From Fedora Project Wiki
Attendees
People present (lines said):
- jlaska (133)
- wwoods (121)
- adamw (67)
- j_dulaney (66)
- kparal (29)
- Viking-Ice (25)
- jskladan (11)
- tertl3 (11)
- dafrito (6)
- vaschenb (6)
- fedbot (4)
- zodbot (3)
- Southern_Gentlem (1)
Regrets:
Agenda
Previous meeting follow-up
- jlaska to cleanup (or remove) the Critical Path Packages#Background section so that it provides _some_ value
- j_dulaney to draft a combined proventesters / joinproventesters wiki page for list review
- wwoods to evaluate nss-softokn dependency problem for proper 'depcheck' coverage
Pre-Alpha Rawhide Acceptance Test Plan #1
- Owner - User:jlaska
- Summary
- Per task#4 on the fedora-qa schedule, a rawhide acceptance test run was scheduled for 2010-07-09.
- See
rel-eng ticket#3842, images built on Jul 12, 2010. - Next steps ...
- Testing underway, results posted to Test_Results:Fedora_14_Pre-Alpha_Rawhide_Acceptance_Test_1
- Test summary will be sent to test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora 14 Install Matrix Review
- Owner - User:rhe
- Summary
- Updated Fedora 14 install test plan template and test matrix available
- The proposed pages will be used to test Fedora 14
- Next steps ...
- Rhe has requested review and make suggestions/corrections as needed. Feedback encouraged!
Proventester Update
- Owner - User:Maxamillion, User:Adamwill
- Summary
- Adam Miller announced that the proventesters wiki page (QA/JoinProvenTesters) is no longer a draft.
- There are several TRAC requests to join the proventesters group.
- User:Adamwill drafted proventester instructions and sent to the list for review.
- Several draft documents were out for review: User:Adamwill/Draft_proventesters, User:Dafrito/Proven_tester, User:Jdulaney/Proven_Tester
- Next steps
- Choose a draft wiki page
- Discuss generating recurring critpath+proventester metrics
AutoQA PUATP
- Owner - User:wwoods
- Summary
- In order to accomplish the QA:Package_Update_Acceptance_Test_Plan, wwoods proposed prioritizing the following autoqa milestones
- depcheck
- multi-hook test support
- Finalize test base class patchset
- Finalize label patchset
- Next steps...
- Start picking up tickets in the above milestones
Open discussion - <Your topic here>
Reporting bugs upstream vs fedora bugzilla
- Owner - User:Johannbg
- Summary
- Asked for QA to make a decision on a debate from devel@ regarding whether bugs should be submitted against Fedora, or against the upstream project.
- Expressed concerns for time wasted by bug reports and maintainers if some bugs are not tracked in Fedora, but upstream
- Next steps...
- Not enough time for discussion, and no consensus reached.
- Continue discussion on list
Upcoming QA events
- 2010-07-08 - Pre-Alpha Rawhide Acceptance Test Plan #1
- 2010-07-15 - Pre-Alpha Rawhide Acceptance Test Plan #2
- 2010-07-22 - Pre-Alpha Rawhide Acceptance Test Plan #3
- 2010-07-23 - Alpha Blocker Meeting (f14alpha) #1
- 2010-07-30 - Alpha Blocker Meeting (f14alpha) #2
Action items
- adamw to talk with lmacken about generating recurring email reports on proventester
IRC Transcript
| jlaska | #startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting | 15:00 |
|---|---|---|
| zodbot | Meeting started Mon Jul 12 15:00:19 2010 UTC. The chair is jlaska. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 15:00 |
| zodbot | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. | 15:00 |
| jlaska | #meetingname fedora-qa | 15:00 |
| zodbot | The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa' | 15:00 |
| jlaska | #topic Gathering ... | 15:00 |
| * jlaska waits a few minutes for folks to arrive | 15:00 | |
| adamw | mor-diddly-orning | 15:00 |
| * jskladan tips the hat | 15:01 | |
| * kparal joins up | 15:01 | |
| * dafrito waves | 15:01 | |
| * tertl3 arrives | 15:01 | |
| * j_dulaney killes a Kligon | 15:01 | |
| j_dulaney | kills | 15:01 |
| * j_dulaney decides to sleep as soon as this is done | 15:02 | |
| kparal | what an attendence :) | 15:02 |
| kparal | nice | 15:02 |
| j_dulaney | better than last week | 15:02 |
| * wwoods here | 15:02 | |
| jlaska | howdy all | 15:02 |
| * vaschenb newbie is nervous :-) | 15:02 | |
| * Southern_Gentlem | 15:02 | |
| j_dulaney | vaschenb: why? | 15:03 |
| kparal | he don't know what tortures to expect :) | 15:03 |
| vaschenb | j_dulaney: it's my first time :-D | 15:03 |
| j_dulaney | Read and learn | 15:03 |
| jskladan | he's still waiting for the hazing to start :) | 15:03 |
| j_dulaney | Ah | 15:03 |
| adamw | alright, time to start thinning the herd! | 15:03 |
| wwoods | oh boy a new guy! do we have the dump truck full of manure ready or what | 15:03 |
| * adamw revs up the chainsaw | 15:03 | |
| jlaska | wwoods: haha | 15:03 |
| wwoods | I mean er uh. WELCOME | 15:03 |
| adamw | oh, that's right, wwoods - manure before chainsaw. where ARE my manners | 15:04 |
| jskladan | :-D | 15:04 |
| kparal | lol | 15:04 |
| j_dulaney | tertl3 is also new | 15:04 |
| * jskladan lolz | 15:04 | |
| tertl3 | yes | 15:04 |
| tertl3 | I am a noob | 15:04 |
| jlaska | alrighty, I think we have critical mass ... let's get started | 15:04 |
| vaschenb | tertl3: welcome into virgin group :-) | 15:04 |
| jlaska | #topic Previous meeting follow-up | 15:05 |
| jlaska | #info jlaska to cleanup (or remove) the Critical Path Packages#Background section so that it provides _some_ value | 15:05 |
| jlaska | nothing sexy, but I added some wording to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_Path_Packages#Background | 15:05 |
| adamw | that looks a lot better. | 15:06 |
| jlaska | Unless there is rioting in the streets, let's get this off my list :) | 15:06 |
| dafrito | no riots here ;) | 15:06 |
| jlaska | dafrito and adamw are the wiki-experts ... suggestions always encouraged | 15:06 |
| jlaska | alrighty ... thanks | 15:06 |
| jlaska | this next one really has several threads tracking it ... | 15:07 |
| jlaska | #info j_dulaney to draft a combined proventesters / joinproventesters wiki page for list review | 15:07 |
| jlaska | we have a few drafts ... shall we save the updates on this for the proventester update | 15:07 |
| adamw | sure, that'd make sense to me | 15:07 |
| j_dulaney | Indee | 15:07 |
| jlaska | alrighty ... | 15:07 |
| j_dulaney | indeed | 15:07 |
| jlaska | last one ... | 15:08 |
| jlaska | #info wwoods to evaluate nss-softokn dependency problem for proper 'depcheck' coverage | 15:08 |
| jlaska | and from what I can tell, this was done already | 15:08 |
| jlaska | #link http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-July/138478.html | 15:08 |
| wwoods | right - we still want to write up a test case for this, when we start writing depcheck test cases | 15:08 |
| jlaska | roger, I think you've got that captured already in trac too | 15:09 |
| wwoods | but I think that description of the problem will be sufficient to allow that, and theoreticallly depcheck should catch that, if it runs mash | 15:09 |
| wwoods | (which it will) | 15:09 |
| adamw | cool | 15:09 |
| jlaska | alrighty ... that's all I had on my list from last week | 15:09 |
| jlaska | anything I missed? | 15:09 |
| jlaska | okay ... diving into the agenda | 15:10 |
| jlaska | 2 brief updates ... | 15:10 |
| jlaska | #topic Pre-Alpha Rawhide Acceptance Test Plan #1 | 15:10 |
| jlaska | < insert thunder and lightning > | 15:10 |
| * j_dulaney ducks and covers | 15:11 | |
| jlaska | it has started ... we hit our first of 3 Fedora 14 pre-alpha acceptance test milestones last Thursday | 15:11 |
| jlaska | these are still very much experimental test runs ... intended primarily to run through the rawhide acceptance test plan | 15:11 |
| jlaska | updated anaconda+pykickstart were built last week, and install images were built by rel-eng over the weekend | 15:12 |
| jlaska | Testing is underway ... and I'll send a test summary to the list in the next day or so | 15:12 |
| j_dulaney | available in the nightly builds? | 15:12 |
| jlaska | no ... nightly installable rawhide images are not provided | 15:13 |
| jlaska | this milestone is intended to help scrub custom-built rawhide install images before F-14 Alpha ... to help shake out early bugs | 15:13 |
| jlaska | #info jlaska to send test summary to test@l.fp.org once complete | 15:14 |
| jlaska | #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_14_Pre-Alpha_Rawhide_Acceptance_Test_1 | 15:14 |
| adamw | the nightly composes are running, though. and i think they're rawhide. | 15:14 |
| jlaska | yes indeed, those are just package repos. So as always, you can update to rawhide using the documented procedures | 15:14 |
| jlaska | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Rawhide#Installing_Rawhide | 15:14 |
| jlaska | Okay, next up ... | 15:15 |
| jlaska | #topic Fedora 14 Install Matrix Review | 15:15 |
| adamw | er, what? i mean the nightly live images. | 15:15 |
| jlaska | Hurry (rhe) has been putting the finishing touches on the much improved install test matrix | 15:15 |
| adamw | oh well. | 15:15 |
| jlaska | adamw: ah I see, yes you are right :) | 15:15 |
| jlaska | adamw: too much nightly content to keep track of | 15:15 |
| adamw | fwiw, i don't particular recommend rawhide right now, for GNOME anyway. it's so broken i'm in XFCE. | 15:16 |
| adamw | just as a note =) | 15:16 |
| jlaska | #info Hurry has an updated F14 install test plan out for review at - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_14_Install_Test_Plan | 15:16 |
| jlaska | adamw: good to note, thanks | 15:16 |
| * j_dulaney couldn't get it to boot last time he tested it | 15:16 | |
| jlaska | #info Hurry has an updated F14 install test matrix out for review as well - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_14_Install_Results_Template | 15:16 |
| adamw | i've been following the trac tickets, looks like nice stuff | 15:16 |
| jlaska | yeah, should be some nice improvements | 15:17 |
| jlaska | easier to see which tests/results impact the different use cases (cd, dvd, boot.iso etc...) | 15:17 |
| jlaska | Hurry welcomes feedback on those 2 wiki documents. Unless anything drastic, we'll be using those to track install testing for F-14 | 15:18 |
| jlaska | okay ... next topic ... | 15:18 |
| jlaska | #topic Proventester Update | 15:18 |
| jlaska | quite a bit of wiki love over the last week | 15:19 |
| jlaska | who wants to take this one? | 15:19 |
| dafrito | there ended up being three drafts, and I think we settled on adamw's | 15:20 |
| adamw | drafts: | 15:20 |
| adamw | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_proventesters <--- adamw | 15:20 |
| adamw | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Dafrito/Proven_tester <--- dafrito | 15:20 |
| adamw | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jdulaney/Proven_Tester <--- j_dulaney | 15:21 |
| j_dulaney | I believe adamw's to be the best | 15:21 |
| adamw | dulaney's came first, then dafrito's, then mine. so far, dafrito and I say we prefer mine, mike c says he likes it too, no-one else has said much. =) | 15:22 |
| adamw | I also like how none of us can agree on the page name =) | 15:22 |
| j_dulaney | LOL | 15:22 |
| jlaska | does this replace QA/JoinProvenTesters and Proven_tester? | 15:22 |
| dafrito | hehe | 15:22 |
| j_dulaney | jlaska: indeed | 15:22 |
| j_dulaney | adamw's seems to be the clearest of the lot to me. | 15:23 |
| j_dulaney | My version is a kluge combining what was really two drafts. | 15:23 |
| jlaska | yeah, I like adding back the sections for specific types of feedback ... but like I said in email, that might be specific to the odd way my brain works :) | 15:23 |
| jlaska | so, should we consider this topic _voted_ on then? | 15:24 |
| j_dulaney | jlaska: I concur | 15:24 |
| j_dulaney | however you spell it | 15:24 |
| adamw | if so i'll go ahead and move mine into the live namespace, and edit one of the pages to be a redirect to it | 15:24 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: got it in one | 15:24 |
| dafrito | yeah, my version was off-topic, I'd go with adam's | 15:25 |
| jlaska | +1 | 15:25 |
| j_dulaney | I'll go ahead and axe mine | 15:25 |
| jlaska | btw ... good work all around folks, nice to see this process flow with proposed drafts | 15:25 |
| dafrito | Did we want to rename the page to proventesters as well? | 15:26 |
| adamw | nah, i'll keep the Proven_tester name | 15:26 |
| jlaska | let's see how many different page names we can come up with :) | 15:26 |
| adamw | it's best to avoid page renames whenever possible | 15:26 |
| adamw | mediawiki gets lost after one level of redirects | 15:26 |
| kparal | really? doh | 15:27 |
| adamw | i'll put this draft into the Proven_tester name and edit JoinProvenTesters to be a redirect to it | 15:27 |
| adamw | kparal: yeah. try creating a page, then rename it twice, then go to the URL of the first name | 15:27 |
| j_dulaney | adamw: I'd say go ahead | 15:27 |
| jlaska | the websites team has a script they run periodically to remove all those double/triple redirects | 15:27 |
| jlaska | but still, it can get confusing | 15:28 |
| jlaska | #info team agreed to make User:Adamwill/Draft_proventesters the official Proven_tester page | 15:29 |
| jlaska | Alright, I'm not aware of anything else we need to be tracking for Proventesters | 15:29 |
| jlaska | perhaps the proventester mentor requests? | 15:29 |
| j_dulaney | I was going to ask, how do y'all thik it's going since activation? | 15:30 |
| adamw | well, it's hard to tell | 15:30 |
| adamw | that's one thing i wanted to mention | 15:30 |
| jlaska | that brings up a good follow-up topic | 15:30 |
| adamw | it'd be nice to be able to track proven tester feedback | 15:30 |
| adamw | after all, we all know how easy metrics are! (sorry, injoke for the bugzappers crowd) | 15:30 |
| jlaska | lmacken: has some scripts he used to generate metrics ... we could investigate using those scripts for a weekly test summary? | 15:31 |
| jlaska | http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-June/137413.html | 15:31 |
| adamw | i think there's already a report on bodhi feedback sent to -devel periodically; i've been meaning to email the author to ask if it can be adjusted to report only on feedback from proventesters, and only for critpath packages | 15:31 |
| j_dulaney | There seems to be a lot of 0 karma | 15:32 |
| jlaska | I'm seeing 11 untested F13 critpath updates - https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/critpath?release=F13&untested=True | 15:33 |
| j_dulaney | In several cases, it seems that the 0 karma was given for packages that are core to Fedora, but people are unfamiliar with them | 15:33 |
| jlaska | Shall we keep this on the list for a future meeting? | 15:34 |
| j_dulaney | It seems that folks aren't looking at what a package does | 15:34 |
| * j_dulaney is guilty of that | 15:34 | |
| jlaska | adamw: do you have a link to one of those sample reports? Perhaps someone is interested in following-up on that topic? | 15:34 |
| adamw | i can see a couple of packages in that report which are somewhat trickyt | 15:35 |
| wwoods | might be good to ask the package maintainers for some info about how to do basic package verification/acceptance | 15:35 |
| wwoods | *somebody*'s gotta have a clue | 15:35 |
| adamw | for koji and mash, clearly we need someone in releng to be active as a proventester | 15:35 |
| jlaska | e.g. mash, koji | 15:35 |
| adamw | iscsi-utils is very hardware-specific | 15:35 |
| j_dulaney | Indeed | 15:36 |
| adamw | as is wacom | 15:36 |
| wwoods | adamw: not really - you can have both iscsi endpoints be all-software, as I understand it | 15:36 |
| wwoods | wacom, yes | 15:36 |
| adamw | wwoods: okay, knowing-what-the-hell-you're-doing specific =) | 15:36 |
| j_dulaney | what is wacom? | 15:36 |
| wwoods | one could argue that all package testing has that specific requirement. | 15:36 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: tablets | 15:36 |
| j_dulaney | Ah | 15:36 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: (the ones artists use) | 15:36 |
| jlaska | so do we have 2 topics here ... | 15:36 |
| wwoods | wacom tablets are far less rare | 15:36 |
| j_dulaney | I'm a moron then | 15:36 |
| j_dulaney | I have one | 15:36 |
| wwoods | you can get one for like $40 | 15:36 |
| jlaska | 1) generating proventester metrics | 15:36 |
| adamw | wwoods: sure, you know what I mean - knowing-what-the-hell-you're-doing-with-something-somewhat-obscure | 15:37 |
| j_dulaney | I didn't think about using it for testing | 15:37 |
| jlaska | 2) providing some package-specific wiki test guidelines | 15:37 |
| jlaska | ? | 15:37 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: okay, then problem solved - plug it in, check you can scribble on it at every boot, and +1 the wacom updates | 15:37 |
| j_dulaney | adamw: roger | 15:37 |
| adamw | jlaska: i can't find the karma reports i'm thinking of, any more :/ | 15:38 |
| adamw | jlaska: i'm fairly sure it wasn't just an opium dream though... | 15:38 |
| jlaska | adamw: did you see the lmackenreport I linked to above? | 15:38 |
| adamw | yeah, that's not what i was thinking of, though close | 15:38 |
| jlaska | okay | 15:38 |
| adamw | i guess it's not too important, obviously luke's the guy to ask | 15:38 |
| * adamw strictly follows his rule to never touch a drop of opium till after 2pm | 15:39 | |
| jlaska | okay ... anyone want to take this up with Luke, see how perhaps we can generate proventester reports on a recurring basis? | 15:39 |
| adamw | i will | 15:39 |
| jlaska | everyone take 1 step back ... except adamw! | 15:39 |
| jlaska | hehe | 15:40 |
| jlaska | thanks adamw | 15:40 |
| adamw | one other from the list; openldap is there because it can be involved in login, i think? | 15:40 |
| jlaska | #action adamw to talk with lmacken about generating recurring email reports on proventester | 15:40 |
| adamw | so we kinda need someone with an LDAP auth system to +1 those updates | 15:40 |
| j_dulaney | I wish there was a list somewhere of what the critpath updats do | 15:41 |
| jlaska | I think sudo requires it | 15:41 |
| adamw | jlaska: oh, hmm...didn't know that | 15:41 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: how do you mean, exactly? what the update changed? | 15:41 |
| jlaska | okay, so anything else we want to track on this topic for next week? | 15:41 |
| adamw | hum | 15:42 |
| adamw | i think the mentoring process is going fine so far | 15:42 |
| j_dulaney | adamw: What the library does, so we know if we can test it or not | 15:42 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: ah, so just what jlaska mentioned above | 15:42 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: a couple of things you can do - look at the RPM description (rpm -q packagename) and also what requires the package (use repoquery for that) | 15:42 |
| adamw | that often gives you a good idea of what it's for | 15:43 |
| jlaska | # repoquery -q --whatrequires $foo | 15:43 |
| wwoods | ITYM rpm -qi packagename | 15:43 |
| j_dulaney | @ping | 15:44 |
| j_dulaney | @ping | 15:44 |
| fedbot | pong | 15:44 |
| j_dulaney | @ping | 15:44 |
| fedbot | pong | 15:44 |
| fedbot | pong | 15:44 |
| jlaska | that was odd | 15:44 |
| j_dulaney | Ugh | 15:45 |
| j_dulaney | @ping | 15:45 |
| fedbot | j_dulaney: You've given me 3 commands within the last minute; I'm now ignoring you for 5 minutes. | 15:45 |
| jlaska | alright, I'd like to leave at least 15 minutes for the last topic | 15:45 |
| wwoods | j_dulaney: please don't do that in the channel, esp. in the middle of a meeting | 15:45 |
| wwoods | j_dulaney: consider privmsgs for talking to the bot | 15:45 |
| jlaska | anything else to track for next week? | 15:45 |
| j_dulaney | I apoligize, my connection went wacky | 15:45 |
| jlaska | alrighty ... we'll follow-up on the metrics topic next week then | 15:46 |
| jlaska | thanks folks | 15:46 |
| jlaska | next up ... | 15:46 |
| adamw | wwoods: rpm -qi gives you the package description. repoquery --whatrequires tells you what requires it (well, you also have to do it for everything it provides). | 15:46 |
| wwoods | (adamw: right you said "look at the RPM description (rpm -q packagename)" - rpm -q isn't gonna give you the description.) | 15:47 |
| jlaska | #topic AutoQA Package Update Acceptance Test Plan | 15:47 |
| jlaska | wwoods: apologies, I was hoping to leave you more time to discuss today | 15:47 |
| adamw | wwoods: oh yes, thanks :) | 15:48 |
| wwoods | jlaska: s'ok | 15:48 |
| wwoods | so right - we've got this excellent acceptance plan for package updates | 15:48 |
| wwoods | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Package_Update_Acceptance_Test_Plan | 15:48 |
| wwoods | and we've been working on automating as much of it as possible | 15:49 |
| kparal | (preferably everything) | 15:49 |
| wwoods | kparal: indeed! | 15:49 |
| wwoods | one of the key things adhering to this plan *should* accomplish | 15:49 |
| wwoods | is preventing us ever having broken deps in the repos (yay) | 15:49 |
| kparal | big yay! | 15:50 |
| wwoods | among other various important things that will be helpful for packager/tester sanity. | 15:50 |
| wwoods | so. we've had this plan kicking around a long time, I've been messing with the depcheck test for months, etc. | 15:50 |
| wwoods | and now we've finally got autotest/autoqa running in the Fedora infrstructure | 15:51 |
| wwoods | AND the Fedora 14 release cycle is starting up soon | 15:51 |
| wwoods | so I feel like now's a good time to try to get as much done on the PUATP as possible. | 15:51 |
| wwoods | I broke things up into a few milestones: | 15:51 |
| wwoods | https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/milestone/Package%20Update%20Acceptance%20Test%20Plan | 15:51 |
| wwoods | https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/milestone/Package%20Update%20Acceptance%20Test%20Plan%20-%20package%20sanity%20tests | 15:52 |
| wwoods | https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/milestone/Package%20Update%20Acceptance%20Test%20Plan%20-%20depcheck | 15:52 |
| wwoods | blerg, long URLS | 15:52 |
| wwoods | but you can just check out the roadmap - https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/roadmap | 15:52 |
| * kparal has installed %20->space converter into his eyes | 15:52 | |
| * adamw needs some o' those | 15:53 | |
| * j_dulaney notes he could get involved here. | 15:53 | |
| wwoods | kparal: you pointed out that we had a goal-setting meeting a while back and decided that resultdb was basically the Top Of The List for stuff we wanted to get done | 15:53 |
| wwoods | which is still true for the larger roadmap, I think | 15:54 |
| kparal | yea, I remember it somewhat like that :) | 15:54 |
| wwoods | right - that's definitely an incredibly important part of the AutoQA roadmap | 15:54 |
| wwoods | but I think that can go on in parallel with automating PUATP | 15:55 |
| wwoods | and there are a lot of people interested in seeing PUATP automated as soon as possible | 15:55 |
| kparal | I think the important part is not having everyone work on 5 different tasks. but we can shift priorities if needed, that's no problem | 15:55 |
| wwoods | kparal: agreed | 15:55 |
| jlaska | +1 | 15:55 |
| j_dulaney | indeed | 15:55 |
| wwoods | so I'm suggesting that - as much as is possible - we should shift work to PUATP-related tasks for a while | 15:55 |
| kparal | alright, so depcheck testing is the #1 now? | 15:56 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: for a start, subscribe to autoqa-devel list | 15:56 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/autoqa-devel | 15:56 |
| j_dulaney | adamw: roger | 15:56 |
| wwoods | I keep getting approached by board members / desktop team members / etc asking about depcheck and friends | 15:56 |
| wwoods | I know FESCo is interested | 15:56 |
| wwoods | and we've put a good deal of work into PUATP already | 15:56 |
| wwoods | and I'd love to have it functional - it'll make us look real good if it works the way we want it to | 15:57 |
| kparal | wwoods: ok, so I believe there's enough work even for me, right? :) | 15:57 |
| wwoods | heh | 15:57 |
| wwoods | kparal: yeah I think there's plenty to go around! | 15:57 |
| wwoods | heh | 15:57 |
| kparal | should we all work on it? | 15:57 |
| wwoods | In as far as you can find tasks/tickets to take, definitely | 15:58 |
| kparal | alright then | 15:58 |
| wwoods | I'd like to get it moved far enough forward that we have at least a couple of the mandatory PUATP tests running for new updates | 15:58 |
| wwoods | I'm not suggesting NO WORKING ON ANYTHING UNTIL THIS IS COMPLETE | 15:59 |
| wwoods | that's obviously sill | 15:59 |
| wwoods | err, silly | 15:59 |
| * kparal is fine with taking it as the main point of focus | 15:59 | |
| * j_dulaney will slave to get it done | 15:59 | |
| wwoods | but let's seriously all try to take bits and pieces and get this thinger done | 15:59 |
| jlaska | wwoods: you mentioned a sprint idea in your autoqa-devel mail, are the type of remaining tasks things that might lend well to a day of hacking on this stuff? | 16:00 |
| j_dulaney | that would be cool | 16:00 |
| jskladan | ok, from my point of view - i'd like to see the "common base class for tests" in master (at least smth like that) at least before we start with the "multiple hook tests" | 16:00 |
| * kparal will need some help with getting started on depcheck, maybe sprint could help | 16:00 | |
| wwoods | jlaska: yeah I think so! the package sanity tests, for instance - those tickets could use a day's worth of work | 16:00 |
| wwoods | jskladan: absolutely agreed - I'm going to review that patch right after the meeting | 16:01 |
| jskladan | other than that, i don't see any obstacle on the road (yet :) ) | 16:01 |
| wwoods | and the same for kparal's label patch | 16:01 |
| wwoods | because we need that for ticket #156 in the package sanity tests | 16:01 |
| wwoods | and for proper virt stuff | 16:01 |
| kparal | I think its agreed, we will start working on depcheck and its requirements | 16:02 |
| wwoods | now we're kind of over time for the meeting, but we can divide up a few obvious tickets right now | 16:02 |
| jskladan | well, sadly i need to go home after the meeting, but feel free to potentialy bug me via email and i'll respond during my night time, or we can check the code via telephone tomorrow or smth like that, if you should find it too confusing/not ok/whatever | 16:02 |
| wwoods | or - yeah, I don't want to keep the Brno guys (it's beer-o-clock there!) | 16:03 |
| * j_dulaney wants something to start on | 16:03 | |
| wwoods | so if we're agreed that depcheck / PUATP is the thing to do | 16:03 |
| * jskladan wwoods reads minds! :) | 16:03 | |
| wwoods | either feel free to take tickets in trac | 16:03 |
| wwoods | or let's discuss who should/can take tickets on autoqa-devel | 16:04 |
| wwoods | j_dulaney: definitely recommend subscribing to that list | 16:04 |
| j_dulaney | wwoods: already have | 16:04 |
| wwoods | https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/autoqa-devel | 16:04 |
| kparal | wwoods: I'll try to explore it a little (probably ask you some stuff) and then start working on some of its tickets | 16:04 |
| wwoods | excellent | 16:04 |
| wwoods | yeah I'm happy to answer questions or provide assistance on any of it | 16:04 |
| wwoods | if anyone wants to take the HelloWorld test, that's probably a pretty easy ticket for anyone with a bit of python skill | 16:05 |
| kparal | maybe a good start for vaschenb ;) | 16:05 |
| wwoods | kparal: I was thinking that too, actually | 16:05 |
| wwoods | that's: https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/195 | 16:05 |
| vaschenb | huh :-) | 16:06 |
| wwoods | also: if there's tickets that seem invalid / unneeded for finishing PUATP, either move them around or bring it up on the list or in #fedora-qa | 16:06 |
| jlaska | wwoods: what's the finish line for us ... closing out all three of the milestones you linked above? | 16:06 |
| wwoods | yeah - I'd like to see all three of those milestones complete before, let's say, F14 Beta | 16:07 |
| wwoods | That's October 15, according to http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-14/f-14-quality-tasks.html | 16:08 |
| wwoods | Actually, I think we could probably shoot for F14 Alpha | 16:08 |
| wwoods | (September 7) | 16:08 |
| vaschenb | kparal: ok, tomorrow I'll do what you want, now I've to go destroy my body... | 16:08 |
| jlaska | perhaps even just the depcheck milestone by F14-Alpha | 16:08 |
| wwoods | once we hit Alpha we're going to want to put more work into release testing / installer automation | 16:09 |
| jlaska | and the remainder by F14-Beta (bonus points of course for wrapping this up early too) | 16:09 |
| wwoods | but ideally this should all be up and running when F-14 is released | 16:09 |
| wwoods | so F14 can be one of the smoothest releases we've ever had | 16:09 |
| wwoods | and then we all get well-earned QA Victory Beers | 16:09 |
| jlaska | heh, I like those | 16:09 |
| wwoods | jlaska: that sounds like a reasonable schedule | 16:10 |
| wwoods | anyone object / further discussion on timelines? | 16:10 |
| * vaschenb is out, idling here for complete log of meeting... | 16:10 | |
| jlaska | vaschenb: cya | 16:10 |
| kparal | vaschenb: log will be available on wiki pages and in ML | 16:11 |
| * wwoods takes that as "no objections", updates milestone due dates | 16:11 | |
| jlaska | wwoods: thanks! | 16:11 |
| jlaska | I better go steal all the easy tickets first! (just kidding) | 16:11 |
| * j_dulaney wants the easy stuff | 16:12 | |
| j_dulaney | The idea being I start off easy | 16:12 |
| wwoods | kparal: I might bug you for rpmfluff info and/or help writing depcheck test cases (ticket #202) | 16:12 |
| kparal | wwoods: yes, sure | 16:12 |
| wwoods | the pst tickets need review - some of them are finished/obsolete, like #139: "pst: Find a way how to test packages coming to updates-testing" | 16:12 |
| wwoods | that's the post-bodhi-update hook, yay | 16:12 |
| kparal | wwoods: we were actually thinking to ask vaschenb to use rpmfluff to create a few broken packages for us. but we will see | 16:13 |
| wwoods | can we schedule a pst ticket sprint day sometime this week? wednesday maybe? | 16:13 |
| wwoods | kparal: ooh, also a good idea | 16:13 |
| wwoods | or maybe j_dulaney? rpmfluff is a fun little tool | 16:13 |
| wwoods | is rpmfluff C or python? I forget | 16:13 |
| kparal | wwoods: I would wait with the pst stuff | 16:13 |
| kparal | wwoods: rpmfluff is python | 16:13 |
| j_dulaney | I'd like to look into it | 16:13 |
| wwoods | kparal: fair 'nuff | 16:14 |
| kparal | wwoods: pst stuff can wait until we have depcheck working. pst stuff wasn't really worked on recently, because psplicha had some other work. but we will surely come back to it | 16:14 |
| wwoods | okay, let's revisit pst status in next week's meeting | 16:15 |
| wwoods | first priorities are: multi-hook testing, label / base test class patches | 16:15 |
| wwoods | and the depcheck test | 16:15 |
| * Viking-Ice joins in Better late then never ;) | 16:16 | |
| wwoods | someone should review output of rpmlint / rpmguard on the -results list | 16:16 |
| wwoods | err. I mean. do we have a policy about which rpmlint/rpmguard test results we actually want to consider errors/failures | 16:16 |
| wwoods | or should someone review the current output we've been getting and write such a policy? | 16:17 |
| adamw | writing one would be good | 16:17 |
| wwoods | we probably need to run that past the packaging folks | 16:17 |
| adamw | i don't believe there is such a policy | 16:17 |
| kparal | I would do one thing after another :) | 16:17 |
| wwoods | adamw: ah - well the PUATP will require one | 16:17 |
| jskladan | will, i do not want to be mean or something, but looks like we're heading back to the "all at once" again :)) | 16:17 |
| wwoods | jskladan: heh, maybe you're right | 16:17 |
| jlaska | if the output from those tests is more than just informational, yeah, we'd need to work that path. But perhaps that's a future task? | 16:18 |
| adamw | wwoods: there's https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint | 16:18 |
| adamw | wwoods: that's about the most 'official' thing that currently exists, afaik | 16:18 |
| wwoods | so yeah, depcheck only this week, we can do a status checkin on pst and rpm{lint,guard} policy next week sometime | 16:18 |
| jlaska | wwoods: the priority you outlined earlier seems pretty focused to me: multi-hook testing, label/base test class patches and depcheck | 16:18 |
| jskladan | jlaska: +1 | 16:19 |
| wwoods | jlaska: right, just want to be sure we're accounting for all the PUATP pieces in the medium-term | 16:19 |
| jlaska | that's 2 milestones ... and then working those 2 patches into master, right? | 16:19 |
| wwoods | yup! | 16:19 |
| jlaska | wwoods: ah, true true | 16:19 |
| jlaska | okay, I'll include a link to each of those milestones in the minutes | 16:20 |
| wwoods | and the other PUATP pieces.. we just reviewed them and kparal and jskladan have gently reminded me that they can wait 'til later | 16:20 |
| wwoods | heh | 16:20 |
| * j_dulaney apologizes for bad connection | 16:20 | |
| jlaska | anything others can do to help with those 2 patchsets out for review? | 16:20 |
| j_dulaney | wwoods: I don't know if you got my request to email me info on rpmfluff? | 16:21 |
| wwoods | jlaska: not sure. documenting changes / new capabilities perhaps? | 16:21 |
| wwoods | we'll probably need to update the wiki pages on writing new tests, for instance | 16:21 |
| j_dulaney | wwoods: and that I'd like in on that? | 16:21 |
| jlaska | wwoods: okay ... I'll jump on kparal's label thread tomorrow | 16:21 |
| jlaska | j_dulaney: google is your friend ... https://fedorahosted.org/rpmfluff/ | 16:22 |
| wwoods | j_dulaney: didn't see that, but I'll definitely try to keep you in the loop | 16:22 |
| j_dulaney | thanks jlaska, wwoods | 16:23 |
| jlaska | any other thoughts/concerns before open floor? | 16:23 |
| kparal | not from kparal | 16:23 |
| j_dulaney | Chan 'eil idir as j_dulaney. | 16:24 |
| jlaska | okay, thanks gang. wwoods I'll try to capture this in the minutes, but kick me if I miss anything | 16:25 |
| wwoods | jlaska: with gusto | 16:25 |
| jlaska | not too much gusto :) | 16:25 |
| * wwoods brought the extra-heavy boots | 16:25 | |
| jlaska | #topic Open discussion - <your topic here> | 16:25 |
| jlaska | wwoods: hah ... not the steal tipped kodiac work boot | 16:25 |
| * j_dulaney has nothing | 16:26 | |
| jlaska | okay gang, we've run over today ... that's my fault for not leaving enough time | 16:26 |
| Viking-Ice | I asked for one thing to add to the list | 16:26 |
| Viking-Ice | upstream bugzillas vs our bugzilla should reporters be directed to upstream bugzilla tracks system and what not | 16:27 |
| Viking-Ice | Where does QA stand on this issue | 16:27 |
| adamw | i don't think we have time to discuss that properly now. | 16:27 |
| tertl3 | hi | 16:27 |
| tertl3 | this is a long meeting | 16:27 |
| Viking-Ice | adamw: why not | 16:27 |
| wwoods | tertl3: they're not usually this long, heh | 16:27 |
| jlaska | tertl3: not usually this long, thanks for sticking around :) | 16:27 |
| tertl3 | not problem, I was playing TF2 | 16:28 |
| Viking-Ice | we need to settle this once and for all | 16:28 |
| tertl3 | i play it in a windpw though | 16:28 |
| adamw | Viking-Ice: we're already 30 minutes over time =) | 16:28 |
| * j_dulaney is about to pass out | 16:28 | |
| tertl3 | j_dulaney, dont drink the Nyquil! | 16:28 |
| wwoods | Viking-Ice: I'd say that's more a bugzappers question but my gut feeling is that plain ol' bug-reporting users should be reporting stuff to RHBZ | 16:28 |
| j_dulaney | LOL | 16:28 |
| tertl3 | j_dulaney, i'm just kidding | 16:28 |
| Viking-Ice | wwoods: this affects all QA mostly reporters thou and perhaps triagers | 16:29 |
| tertl3 | i like the tylenol cold and cough | 16:29 |
| * jskladan needs to go, bb gang! | 16:29 | |
| wwoods | but that our talented and well-trained bugzapper ninja squadrons should feel free to copy/move bugs upstream as they see fit | 16:29 |
| jlaska | jskladan: take care | 16:29 |
| j_dulaney | peace | 16:29 |
| adamw | wwoods: practically speaking that ain't going to solve the problem, as bugzappers coverage hovers solidly around the 2% of components mark... | 16:29 |
| Viking-Ice | wwoods: is it not the maintainers responsibility do play that role not the triagers one | 16:29 |
| tertl3 | I havent booted into fedora in a few days | 16:30 |
| jlaska | Viking-Ice: I'm not sure I understand what the "issue" is | 16:30 |
| jlaska | there are clear instructions on when to file upstream, vs when to file in Fedora? | 16:30 |
| Viking-Ice | jlaska;: reporters being directed to upstream bugzillas | 16:30 |
| j_dulaney | jlaska: I've not seen such | 16:30 |
| jlaska | they are or aren't being reported to upstream? | 16:30 |
| kparal | I personally report to upstream whenever possible, whenever I'm sure it's not Fedora specific | 16:31 |
| Viking-Ice | maintainers close bug file this stuff upstreasm | 16:31 |
| Viking-Ice | upstream | 16:31 |
| jlaska | is that good, bad? | 16:31 |
| jlaska | what's your stance/recommendation? | 16:31 |
| Viking-Ice | when in fact they should act as the bridge between components the maintain and upstreasm | 16:31 |
| Viking-Ice | upstreasm | 16:31 |
| jlaska | ah | 16:31 |
| Viking-Ice | frack | 16:31 |
| Viking-Ice | upstream! | 16:32 |
| Viking-Ice | my stance is simple all bugs should be reported to our bugzilla | 16:32 |
| wwoods | wait is this about that thread on the devel list? are maintainers closing bugs in rhbz and saying "file this upstream instead" or something? | 16:32 |
| Viking-Ice | and maintainers should act as the bridge between upstream bugzilla and our bugzilla for their component | 16:32 |
| wwoods | Viking-Ice: yeah historically that's the policy, and anything that needs upstream attention either a) the upstream is alert and pays attention to our bugzilla, or b) the maintainer or some diligent tester pushes things upstream when needed | 16:33 |
| Viking-Ice | wwoods: reoccurring thread happens every release sometimes often in the release cycle | 16:33 |
| wwoods | general policy is still "fedora reports go to rhbz" | 16:33 |
| wwoods | don't think we've changed anything about that | 16:33 |
| j_dulaney | Ugh, can't type fast enough in current state. | 16:34 |
| Viking-Ice | wwood: Well some maintainers ignore or simple close bugs wontfix file upstream | 16:34 |
| j_dulaney | File problem with maintainers? | 16:35 |
| Viking-Ice | waste of everybody's time reporters triagers and maintainers mean if this is going to be the procedure then simply remove the components from our bugzilla | 16:35 |
| wwoods | so this is about that mail thread. | 16:35 |
| wwoods | that thread gets a big tl;dr frmo me | 16:35 |
| jlaska | Viking-Ice: I think that's a bit extremist | 16:35 |
| Viking-Ice | wwoods: yup it's "why the WONTFIX?" this time | 16:35 |
| Viking-Ice | jlaska: not really | 16:36 |
| jlaska | alright, so we're not going to reach any conclusions on this topic in the meeting | 16:36 |
| j_dulaney | indeed | 16:36 |
| wwoods | worth thinking about, maybe revisit in other meetings | 16:36 |
| jlaska | unless others want to weigh in, let's take this up at a future meeting, or on list | 16:36 |
| j_dulaney | listsounds good, too drawn out for meeting | 16:37 |
| jlaska | Viking-Ice: alright, if we have something that needs review of finalizing for next week ... I'll add it to the list | 16:38 |
| jlaska | otherwise ... we can continue the debate/discussion on the list | 16:38 |
| Viking-Ice | we need to settle this or atleast provide QA stance on the topic | 16:38 |
| Viking-Ice | put it on next meetings agenda | 16:38 |
| Viking-Ice | gather feedback from the list this week | 16:38 |
| jlaska | I'm missing the exigency, but am open to learning | 16:39 |
| jlaska | okay folks ... thanks for your time today | 16:39 |
| jlaska | as always, I'll send minutes to the list/wiki | 16:39 |
| jlaska | #endmeeting | 16:39 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!