44 |
nirik | there will be another page without the word "Feature" in it? | 15:45 |
adamw | good question dan | 15:45 |
jreznik | dan408\: it's going to be replaced by https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/20/ChangeSet - being, sorry, only two accepted changes and I have to change my script to generate right list | 15:45 |
jreznik | nirik: yes | 15:45 |
adamw | nirik: i'd expect the 'FeatureList' location to re-direct to the new list for at least a few releases | 15:45 |
dan408\ | why are we confusing the hell out of people? | 15:45 |
adamw | i don't know about anyone else, but XX/FeatureList is in *my* muscle memory | 15:45 |
jreznik | adamw: of course I can do it | 15:45 |
nirik | and possibly not in wiki... up to jreznik | 15:45 |
dan408\ | adamw: +1 | 15:46 |
dan408\ | that is why i basically copied the wiki page at the time | 15:46 |
dan408\ | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/19/FeatureList | 15:46 |
dan408\ | this is beautiful | 15:46 |
jreznik | adamw: the idea was to extend the list with more info - not only a list but a place with details - see the ChangeSet template... there should be docs, marketing and I'm more than happy to track QA status there too | 15:46 |
adamw | redirect to Releases/20/ChangeSet would be fine. | 15:46 |
jreznik | adamw: ok, I redirect from old policy and yeah, I'll do it for a few releases too | 15:47 |
adamw | so my take on 'validating features' has always been that, well, we validate the release | 15:47 |
adamw | features are a part of the release | 15:47 |
jreznik | for FeatuesList/ChangeSet | 15:47 |
adamw | if they break something important, our validation tests should catch that | 15:47 |
jreznik | adamw: release is validated, does it mean some changes are really implemented? no | 15:47 |
dan408\ | I guess we will repropose E for f20 as a "self contained" feature | 15:47 |
adamw | but i'm not sure if that philosophy is water-tight; we might want to reconsider | 15:48 |
jreznik | dan408\: do it please and let me knwo | 15:48 |
dan408\ | let's make sure that whatever is listed under the features category is moved to the changes category | 15:48 |
adamw | jreznik: so, you want us to test that the Changes all actually work? that's another bunch of work for us to do, i guess | 15:48 |
dan408\ | #link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Enlightenment | 15:48 |
jreznik | adamw: one thing is - we know release is ok, but we are never 100% sure if all changes are ok and you know, we do release announcements (and many times we realized hey, it's actually not there etc.) | 15:49 |
adamw | #info jreznik would like to see functional validation of Changes for F20 | 15:49 |
adamw | volunteers welcome... | 15:49 |
jreznik | adamw: that's the question if it's doable... | 15:49 |
adamw | well, we can look at that | 15:49 |
adamw | for now let's move on as time is getting short | 15:49 |
tflink | yeah, that sounds like a lot of additional work | 15:49 |
dan408\ | jreznik: I guess you just need to check http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:FeatureReadyForWrangler | 15:50 |
jreznik | tflink: it is but it's something we miss now :( | 15:50 |
adamw | #action adamw to add an item for Change validation discussion to next week's agenda | 15:50 |
adamw | let's discuss it in more depth next week | 15:50 |
jreznik | dan408\: I'm in touch with owners and we're migrating it from features to changes | 15:50 |
adamw | #topic Taskbot | 15:50 |
dan408\ | jreznik: okay | 15:50 |
adamw | wanted to check in on the current status of taskbot | 15:51 |
adamw | #chair tflink | 15:51 |
zodbot | Current chairs: adamw tflink | 15:51 |
adamw | what's the news, flinkonian one? | 15:51 |
tflink | not much to say, getting ramped up now that F19 is mostly over | 15:51 |
tflink | I want to get something in place before F20 starts up | 15:52 |
adamw | that'd be nice | 15:52 |
tflink | but most of AutoQA is running on F17, so that may need fixing sooner than later | 15:52 |
adamw | ah, yes | 15:52 |
adamw | #info current AutoQA setup is running on F17 which will go EOL soon: we may need to spend time moving it to something newer | 15:52 |
tflink | the fedora version doesn't really matter much for our current tests | 15:53 |
tflink | but it seems like bad form to be running on an EOL version | 15:53 |
dan408\ | well time to upgrade to 19 or "rawhide" ? | 15:53 |
tflink | yeah, it's just a lot of work | 15:54 |
adamw | i'm not sure if it's worth wasting a lot of work for 'bad form' | 15:54 |
adamw | if there's no actual security issue to running an EOL'ed Fedora for the test machines... | 15:54 |
tflink | they're all behind a firewall | 15:54 |
dan408\ | do they have selinux enabled? :P | 15:55 |
tflink | everything publicly accessible is running el6 | 15:55 |
tflink | dan408\: not sure I see how that matters | 15:55 |
tflink | they don't even have public ips | 15:55 |
adamw | just a joke, i think | 15:55 |
dan408\ | kind of a joke | 15:55 |
adamw | so, i'd consider that question before spending a bunch of time on it | 15:55 |
adamw | especially if there is a realistic road ahead to taskbot in a reasonably short timeframe and this would delay that | 15:55 |
tflink | yeah, I was hoping to avoid upgrading if we can | 15:55 |
adamw | maybe work with infra to see what they think | 15:56 |
tflink | about the upgrade? | 15:56 |
adamw | yeah | 15:56 |
tflink | that's all us | 15:56 |
adamw | if they can think of an actual practical reason we may need to do it | 15:56 |
adamw | ah okay., | 15:56 |
tflink | but it would be worth asking if they can see an issue with the plan | 15:56 |
adamw | right, more input always valuable | 15:57 |
adamw | as for taskbot, what were you hoping to get in place? | 15:57 |
tflink | I | 15:57 |
tflink | I'd like to get something mostly equivalent to AutoQA soon | 15:58 |
nirik | reinstalling thing should be pretty easy I would think... but happy to discuss details. | 15:58 |
tflink | nirik: there are some complications in doing that which lead back to the mess that is the method we use for sysadmin | 15:58 |
adamw | well, that'd sure be nice if we can do it | 15:58 |
adamw | is there stuff that people can help out with? I see john dulaney has been trying to help with depcheck testing | 15:59 |
nirik | tflink: yeah, lets talk in admin later and hash out a plan. | 15:59 |
* tflink has another meeting @ the top of the hour | 15:59 | |
tflink | at the moment, not much - there are still way too many variables | 15:59 |
adamw | okay | 15:59 |
* nirik nods. Later is just fine. | 15:59 | |
adamw | we can move the test day topic to next week | 16:00 |
tflink | ideas for tests, or even better - code | 16:00 |
Martix_ | adamw: I'm here | 16:00 |
Martix_ | adamw: but I'll be here also next week ;-) | 16:00 |
adamw | #info we're hoping to have a functional taskbot in place during F20 cycle | 16:00 |
adamw | Martix_: the date on the special request wasn't super soon, was it? | 16:00 |
Martix_ | adamw: what special request? | 16:01 |
adamw | it isn't, okay. | 16:01 |
adamw | let's do that next week | 16:01 |
Martix_ | ok :-) | 16:01 |
adamw | #topic open floor | 16:01 |
tflink | wait, I got the time wrong on the next meeting. oh well not much to say right now, anyways | 16:01 |
adamw | anyone have anything important we didn't cover? | 16:01 |
dan408\ | i think we're good | 16:02 |
jreznik | no blocker meeting follow up today? :) | 16:02 |
adamw | f20 blockers, sure :) | 16:02 |
* adamw found one yesterday | 16:02 | |
dan408\ | ack | 16:02 |
brunowolff | Semi related to QA is that spin-kickstarts has been changed to be easier to build. | 16:03 |
adamw | awesome, thanks bruno | 16:04 |
dan408\ | yup saw your email on that | 16:04 |
adamw | #info spin-kickstarts package build process has been improved, which may make it less of a pain to do s-k updates | 16:04 |
adamw | anything else, folks? | 16:06 |
* adamw attaches Quantum Fuse to Cat | 16:06 | |
tflink | that brings up bad images | 16:06 |
adamw | =) | 16:07 |
adamw | okay, thanks for coming out everyone | 16:07 |
adamw | #endmeeting | 16:07 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.12.1 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!