FWN/Beats/QualityAssurance: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 05:10, 17 November 2011

QualityAssurance

In this section, we cover the activities of the QA team^[1]. For more information on the work of the QA team and how you can get involved, see the Joining page^[2].

We apologize for the lack of a QA section for the last few issues of FWN: the QA team was very busy with Fedora 16 validation testing. This issue catches up with the QA team news from the last several weeks.

Contributing Writer: Adam Williamson

Test Days

In the past few weeks, we finished up the Fedora 16 Test Day schedule, with Graphics Test Week taking place at the start of September^[1] ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-07_Radeon</ref> ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-07_Radeon</ref>, virtualization test day taking place on 2011-09-15^[2], another i18n desktop test day on 2011-09-22^[3], an ABRT test day on 2011-09-26^[4], a power management test day on 2011-09-29^[5], printing test day on 2011-10-06^[6], Fedora packager plugin for Eclipse test day on 2011-10-13^[7], and Cloud SIG test day on 2011-10-20^[8]. Most of these test days passed off successfully with the work of the developers behind them, despite the QA team being very busy, so many thanks to those who organized and carried out these events, and those who turned up to do the testing.

The Fedora 17 Test Day cycle has not yet started. We welcome proposals for test days for the Fedora 17 cycle, and we usually accept all the proposals that are made. You can propose a test day for almost anything, and organize it yourself following the handy guide we provide^[9], or alternatively we can help out with the organization of the event. Information on how to propose a test day is available on the Wiki^[10].

Fedora 16 preparation

As mentioned above, Fedora 16 release validation took up almost all of the QA team's time during the last few months, with very challenging Beta and Final releases. There were a total of 12 candidate builds for Beta and Final combined, and the whole team put in tireless work running the set of validation tests against each build and then investigating and verifying the large number of blocker bugs identified. The team was able to contribute to the release eventually going ahead with only a one week slip to the Beta schedule and no slip of the Final schedule, a considerable achievement in the light of the many complex changes in the Fedora 16 feature list.

Release criteria updates

Largely as a result of the Fedora 16 validation process, there were several adjustments and additions to the release criteria in recent weeks. After discussion of the proposed kickstart / unattended installation release criterion concluded, Adam Williamson reported that he had committed his proposed modifications^[1]. He also committed a change to reflect the increased priority of EFI installations from Fedora 17 onwards^[2].

Adam also passed on a suggestion from Peter Jones to improve the clarity of the virtualization criteria^[3]. After an extensive discussion, an elegant wording suggestion from Albert Graham^[4] was eventually accepted and committed^[5].

Tim Flink raised the question to what extent support for Xen virtualization should be included in the release criteria^[6]. After a similarly enthusiastic discussion, it was eventually agreed that Xen DomU support - effectively, the ability to install successfully as a Xen guest - should be a Final release criterion^[7].

Adam also proposed downgrading some rarely-used kickstart deployment methods from Beta to Final in the criteria, requiring only the most commonly-used to be working at Beta stage^[8].

Finally, Adam proposed a criterion for i18n (translation) issues^[9]. After discussion, the proposal was agreed upon at a blocker review meeting later in the week^[10].

Update policy changes

In September, Karsten Hopp raised the issue of a security update for Fedora 14 which had been languishing in the updates-testing repository for some time^[1]. Adam Williamson explained that the amount of testers working on older releases was limited, and that the actual karma requirements for updates to be accepted were controlled by FESCo (the Fedora engineering steering committee), not the QA group^[2]. Chuck Anderson noted that he had the update in question installed, but was struggling for lack of information on how to test it properly^[3]. Rahul Sundaram suggested that Karsten file a ticket with FESCo to raise the issue^[4], and Karsten did^[5].

That ticket was merged with another similar one reported by Doug Ledford^[6], which became a topic of concern to FESCo. After several rounds of discussions, FESCo first decided to relax the requirements for critical path updates somewhat by allowing them to be sent through to the stable repository without the 'required' karma after a period of two weeks had elapsed^[7], and later proposed removing the requirement for critical path updates to receive positive karma from a proven tester^[8], effectively a proposal to end the proven tester system, as this is the only function it serves.

The QA group discussed this proposal at the weekly meeting of 2011-11-07^[9], agreeing that, while they had some reservations about the proposal, they were not definitely opposed to it, and recognized that critical path updates not receiving the currently-required karma is a significant problem.

Update candidate notification

Samuel Greenfeld asked if there was any system to notify testers of new candidate updates for specific packages, and to determine what packages are being actively used on a system^[1]. There were no takers for the second question, but for the first, Adam Williamson suggested using yum parameters that would allow one to specify only certain packages be pulled from the updates-testing repository^[2], and Till Maas pointed out that Bodhi can actually provide per-package RSS notifications^[3].

Proven tester meetings

As a response to the concerns about candidate updates not receiving enough karma, Kevin Fenzi ran a series of weekly proven tester meetups^[1] from 2011-09-21 to 2011-10-26. Recaps of these meetings are available in the mailing list archives^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6].

Kevin also proposed an updates-testing-info mailing list, containing only the mails about new packages in updates-testing^[7]. However, the consensus was against the idea, as it was felt that it was easy enough to simply filter the desired mails from the test mailing list for those who did not want to read the other traffic.

QA group representation at FUDCon Pune

Ankur Sinha asked whether anyone from the QA team would be present at the upcoming FUDCon in Pune, India and able to do a presentation on the group's activities^[1]. Adam Williamson replied that unfortunately none of the Red Hat team would be at the conference, but encouraged Ankur to take a shot at giving a presentation himself^[2]. A S Alam then stepped up to volunteer to lead a QA session^[3]. His session was scheduled for 2011-11-04^[4], but we have no report on the event - if you were present, please write to the mailing list and let us know how it went!

[1] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA

[2] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Join

[3] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-06_Nouveau

[4] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-15_Virtualization

[5] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-22_I18n_Desktop

[6] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-26_ABRT

[7] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-29_PowerManagement

[8] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-10-06_Printing

[9] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-10-13_Fedora_Packager_for_Eclipse

[10] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-10-20_Cloud_SIG_Test_Day

[11] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/SOP_Test_Day_management

[12] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days/Create

[13] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102599.html

[14] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102600.html

[15] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102601.html

[16] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102636.html

[17] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103680.html

[18] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/103127.html

[19] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103678.html

[20] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103557.html

[21] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103588.html

[22] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103679.html

[23] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102493.html

[24] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102497.html

[25] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102503.html

[26] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102502.html

[27] ttp://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/664

[28] ttp://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/667

[29] ttp://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/642

[30] ttp://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/667#comment:26

[31] ttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20111107

[32] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102981.html

[33] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102982.html

[34] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102992.html

[35] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102869.html

[36] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/103000.html

[37] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103341.html

[38] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103585.html

[39] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103840.html

[40] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/104043.html

[41] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/103163.html

[42] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103712.html

[43] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103728.html

[44] ttp://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103739.html

[45] ttp://fudcon.in/sessions/fedora-testing

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 == QualityAssurance ==
-In this section, we cover the activities of the QA team<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA</ref>.
+In this section, we cover the activities of the QA team<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA</ref>. For more information on the work of the QA team and how you can get involved, see the Joining page<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Join</ref>.
+We apologize for the lack of a QA section for the last few issues of FWN: the QA team was very busy with Fedora 16 validation testing. This issue catches up with the QA team news from the last several weeks.
 Contributing Writer: [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]]
@@ Line 10: / Line 12: @@
 === Test Days ===
-Last week's first Test Day<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2009-10-20</ref> was on the confined SELinux users feature. The modest turnout of testers managed to run through nearly the whole set of tests and expose several bugs to help refine the feature. The second Test Day<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2009-10-22</ref> was on power management<ref>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PowerManagementF12</ref> improvements in Fedora 12. A good turnout of testers ran the carefully prepared test suite on an even wider array of machines, providing valuable data for the developers.
+In the past few weeks, we finished up the Fedora 16 Test Day schedule, with Graphics Test Week taking place at the start of September<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-06_Nouveau</ref> ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-07_Radeon</ref> ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-07_Radeon</ref>, virtualization test day taking place on 2011-09-15<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-15_Virtualization</ref>, another i18n desktop test day on 2011-09-22<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-22_I18n_Desktop</ref>, an ABRT test day on 2011-09-26<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-26_ABRT</ref>, a power management test day on 2011-09-29<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-09-29_PowerManagement</ref>, printing test day on 2011-10-06<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-10-06_Printing</ref>, Fedora packager plugin for Eclipse test day on 2011-10-13<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-10-13_Fedora_Packager_for_Eclipse</ref>, and Cloud SIG test day on 2011-10-20<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-10-20_Cloud_SIG_Test_Day</ref>. Most of these test days passed off successfully with the work of the developers behind them, despite the QA team being very busy, so many thanks to those who organized and carried out these events, and those who turned up to do the testing.
-Next week's Test Day<ref>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2009-10-29</ref>, the last of the Fedora 12 cycle, will be on internationalization (also known as i18n)<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/I18N</ref> - an event which usually has a strong focus on input methods, but can also cover issues like fonts. This Test Day was previously scheduled for 2009-10-15 but was postponed, this is the new date. The Test Day will run all day on Thursday 2009-10-29 in the #fedora-test-day IRC channel. Please come along and help ensure Fedora works just as well no matter what language you use!
-No Fit and Finish track Test Day is planned for next week.
-If you would like to propose a main track Test Day for the Fedora 13 cycle, please contact the QA team via email or IRC, or file a ticket in QA Trac<ref>http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/</ref>.
+The Fedora 17 Test Day cycle has not yet started. We welcome proposals for test days for the Fedora 17 cycle, and we usually accept all the proposals that are made. You can propose a test day for almost anything, and organize it yourself following the handy guide we provide<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/SOP_Test_Day_management</ref>, or alternatively we can help out with the organization of the event. Information on how to propose a test day is available on the Wiki<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days/Create</ref>.
 <references/>
-=== Weekly meetings ===
+=== Fedora 16 preparation ===
-The QA group weekly meeting<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings</ref> was held on 2009-10-19. The full log is available<ref>http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-10-19/fedora-meeting.2009-10-19-15.58.log.html</ref>. [[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] followed up on concerns raised at the last meeting by [[User:jkeating|Jesse Keating]] that blocker bugs may not be being identified fast enough. James noted that research by himself and [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] indicated almost all issues had been escalated within two days of being identified, which he felt was a good record.
+As mentioned above, Fedora 16 release validation took up almost all of the QA team's time during the last few months, with very challenging Beta and Final releases. There were a total of 12 candidate builds for Beta and Final combined, and the whole team put in tireless work running the set of validation tests against each build and then investigating and verifying the large number of blocker bugs identified. The team was able to contribute to the release eventually going ahead with only a one week slip to the Beta schedule and no slip of the Final schedule, a considerable achievement in the light of the many complex changes in the Fedora 16 feature list.
-[[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] had also investigated the packaging of the israwhidebroken.com project code. He found it was very easy to build a package since the code used Python setuptools. He also reported that he had requested the creation of a public autoqa-devel mailing list for the AutoQA project<ref>https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1733</ref>.
+<references/>
-[[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] initiated a review of the Beta testing process. [[User:Liam|Liam Li]] was thinking about ways to get 100% installation test case coverage, or at least improve the coverage to all tier 2 tests. James was pleased that all tier 1 tests had been covering during the Beta test process. James asked whether it would be possible to reduce the number of tests in the matrix. Liam was not sure whether that would actually reduce release quality. James suggested looking for potential duplication of cases in the matrix. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] wondered if it would be possible to generate a version of the matrix showing only uncompleted tests, so it would be clearer which tests still needed to be performed. James pointed out that the matrix could already be sorted. Adam had not considered that possibility, and suggested that it be explained in Liam's test request emails. Ben Williams pointed out the Fedora Unity test matrix<ref>http://spins.fedoraunity.org/Members/Southern_Gentleman/Fedora%2012%20%20beta%20TestMatrix</ref>, and James suggested merging the two together. [[User:Wwoods|Will Woods]] discussed the possibility of integrating the AutoQA installation test results; he said it would be simpler to just have a link to an external AutoQA results page, but having the AutoQA system insert results into a Wiki page would be possible.
+=== Release criteria updates ===
-[[User:Wwoods|Will Woods]] and [[User:Kparal|Kamil Paral]] reported on the progress of the AutoQA project. Will had been working on getting the production AutoQA instance up and running. He had given up on the idea of having israwhidebroken.com link back to detailed test results, instead planning to provide a page explaining where to find the results. This means israwhidebroken.com can go up as soon as the production AutoQA instance is running. Beyond this, Will has been working on a hook for Koji, which will allow AutoQA to trigger on new builds in Koji. A preliminary version of this code is available<ref>https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/browser/hooks/post-koji-build/watch-koji-builds.py</ref>. Kamil had continued work on his script to monitor important changes in packages, now renamed 'rpmguard'. It is now maintained in AutoQA git<ref>http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/autoqa.git?a=tree;f=tests/rpmguard</ref>. He had created test packages to make sure the script works as intended, and now is looking for feedback from a wider test audience. He planned to write a blog post to try and trigger people to test and provide feedback on the script. He was also looking for suggestions for the best possible output format for the tool.
+Largely as a result of the Fedora 16 validation process, there were several adjustments and additions to the release criteria in recent weeks. After discussion of the proposed kickstart / unattended installation release criterion concluded, [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] reported that he had committed his proposed modifications<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102599.html</ref>. He also committed a change to reflect the increased priority of EFI installations from Fedora 17 onwards<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102600.html</ref>.
-[[User:Johannbg|Jóhann Guðmundsson]] and [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] updated the status of the project to revise debugging-related pages. [[User:Rjune|Richard June]] had helped out by starting work on an alternative template page<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Template:How_to_debug2</ref>. Adam felt it should be possible to come up with a template which would standardize the layout of such pages while still providing enough flexibility to cover different components, but he had not yet had enough time to try and work on this himself. He emphasized that no-one should wait on the planned template before revising pages to fit the new format and naming scheme. [[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] volunteered to work on renaming all existing pages to fit the new naming scheme.
+Adam also passed on a suggestion from [[User:Pjones|Peter Jones]] to improve the clarity of the virtualization criteria<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102601.html</ref>. After an extensive discussion, an elegant wording suggestion from Albert Graham<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102636.html</ref> was eventually accepted and committed<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103680.html</ref>.
-[[User:jkeating|Jesse Keating]] asked the group to help review tag requests for the final release. He noted there was no formal set of requirements for tag requests for critical path packages, but asked reviewers to be sensible in judging whether the change was safe and genuinely necessary. Requests should explain what issue the updated package fixes, why it needs to be fixed, and the likely impact if it is not fixed. He provided an RSS feed<ref>https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/timeline?ticket=on&changeset=on&milestone=on&wiki=on&max=50&daysback=90&format=rss</ref> to monitor tickets as they come in.
+[[User:Tflink|Tim Flink]] raised the question to what extent support for Xen virtualization should be included in the release criteria<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/103127.html</ref>. After a similarly enthusiastic discussion, it was eventually agreed that Xen DomU support - effectively, the ability to install successfully as a Xen guest - should be a Final release criterion<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103678.html</ref>.
-[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] asked the group to help develop the Fedora 12 Common Bugs page<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F12_bugs</ref> by adding issues to it and marking bugs which should be added to it with the CommonBugs keyword. [[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] provided a search URL<ref>http://tinyurl.com/l4kma5</ref> for listing bug reports marked as needing to be added to a Common Bugs page.
+Adam also proposed downgrading some rarely-used kickstart deployment methods from Beta to Final in the criteria, requiring only the most commonly-used to be working at Beta stage<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103557.html</ref>.
-The Bugzappers group weekly meeting<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/Meetings</ref> was held on 2009-10-20. The full log is available<ref>http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-10-20/fedora-meeting.2009-10-20-15.10.log.html</ref>. [[User:Rjune|Richard June]] reported on the progress of the kernel triage project. He had found more bugs that required further information, and was working with [[User:linville|John Linville]] to ensure his process for getting more information on these reports was correct.
+Finally, Adam proposed a criterion for i18n (translation) issues<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103588.html</ref>. After discussion, the proposal was agreed upon at a blocker review meeting later in the week<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103679.html</ref>.
-[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] provided an update on the debugging page revision project, recapping the discussion from the previous day's QA meeting.
+<references/>
-[[User:Tk009|Edward Kirk]] made a suggestion for a Triage Day event. He suggested a day to review all remaining open Fedora 10 bugs, trying to close reports that can be closed and rebase others to later Fedora releases if possible and necessary. The group liked the idea, and there was general agreement on Friday 2009-10-30 at 15:00 UTC as the date and time. Edward promised to announce the event on the mailing list ahead of time.
+=== Update policy changes ===
-Brennan Ashton updated the status of the triage metrics project. He had not had time to work on it since his last update. He had tried to find someone to help maintain the project, but had not yet been successful. However, he had the upcoming week off and would try to produce a summary of the current state of the project to make it easier to find other maintainers. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] and [[User:Tk009|Edward Kirk]] were eager to try and help move the project forward.
+In September, [[User:Karsten|Karsten Hopp]] raised the issue of a security update for Fedora 14 which had been languishing in the updates-testing repository for some time<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102493.html</ref>. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] explained that the amount of testers working on older releases was limited, and that the actual karma requirements for updates to be accepted were controlled by FESCo (the Fedora engineering steering committee), not the QA group<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102497.html</ref>. [[User:Cra|Chuck Anderson]] noted that he had the update in question installed, but was struggling for lack of information on how to test it properly<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102503.html</ref>. [[User:Sundaram|Rahul Sundaram]] suggested that Karsten file a ticket with FESCo to raise the issue<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102502.html</ref>, and Karsten did<ref>http://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/664</ref>.
-[[User:StevenParrish|Steven Parrish]] asked if any other group members would be at the upcoming FUDCon Toronto event<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FUDCon:Toronto_2009</ref>. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] said that he and the rest of the Red Hat Fedora QA team would be there. Steven and Adam noted that limited funding was available for community members to attend the event, and explained that those wanting funding should add their name to the attendee list and check the column for funding. Brennan Ashton asked if anyone else would be driving from Boston. Adam pointed out that there was a group bus<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FUDCon:Toronto_2009#Bus_Travel</ref> being organized.
+That ticket was merged with another similar one reported by Doug Ledford<ref>http://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/667</ref>, which became a topic of concern to FESCo. After several rounds of discussions, FESCo first decided to relax the requirements for critical path updates somewhat by allowing them to be sent through to the stable repository without the 'required' karma after a period of two weeks had elapsed<ref>http://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/642</ref>, and later proposed removing the requirement for critical path updates to receive positive karma from a proven tester<ref>http://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/667#comment:26</ref>, effectively a proposal to end the proven tester system, as this is the only function it serves.
-The next QA weekly meeting will be held on 2009-10-26 at 1600 UTC in #fedora-meeting, and the next Bugzappers weekly meeting on 2009-10-27 at 1500 UTC in #fedora-meeting.
+The QA group discussed this proposal at the weekly meeting of 2011-11-07<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20111107</ref>, agreeing that, while they had some reservations about the proposal, they were not definitely opposed to it, and recognized that critical path updates not receiving the currently-required karma is a significant problem.
 <references/>
-=== Fedora 12 Beta release ===
+=== Update candidate notification ===
-Of course, the week's big news was the release of Fedora 12 Beta<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-October/msg00393.html</ref>. This prompted several threads<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-October/msg00453.html</ref> <ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-October/msg00458.html</ref> <ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-October/msg00486.html</ref> <ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-October/msg00493.html</ref> (and more) from enthusiastic testers, with valuable experiences which [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] encouraged to be turned into bug reports.
+Samuel Greenfeld asked if there was any system to notify testers of new candidate updates for specific packages, and to determine what packages are being actively used on a system<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102981.html</ref>. There were no takers for the second question, but for the first, [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] suggested using yum parameters that would allow one to specify only certain packages be pulled from the updates-testing repository<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102982.html</ref>, and [[User:till|Till Maas]] pointed out that Bodhi can actually provide per-package RSS notifications<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102992.html</ref>.
 <references/>
-=== Confined users Test Day summary ===
+=== Proven tester meetings ===
+As a response to the concerns about candidate updates not receiving enough karma, [[User:Kevin|Kevin Fenzi]] ran a series of weekly proven tester meetups<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/102869.html</ref> from 2011-09-21 to 2011-10-26. Recaps of these meetings are available in the mailing list archives<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/103000.html</ref> <ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103341.html</ref> <ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103585.html</ref> <ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103840.html</ref> <ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/104043.html</ref>.
-Eduard Benes provided a summary<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-October/msg00488.html</ref> of the SELinux confined users Test Day<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2009-10-20</ref>, listing the bug reports resulting from the Test Day and thanking the testers and also [[User:dwalsh|Dan Walsh]], who had already begun resolving reported bugs.
+Kevin also proposed an updates-testing-info mailing list, containing only the mails about new packages in updates-testing<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-September/103163.html</ref>. However, the consensus was against the idea, as it was felt that it was easy enough to simply filter the desired mails from the test mailing list for those who did not want to read the other traffic.
 <references/>
-=== Fedora 12 blocker bug review meeting ===
+=== QA group representation at FUDCon Pune ===
-[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] provided a recap<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-October/msg00579.html</ref> of the blocker bug review meeting which took place on Friday 2009-10-23, linking to a report<ref>http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2009-10-23/fedora-bugzappers.2009-10-23-15.00.html</ref> of the meeting which lists the status and actions decided for all 51 blocker bugs reviewed during the course of the meeting. He thanked all those who attended for their help in reviewing the large load of bugs.
+[[User:Ankursinha|Ankur Sinha]] asked whether anyone from the QA team would be present at the upcoming FUDCon in Pune, India and able to do a presentation on the group's activities<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103712.html</ref>. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] replied that unfortunately none of the Red Hat team would be at the conference, but encouraged Ankur to take a shot at giving a presentation himself<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103728.html</ref>. A S Alam then stepped up to volunteer to lead a QA session<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103739.html</ref>. His session was scheduled for 2011-11-04<ref>http://fudcon.in/sessions/fedora-testing</ref>, but we have no report on the event - if you were present, please write to the mailing list and let us know how it went!
 <references/>

Search