From Fedora Project Wiki
Attendees
People present (lines said):
- jlaska (112)
- j_dulaney (40)
- adamw (30)
- vhumpa1 (28)
- tflink (17)
- jskladan (2)
Unable to attend:
Agenda
Gnome Shell duplicate application names
- Upstream GNOME not interested in resolving duplicate application names - Fedora free to resolve as it sees fit
- We are free to make a path or gnomeshell extension - but should not "expect them to condone it"
- ACTION: j_dulaney - will gather a full list of the application name collisions, then decide as a group how to proceed
AutoQA updates
- We've been working to test and finish up AutoQA 0.5.0 and at the moment we're hoping to finish up and release this week some time
- we still have 2 issues to work out (that I'm aware of) - jskladan has submitted a patch for one and I'm still working on the other
- Look for a new release announcement later this week!
- Fedora infrastructure team planning to move existing autoqa systems on July 12 ... jlaska working with smooge+nirik to prepare install/configure new servers (prod + stage) ahead of time
R3 - Retrospective recommendation review
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_15_QA_Retrospective#Recommendations
- Jlaska finally pulled together the retrospective feedback into some recommendations. I'd like to start converting these tasks into tickets and begging for volunteers. if there is something you like on the list, and want to get started on ... by all means, go for it.
- j_dulaney noted that bugzilla now allows any logged in user to set the Blocks field
Open Discussion - <your topic here>
Including security spin test matrix in F16 test runs?
- jlaska asked whether we should include athmane's security test matrix in the list of F16 release validation matrices (refer to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Athmane/Fedora_15_Security_Lab_Testing) (jlaska, 15:48:43)
- Early consensus is YES! Adamw will be working on a process allow for additional test matrix for non-desktop and non-installer tests. For example, this could be used to cover some of jdulaney's btrfs tests as well.
Action Items
- j_dulaney - will gather a full list of the application name collissions
- * - review and comment on Fedora 15 retrospective recommendations
IRC Log
| jlaska | #startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting | 15:00 |
|---|---|---|
| zodbot | Meeting started Mon Jun 20 15:00:24 2011 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 Roll Call | 15:00 |
| jskladan | j_dulaney: hi there. Well, got struck by two most unpleasant things at once - illness and end-semester exams | 15:00 |
| * j_dulaney waves | 15:01 | |
| * jskladan steps out of the shadows | 15:01 | |
| j_dulaney | jskladan: Man, that sucks | 15:01 |
| jlaska | Hey j_dulaney, jskladan | 15:01 |
| adamw | yo | 15:01 |
| jlaska | hey adamw | 15:01 |
| j_dulaney | tflink, adamw, jlaska | 15:02 |
| jlaska | hey robatino | 15:02 |
| * jlaska sees tflink joined too | 15:02 | |
| jlaska | anyone else I'm forgetting? | 15:02 |
| vhumpa1 | Hi there | 15:03 |
| jlaska | Vita! | 15:03 |
| jlaska | okay, let's get things moving ... | 15:03 |
| * vhumpa1 stands out of his dark dungeon | 15:03 | |
| j_dulaney | Yo, bro | 15:03 |
| jlaska | we didn't have a meeting last week ... so I have no previous items to cover | 15:04 |
| jlaska | but if something surfaces, let's discuss in open-discussion | 15:04 |
| jlaska | #topic Release Criteria Updates | 15:05 |
| jlaska | adamw: I don't know if you had any remaining criteria updates ... or if you've made all the planned changes already | 15:05 |
| jlaska | the other item on under this topic, was vhumpa1's investigation into the Shell duplicate application names | 15:05 |
| adamw | there may be something else, i'm still kinda swimming upstream here | 15:06 |
| adamw | i know vita's been working hard on that but i haven't caught up with that thread yet, vita can update i'm sure :) | 15:06 |
| jlaska | adamw: what's the upstream work you're doing? re: shell? | 15:06 |
| vhumpa1 | I reached up to some upstream people and the response I got was that it was an non-issue | 15:07 |
| * j_dulaney sort of expected as much | 15:07 | |
| jlaska | vhumpa1: oh rats, so they're not interested in a solution that better distinguishes duplicate application names in the menu? | 15:08 |
| vhumpa1 | Basically, we are free to do what we want about this issue, but they want to have nothing to with it | 15:08 |
| adamw | jlaska: oh, no, metaphorically swimming upstream | 15:08 |
| adamw | jlaska: as in freeing myself from giant piles of email | 15:08 |
| jlaska | #info Upstream GNOME not interested in resolving duplicate application names - Fedora free to resolve as it sees fit | 15:08 |
| jlaska | adamw: oh oh roger :) | 15:08 |
| j_dulaney | If we were to submit a patch or some such, would they actually apply it? | 15:09 |
| vhumpa1 | jlaska: I really just have the same input as I told you on Friday | 15:09 |
| jlaska | vhumpa1: right on | 15:09 |
| * j_dulaney notes that he was literally going upstream yesterday, in a boat | 15:09 | |
| vhumpa1 | Since, it an issue of when you have multiple environments mixed up, it is people's problem | 15:09 |
| jlaska | Upstream is focusing only on their desktop experience, not when you mix applications from multiple DE's ? | 15:10 |
| vhumpa1 | And they don't want to have design decision driven by this | 15:10 |
| jlaska | okay | 15:10 |
| vhumpa1 | jlaska: exactly | 15:10 |
| jlaska | vhumpa1: is this important enough that we want to continue persuing options? | 15:10 |
| adamw | vhumpa1: how about the parallel discussion about stuff like the GenericName field and app descriptions in tooltips? | 15:11 |
| vhumpa1 | We are free to make a path or gnomeshell extension - but should not "expect them to condone it" :) | 15:11 |
| vhumpa1 | jlaska: A good question, I think it is, yet not with very high priority | 15:12 |
| jlaska | #info We are free to make a path or gnomeshell extension - but should not "expect them to condone it" | 15:12 |
| vhumpa1 | adamw: I believe that is the same stuff | 15:12 |
| vhumpa1 | adamw: I mean that is what I was asking for the upstream opinion for | 15:13 |
| adamw | so, no movement there either? hum. | 15:13 |
| vhumpa1 | adamw: renaming the desktop files in Fedora packing process seems like a no-go now based on some input I got | 15:13 |
| j_dulaney | What about just editing the menu names in the .desktop file? | 15:14 |
| vhumpa1 | Ah sorry for mistyping, that is what I ment in the previous post | 15:14 |
| adamw | from a fedora packaging perspective? | 15:15 |
| j_dulaney | Ah | 15:15 |
| vhumpa1 | Yep | 15:15 |
| j_dulaney | How so? | 15:15 |
| j_dulaney | It doesn't seem like it would be difficult. | 15:15 |
| * adamw doesn't see anything specifically forbidding it in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Desktop_files | 15:15 | |
| vhumpa1 | We take the desktop files from upstream... So they'd have to be modified with each new version etc... if I am not mistaken | 15:15 |
| jlaska | maintenance? | 15:15 |
| vhumpa1 | jlaska: exactly | 15:15 |
| adamw | vhumpa1: i've modified .desktop files before, it's not terribly hard | 15:15 |
| j_dulaney | Could not a script be created? | 15:16 |
| vhumpa1 | adamw: definitely not :) Depends on if maintainers would be willing to do so | 15:16 |
| j_dulaney | Include it as an automated part of the build process so that it wouldn't be forgotten | 15:16 |
| adamw | you can usually run a sed command inside the spec | 15:16 |
| jlaska | so ...do we want to take this to the packaging-list with suggestions for updating the Desktop_files guidance? | 15:16 |
| vhumpa1 | j_dulaney: I suppose so, that it could be automated from inside spec files somehow | 15:17 |
| j_dulaney | jlaska +1 | 15:17 |
| adamw | well, this is only feedback from one upstream | 15:17 |
| vhumpa1 | jlaska: might be worth it | 15:17 |
| adamw | have we looked at all the current name collisions and seen how many actually involve GNOME packages? (and how many involve *two* GNOME packages?) | 15:17 |
| jlaska | good question | 15:17 |
| jlaska | what's the scope of the problem space? | 15:17 |
| j_dulaney | adamw: I can think of one such within Gnome | 15:18 |
| vhumpa1 | i'd say, it would not be more than 10-15 packages | 15:18 |
| j_dulaney | The Update/Updates thing | 15:18 |
| vhumpa1 | even less if we target really only the most obvious one | 15:18 |
| j_dulaney | vhumpa1: +1 | 15:18 |
| vhumpa1 | ones | 15:18 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: i think one of those is a Fedora package, not a GNOME one | 15:19 |
| vhumpa1 | Still: how exactly to rename them and how is an question | 15:19 |
| adamw | oh, no, they're both from gnome-packagekit. i lose. | 15:19 |
| adamw | i think we could prevail upon hughsie to fix that one, though. | 15:19 |
| vhumpa1 | Might bring some unhappiness from some upstream people if we rename some apps in a way they dont like it | 15:19 |
| adamw | yeah, it's a slightly touchy subject | 15:20 |
| adamw | i think we should check on the other collisions and see what upstream projects they involve | 15:20 |
| j_dulaney | vhumpa1: Of course, in some instances, we are the upstream... | 15:20 |
| jlaska | anyone want to pull together a complete list of the collisions? | 15:20 |
| * j_dulaney can | 15:20 | |
| jlaska | s/want to/want to volunteer/ | 15:20 |
| jlaska | thanks j_dulaney | 15:20 |
| jlaska | #action j_dulaney - will gather a full list of the application name collissions | 15:21 |
| vhumpa1 | j_dulaney: you can find a sketch of such in the testlist discussion | 15:21 |
| jlaska | anything we need to discuss before we have the complete list of collisions? | 15:21 |
| jlaska | or will that list be used to figure out step#2? | 15:21 |
| j_dulaney | vhumpa1: Roger | 15:21 |
| jlaska | anything else to cover on this topic? | 15:22 |
| adamw | i think that's important to figuring out step #2 | 15:23 |
| jlaska | yeah, that makes sense | 15:23 |
| jlaska | okay, getting ready to move on then | 15:23 |
| jlaska | thanks all for the update ... we'll follow-up on the list with this topic | 15:24 |
| jlaska | #topic AutoQA updates | 15:24 |
| adamw | brb, nature calls | 15:24 |
| jlaska | kparal is out today ... tflink, can you guide us through the latest and greatest? | 15:24 |
| jlaska | quick give adamw action items! | 15:24 |
| tflink | not a problem | 15:24 |
| tflink | proposed #action adamw finish AutoQA 0.5.0 | 15:24 |
| jlaska | ack! | 15:25 |
| jlaska | :) | 15:25 |
| j_dulaney | LOL | 15:25 |
| j_dulaney | +1 | 15:25 |
| jlaska | actually ... adamw is really good at giving out action items to me ... so I'll be +0 on this :) | 15:25 |
| tflink | We've been working to test and finish up AutoQA 0.5.0 and at the moment we're hoping to finish up and release this week some time | 15:25 |
| jlaska | #info We've been working to test and finish up AutoQA 0.5.0 and at the moment we're hoping to finish up and release this week some time | 15:26 |
| tflink | the major features are bodhi comment email reduction and better log data presentation (in HTML) | 15:26 |
| * jlaska loves the error highlighting in the HTML reports | 15:26 | |
| tflink | we still have 2 issues to work out (that I'm aware of) - jskladan has submitted a patch for one and I'm still working on the other | 15:27 |
| tflink | that's about all I can think of to say from AutoQA land. Look for a new release announcement later this week! | 15:27 |
| jlaska | tflink: given the testing you guys have already done ... does it seem feasible to resolve those 2 issues and release this week? | 15:28 |
| tflink | jlaska: I think so. jskladan's patch looks good and I'm still having issues reproducing the last bug | 15:29 |
| jlaska | tflink: cool, are you getting what you need out of the test instance we setup? | 15:30 |
| tflink | if I still can't reproduce it in the next couple of days, I'm of the opinion that we can ship with it and fix it if it becomes a problem | 15:30 |
| jlaska | okay | 15:30 |
| jlaska | #info we still have 2 issues to work out (that I'm aware of) - jskladan has submitted a patch for one and I'm still working on the other | 15:30 |
| jlaska | #info Look for a new release announcement later this week! | 15:30 |
| tflink | to reproduce that bug? No, that setup isn't set up for reproducing the issue | 15:30 |
| jlaska | this is the email issue, right? | 15:30 |
| tflink | yep - the wonders of tight coupling! | 15:31 |
| jlaska | would it help if you had autoqa-results-staging@ ? | 15:31 |
| * vhumpa1 goes back to studies | 15:31 | |
| jlaska | tflink: on fedorahosted i mean, instead of your private setup? | 15:31 |
| jlaska | vhumpa1: good luck! | 15:31 |
| vhumpa1 | jlaska: thx! will need it | 15:31 |
| tflink | jlaska: it wouldn't matter. The SMTP traffic is being blocked | 15:31 |
| adamw | #action vhumpa1 finish autoqa 0.5.0 | 15:31 |
| tflink | either fedorahosted or my list are outside the network and affected | 15:31 |
| jlaska | adamw: strikes! | 15:31 |
| tflink | and the emails that go out to that list are different | 15:32 |
| jlaska | I see | 15:32 |
| tflink | the issue has to do with the bodhi comment emails | 15:32 |
| jlaska | ah! | 15:32 |
| tflink | which are disabled on the test system | 15:32 |
| jlaska | tflink: thanks for the details | 15:33 |
| tflink | np | 15:33 |
| jlaska | okay, if nothing else on the autoqa front, we'll move on | 15:33 |
| jlaska | fingers crossed for a successful autoqa release this week | 15:33 |
| tflink | that makes at least two of us. I want to get this stuff into production | 15:33 |
| jlaska | oh well, I might as well #info something ... | 15:33 |
| jlaska | #info Fedora infrastructure team planning to move existing autoqa systems on July 12 ... jlaska working with smooge+nirik to prepare install/configure new servers (prod + stage) ahead of time | 15:34 |
| jlaska | so thanks to those two for providing guidance, and what is shaping up to be a much more official setup | 15:35 |
| jlaska | more news @ 11 | 15:35 |
| j_dulaney | Try to have 0.5.4 or .5 out by then? | 15:35 |
| jlaska | who knows what %{version} we'll be at then :) | 15:35 |
| jlaska | okay ... moving on ... | 15:36 |
| jlaska | #topic R^3 - Retrospective recommendation review | 15:36 |
| jlaska | #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_15_QA_Retrospective#Recommendations | 15:36 |
| jlaska | I finally pulled together the retrospective feedback into some recommendations | 15:36 |
| jlaska | I've blogged and fired this off to the list to the thunderous sound of crickets | 15:36 |
| jlaska | if you have a moment, please review what I've documented on the page so far | 15:37 |
| jlaska | some of these things are already inprogress (b/c you guys naturally like to fix problems) | 15:37 |
| jlaska | s/guys/people/ :) | 15:37 |
| jlaska | there aren't a lot of earth shattering changes proposed imo ... but of course, it would be nice to have some input | 15:38 |
| jlaska | some highlights ... | 15:38 |
| * j_dulaney likes | 15:38 | |
| jlaska | Since the Alpha's have always slipped, and each time it's due to live image-related problems (creation or install) | 15:38 |
| * adamw will have feedback soon | 15:38 | |
| jlaska | I thought we should ask to have live images included during TC1 (updated SOP), and also with the acceptance test runs leading up to the TC | 15:39 |
| jlaska | I've got a few items on the list that we'll need to approach other teams on | 15:39 |
| jlaska | for example ... there are 3 items that need to be reviewed with rbergeron | 15:39 |
| jlaska | same for rel-eng (likely dgilmore) | 15:40 |
| adamw | yay more lives | 15:40 |
| * j_dulaney notices that he now can set blocker status. | 15:40 | |
| j_dulaney | Is that across the board for all Bugzilla account holders, or just those with a FAS? | 15:41 |
| jlaska | j_dulaney: related to a feature awilliam requested maybe? | 15:41 |
| jlaska | .bug 707252 | 15:41 |
| zodbot | jlaska: Bug 707252 Allow any registered user to change the Blocks: field - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707252 | 15:41 |
| adamw | yeah, i've been waiting on that one for a bit | 15:41 |
| j_dulaney | jlaska: Indeed | 15:41 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: so far it's been that you need editbugs privileges to set that field | 15:42 |
| adamw | which packagers and bugzappers and rh staff get | 15:42 |
| jlaska | okay ... so please all take a minute to review, add feedback, tell me what sucks or is missing | 15:42 |
| jlaska | (in as constructive a way as possible of course) :) | 15:42 |
| jlaska | I'd like to start converting these tasks into tickets and begging for volunteers | 15:42 |
| jlaska | if there is something you like on the list, and want to get started on ... by all means, go for it | 15:43 |
| j_dulaney | adamw: So, it is across the board now, then? | 15:43 |
| jlaska | #info I finally pulled together the retrospective feedback into some recommendations. I'd like to start converting these tasks into tickets and begging for volunteers. if there is something you like on the list, and want to get started on ... by all means, go for it | 15:43 |
| * j_dulaney wonders about how to prevent things like the GlibC almost-foulup | 15:43 | |
| jlaska | #info j_dulaney noted that bugzilla now allows any logged in user to set the Blocks field | 15:43 |
| jlaska | any other comments/thoughts/concerns on this? | 15:44 |
| jlaska | if folks are okay with this process/format ... I'll also add a ticket for me to SOP this | 15:44 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: i dunno, i hadn't heard of any change | 15:44 |
| jlaska | okay, I'll stay tuned to the list for ideas | 15:46 |
| jlaska | thanks all! | 15:46 |
| jlaska | #topic Open Discussion - <your topic here> | 15:46 |
| jlaska | I had one item I just remembered ... but someone else can go first | 15:46 |
| jlaska | actually ... my topic was a bout whether we should include athmane's security test matrix in F16 release validation runs | 15:47 |
| jlaska | but I think I'll actually just add that to the retrospective recommendations | 15:47 |
| * j_dulaney raises hand | 15:48 | |
| jlaska | #info jlaska asked whether we should include athmane's security test matrix in the list of F16 release validation matrices (refer to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Athmane/Fedora_15_Security_Lab_Testing) | 15:48 |
| adamw | i'd say definitely, and one thing i'm trying to do is come up with a third test matrix for releases which will include those and a few other tests that aren't really install or desktop | 15:48 |
| j_dulaney | Btrfs test case creation | 15:48 |
| adamw | but i've been terminally short on round tuits :( | 15:48 |
| jlaska | adamw: nice, I think I've got that suggestion from you on the retrospective | 15:49 |
| j_dulaney | adamw: Know the feeling | 15:49 |
| jlaska | j_dulaney: re: btrfs ... do you mean tests related to installing systems with btrfs partitions? | 15:49 |
| jlaska | or more about post-install btrfs tasks? | 15:49 |
| jlaska | (or both) | 15:49 |
| j_dulaney | For instance: | 15:50 |
| j_dulaney | Both | 15:50 |
| j_dulaney | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jdulaney/Draft_Testcase_Mount_btrfs | 15:50 |
| j_dulaney | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jdulaney/Draft_Testcase_btrfs_migration | 15:50 |
| jlaska | j_dulaney: I've got it on the retrospective to talk with rhe about adding installer coverage for btrfs (actually, it was her idea) | 15:50 |
| jlaska | perhaps your additional tests might line up with the additional stuff adamw is talking about | 15:51 |
| j_dulaney | Indeed | 15:51 |
| jlaska | definitely as package specific tests to start with | 15:51 |
| j_dulaney | adamw: Let's talk on this later this week? | 15:51 |
| j_dulaney | when I have time? | 15:51 |
| jlaska | Okay .... last call for open-discussion topics ... | 15:52 |
| jlaska | I'll #endmeeting in 2 minutes | 15:52 |
| * jlaska sets fuse | 15:52 | |
| jlaska | 1 minute until #endmeeting ... | 15:53 |
| adamw | j_dulaney: sure | 15:54 |
| jlaska | alright ... thanks everyone! | 15:54 |
| j_dulaney | What about, say Wednesday? | 15:54 |
| jlaska | I'll send minutes to the list later today | 15:54 |
| jlaska | #endmeeting | 15:54 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!