From Fedora Project Wiki
Attendees
- adamw (120)
- Viking-Ice (47)
- nirik (27)
- cwickert (25)
- tflink (21)
- kparal (12)
- satellit (6)
- zodbot (3)
- jskladan (1)
- mkrizek (1)
- robatino (1)
- pschindl (1)
Agenda
- Automatic blocker proposal
- Blocker review process
- Open floor
Automatic blocker proposal
- The proposal was generally approved of by the group
- It was agreed to add Andre's suggestions and more strongly emphasize other bugs cannot be made automatic blockers
Blocker review process
- Limiting meetings to 3 hours and separating blocker review from QA meetings on Mondays seemed to work well during F18 cycle
- viking-ice proposed using a dedicated channel for blocker review meetings instead of -qa or -bugzappers
- tflink and kparal had concerns about having another channel to monitor, but adamw and viking pointed out this would mean not needing to use -bugzappers any more
Open floor
- viking-ice wondered whether the nightly images were worth the effort of building: nirik said that building them is not much effort, and adamw and others said they were aware of some testing being done on them
- viking-ice suggested we have a basic smoke test matrix that all spins must go through at least once before being promoted as part of a final release
- cwickert said he had made a similar proposal before and supported the idea
Action items
- adamw to write a second draft (of the automatic blocker proposal) with andre's proposed changes and stronger explanation not to put 'grey area' bugs in the automatic blocker list
- adamw to draft up changes to the blocker bug meeting SOP for 3-hour hard limit, no-reviews-during-qa-meetings, and a dedicated channel for meetings, send to list for further discussion
- viking-ice to discuss the 'smoke test for spins' idea further with nirik and cwickert
IRC Log
| adamw | #startmeeting Fedora QA meeting | 16:00 |
|---|---|---|
| zodbot | Meeting started Mon Feb 18 16:00:05 2013 UTC. The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 16:00 |
| zodbot | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. | 16:00 |
| adamw | #meetingname fedora-qa | 16:00 |
| zodbot | The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa' | 16:00 |
| adamw | #topic roll call | 16:00 |
| adamw | morning folks, who's around? | 16:00 |
| * kparal waves | 16:00 | |
| * satellit listening | 16:00 | |
| * mkrizek is here | 16:00 | |
| * nirik is lurking | 16:01 | |
| * pschindl is here | 16:01 | |
| * tflink is here | 16:02 | |
| adamw | hey, the gang's all here, now- OH NO WATCH OUT FOR THAT METEOR DRIVEN BY A RAPTOR | 16:02 |
| kparal | jskladan will survive and free us from the raptor dictatorship | 16:03 |
| adamw | wow, tough crowd. | 16:03 |
| adamw | heh | 16:03 |
| * jskladan lurks | 16:06 | |
| * adamw waves from under meteor | 16:06 | |
| adamw | hum, we don't seem to have a viking-ice yet | 16:06 |
| adamw | tflink: do you know what it was he wanted to discuss about the review process? | 16:07 |
| kparal | oh no, we're one viking short | 16:07 |
| adamw | if no-one knows what it was he wanted to talk about, we'll skip that item | 16:09 |
| tflink | adamw: wasn't it on the agenda for last week | 16:09 |
| tflink | nvm | 16:10 |
| tflink | oh, it was about the changes we kept making in F18 | 16:10 |
| adamw | oh, the "QA:TestCase" topic from 0128? | 16:10 |
| tflink | keeping a static IRC channel, capping meetings @ 3hrs etc. | 16:10 |
| adamw | oh, i see. | 16:10 |
| adamw | well, let's do the other topic first | 16:11 |
| adamw | #topic Automatic blocker proposal | 16:11 |
| adamw | seems like most of the feedback on the 'automatic blocker' idea is +ve, i'll adjust it to incorporate andre's suggestions, any other thoughts? | 16:11 |
| adamw | #info the proposal is https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2013-February/113840.html | 16:12 |
| tflink | it seems like a good idea to me | 16:12 |
| tflink | but it will increase the average time that we spend on bugs in meetings though :) | 16:12 |
| kparal | tflink: will it? | 16:12 |
| tflink | since we won't have the really easy ones bringing the average down | 16:12 |
| kparal | ah | 16:12 |
| kparal | the _average_ time | 16:12 |
| kparal | yes, bad for statistics! nack! | 16:12 |
| kparal | :) | 16:12 |
| adamw | heh | 16:13 |
| adamw | lies, damn lies, and tflink statistics | 16:13 |
| robatino | will there be automatic freeze exceptions as well (for oversized non-blocking desktops, for example)? | 16:13 |
| adamw | robatino: i didn't reply to that mail yet, but it seems reasonable | 16:13 |
| adamw | i'll try and come up with a new draft soon; i might emphasize the rules a bit harder too | 16:13 |
| adamw | so no-one can claim they misread it and just start slapping acceptedblocker on everything they propose | 16:14 |
| tflink | yeah, hopefully this won't be abused | 16:15 |
| tflink | but we won't know until we try | 16:15 |
| adamw | ah, the viking's here | 16:16 |
| adamw | Viking-Ice: we're on the 'automatic blocker' proposal - any further thoughts on that? | 16:16 |
| Viking-Ice | nope I agree to it fully | 16:16 |
| Viking-Ice | ( I needlessly worried a bit about that gray area )( | 16:17 |
| adamw | cool | 16:18 |
| adamw | ok, i'll send out a second draft with andre's suggestions soon then | 16:18 |
| adamw | #info group generally supports the automatic blocker proposal | 16:18 |
| adamw | #action adamw to write a second draft with andre's proposed changes and stronger explanation not to put 'grey area' bugs in the automatic blocker list | 16:18 |
| adamw | #topic Blocker review process | 16:19 |
| adamw | Viking-Ice: we held this one in case you showed up - so, you said you wanted some discussion about this? | 16:19 |
| Viking-Ice | nothing comes to mind at the moment | 16:21 |
| Viking-Ice | so I got nothing new to add atleast | 16:21 |
| * adamw checks log | 16:22 | |
| adamw | Viking-Ice well what did we learn about the blocker bug meetings | 16:22 |
| adamw | Viking-Ice well we should set a fixed channel and keep with the 3hour max limit | 16:22 |
| adamw | tflink #info discussion around the blocker review process for F19 would be wise before we get into testing | 16:22 |
| adamw | okay, that's where we were coming from. | 16:22 |
| adamw | so i guess this is about whether we want to formalize any of the f18 changes to the blocker bug meeting process | 16:23 |
| Viking-Ice | I think the 3 hour limit turn out working well but still I doubt ( or let's say I hope ) that we wont be experiencing that again this release cycle | 16:24 |
| tflink | we can hope :) | 16:24 |
| adamw | we all hope so :) | 16:24 |
| adamw | but it does seem like a reasonable rule indeed | 16:24 |
| tflink | but I suspect that it's going to keep happening every once in a while until/if we redo the process | 16:24 |
| tflink | but that's not happening for F19 | 16:25 |
| Viking-Ice | and perhaps we should introduce new channel dedicated just for this ( not qa as some people wanted and not bugzappers and not meeting ) | 16:25 |
| Viking-Ice | I also think it's better not to do blocker bug meetings in the midst of qa meetings or atleast I think it's better to just end the qa meeting and move to another channel | 16:26 |
| adamw | we did that once in the last cycle and it worked out fine | 16:26 |
| adamw | so it's a decent idea | 16:26 |
| tflink | yeah, I don't have any objections | 16:27 |
| adamw | it does get a bit messy having to look in qa meeting logs for blocker review | 16:27 |
| adamw | i can draft up a few changes to the sop | 16:27 |
| tflink | not sure about the dedicated channel, though unless we re-purpose #fedora-bugzappers | 16:27 |
| adamw | eh | 16:27 |
| adamw | i don't mind it | 16:27 |
| Viking-Ice | the reason I personally favor moving/using qa channel is likely hood of more participation | 16:27 |
| adamw | not like channels cost anything | 16:27 |
| Viking-Ice | tflink, we cant kill bugzappers if we continue to use it | 16:28 |
| tflink | it's just one more channel to join and keep an eye on :) | 16:28 |
| nirik | channels actually do cost. ;) | 16:28 |
| adamw | i can see viking's argument that using -bugzappers is kinda weird | 16:28 |
| adamw | the only reason to use -bugzappers any more is for these meetings though | 16:28 |
| nirik | they cost in attention of people... | 16:28 |
| adamw | so the net cost of a new channel is 0, as if we used one, everyone could quit -bugzappers... | 16:28 |
| tflink | that'd work for me | 16:28 |
| tflink | I don't much care about what the channel is named | 16:28 |
| tflink | but using a dedicated channel does open some interesting possibilities with irc bots in the future | 16:29 |
| adamw | Viking-Ice: i think we convinced him ;) | 16:29 |
| Viking-Ice | everyone is familiar and usually on the qa channel ( devs/qa community members ) but we might be interrupted like happened that one time if we use it in the midst of the meeting | 16:30 |
| adamw | okay, so how about this, i'll draft sop changes for all the above ideas and we can kick it around further on list | 16:30 |
| adamw | yeah, that's the problem with using -qa | 16:30 |
| adamw | it's a pretty active channel | 16:30 |
| Viking-Ice | I assume we want as much activity on that channel | 16:31 |
| Viking-Ice | ( which usually means more vibrant and active community ) | 16:32 |
| * nirik is happy with another channel as long as we kill bugzappers. net 0 is good. | 16:32 | |
| adamw | okay. | 16:32 |
| adamw | Viking-Ice: sure, we want -qa to be active, but as you said, it gets awkward if we're having a two-hour blocker meeting and someone shows up wanting to chat about something else. | 16:32 |
| tflink | yeah, agreed that #fedora-qa is not the right place for review meetings | 16:33 |
| Viking-Ice | just throw it on the test list new channel any suggestion for the name of that channel and or use the qa channel and see how the community reacts/wants it | 16:33 |
| adamw | sounds good. | 16:33 |
| tflink | it sounded like a good idea when it was first proposed but in reality, it caused more problems than it solved :-/ | 16:34 |
| adamw | #action adamw to draft up changes to the blocker bug meeting SOP for 3-hour hard limit, no-reviews-during-qa-meetings, and a dedicated channel for meetings, send to list for further discussion | 16:34 |
| adamw | okay then | 16:36 |
| adamw | looks like that's all we had on the agenda, so... | 16:36 |
| adamw | #topic open floor | 16:36 |
| satellit | anymore koji builds to test f19? | 16:36 |
| adamw | koji builds? | 16:37 |
| satellit | lives to test | 16:37 |
| Viking-Ice | I've been wondering a bit about that do we really need iso files ? | 16:37 |
| Viking-Ice | ( other then alpha beta final ) | 16:37 |
| Viking-Ice | as in nightly's | 16:37 |
| nirik | satellit: I have been holding off doing them while the mass rebuild is running. Should resume tomorrow or so. | 16:38 |
| adamw | they're useful, sure. | 16:38 |
| Viking-Ice | aren't we usually using them only to test anaconda? | 16:38 |
| satellit | I rely on the .iso's for soas | 16:38 |
| adamw | in f18 cycle we didn't use them a lot as we were making TCs almost constantly | 16:38 |
| adamw | but in previous cycles they've gotten a decent amount of use. not that weird to ask someone to check something with a nightly. | 16:38 |
| kparal | also tflink's composes lowered our usage of nightlies | 16:39 |
| Viking-Ice | do we have download stats on the iso's | 16:39 |
| adamw | not sure koji tracks that...nirik? | 16:40 |
| adamw | kparal: we're aiming to do fewer smoke builds for f19, to save tflink all the work. | 16:41 |
| nirik | I don't know that it does off hand... | 16:41 |
| nirik | there's probibly http logs. | 16:41 |
| * nirik could look if you like. | 16:41 | |
| Viking-Ice | I've briefly been touching/pondering the idea if we somehow can use Colin Walters OStree to our advantage ( https://live.gnome.org/OSTree ) | 16:41 |
| adamw | i remember reading his blog post on it and thinking 'hmm, that's interesting', but i didn't really have any concrete ideas | 16:42 |
| nirik | so, httpd logs are kept for iso downloads. What info from there would you find useful? | 16:43 |
| adamw | i think viking was curious about how much the nightlies are downloaded? | 16:43 |
| nirik | 4569 downloads in 2012-12 | 16:44 |
| Viking-Ice | adamw, yeah that's where I'm at came across it looks interesting wondering if we can take some kind of advantage of it but nothing concrete yet | 16:44 |
| Viking-Ice | nirik, each release? | 16:44 |
| nirik | 5117 in 2013-01 | 16:44 |
| Viking-Ice | or total | 16:44 |
| nirik | total | 16:44 |
| nirik | any ".iso " download | 16:44 |
| nirik | nightlys are only kept for a week or so tho. | 16:45 |
| Viking-Ice | I'm just trying to asses the benefit of using it | 16:45 |
| Viking-Ice | vs overhead | 16:45 |
| adamw | the overhead's pretty tiny | 16:45 |
| adamw | i think it's just nirik firing a script | 16:45 |
| nirik | yep. | 16:46 |
| adamw | if it doesn't build, we don't try and fix it | 16:46 |
| nirik | and we keep wanting to automate it. | 16:46 |
| Viking-Ice | makes sense | 16:46 |
| nirik | it's useful also for spins folks to test if they ever do | 16:46 |
| satellit | +1 | 16:46 |
| Viking-Ice | technically gnome users should be testing the gnome spin as well while we try to focus our energy on the core function | 16:47 |
| Viking-Ice | but yeah | 16:47 |
| Viking-Ice | how much testing did other then the *DE spin get | 16:48 |
| Viking-Ice | I think those might be getting little to no testing even from their maintainers | 16:49 |
| nirik | I don't think there's any reasonable way to quantify that. ;) | 16:49 |
| adamw | in f18 not a huge lot, for f15->f17 i tried to get decent amount of testing for the non-blocking spins | 16:49 |
| * nirik did in fact test the Xfce spin a number of times. | 16:49 | |
| adamw | we at least made sure the whole desktop matrix was done once or twice at each milestone | 16:49 |
| adamw | for xfce and lxde | 16:49 |
| adamw | satellit tests sugar quite a lot | 16:50 |
| Viking-Ice | I'm not worried about the *DE spins ( and sugar ;) ) they all have active communities it's the other ones that concern me | 16:50 |
| satellit | I also do VirtualBox installs from spins to test yum installs of other DE's with sugar | 16:50 |
| adamw | outside of the desktops and sugar, hell if i know. | 16:51 |
| adamw | you may well be right that they don't get much of a look. | 16:51 |
| Viking-Ice | I'm wondering if we should not come up with a test matrix for those that the spin maintainers have to walk through and "pass" before release | 16:51 |
| * nirik nods. Suggested as much to the spins list a while back. | 16:51 | |
| adamw | i don't mind the idea in theory, as it does kinda suck when we ship stuff that's utterly borked | 16:51 |
| adamw | even if it's a spin we explicitly don't support | 16:52 |
| adamw | maybe you two could get together and re-propose it to spins? | 16:52 |
| Viking-Ice | what's releng take on something like that | 16:52 |
| Viking-Ice | ( anything we might handout at various events needs to be thoroughly tested ) | 16:53 |
| nirik | the spins setup is disfunctional, but attempts to fix it haven't met with anything concrete. | 16:53 |
| nirik | cwickert would be the one to involve in those discussions | 16:53 |
| cwickert | ? | 16:54 |
| nirik | cwickert: spins process... didn't go so well last cycle. ;( | 16:54 |
| cwickert | yes, I know | 16:54 |
| Viking-Ice | cwickert, to bring you up to speed qa/releng requesting test matrix spin has to pass before being released | 16:55 |
| cwickert | but I'm afraid it will become worse when we kill the spins | 16:55 |
| adamw | i don't think we hand out anything but the multi-install and multi-desktop | 16:55 |
| adamw | and the regular install / desktop of course | 16:55 |
| cwickert | Viking-Ice: that means what exactly? | 16:55 |
| nirik | I was thinking a 2 person checkoff of a test matrix for each spin we want to promote on spins.fedoraproject.org. The rest can exist, just in a corner of alt. | 16:56 |
| Viking-Ice | cwickert, test matrix spin maintainers have to walk through which ensures atleast no surprises | 16:56 |
| Viking-Ice | for their spins | 16:56 |
| adamw | this is the proposal | 16:56 |
| cwickert | Viking-Ice: argh | 16:57 |
| Viking-Ice | cwickert, the *de spins are not much worries since those have active community's it's the other spins | 16:57 |
| cwickert | Viking-Ice: please consider me as an idiot who doesn't have a clue what a "test matrix spin maintainer" is | 16:57 |
| adamw | cwickert: there should've been some punctuation or grammar in there :) | 16:57 |
| Viking-Ice | uhum yes | 16:58 |
| cwickert | I know what a test is, I know what a test matrix is, I know what a maintainer is | 16:58 |
| adamw | the idea is that there would be *a* test matrix (basically just a test plan) that spin maintainers have to run through to have their spin 'approved' or whatever for a release, just a very basic 'does it boot?' smoke test | 16:58 |
| nirik | I think we are talking about "it boots, selinux is enforcing and works, it lets you login, etc" | 16:58 |
| cwickert | but who is supposed to maintain the test matrix for a spin? | 16:58 |
| adamw | cwickert: it'd be a generic one i think | 16:58 |
| cwickert | can there be specific tests for a spin? | 16:59 |
| cwickert | who is to maintain them and so on | 16:59 |
| cwickert | there is tons of questions | 16:59 |
| adamw | i think this idea would just be a very basic generic 'smoke test' | 16:59 |
| adamw | spin-specific tests are possible but would be a different thing | 16:59 |
| Viking-Ice | qa would maintain the matrix I suppose we already have criteria for "core" the rest is just packages on top of that | 16:59 |
| adamw | we actually already have one such matrix for the security lab spin (though no-one ever runs it) | 16:59 |
| cwickert | ok, I'm sorry, I need to stop here, FAMSCo meeting | 16:59 |
| cwickert | but we DO need to talk about this | 16:59 |
| adamw | anyway, it seems like a decent idea | 16:59 |
| * nirik nods. | 17:00 | |
| adamw | #action viking-ice to discuss the 'smoke test for spins' idea further with nirik and cwickert | 17:00 |
| cwickert | I know the spins went badly | 17:00 |
| nirik | yeah, I don't think anyone disagrees... just how we improve them. ;) | 17:00 |
| cwickert | but on the other hand I am very frustrated about getting little or no feedback from QA about my requests | 17:00 |
| adamw | sorry, which requests? | 17:00 |
| Viking-Ice | yeah I missed those to | 17:01 |
| cwickert | adamw: changelogs in the announcements for the differenc milestones, better browsability in the wiki, meaningful renaming of the tracker bugs | 17:01 |
| adamw | oh, those | 17:01 |
| cwickert | are you coming to devconf? | 17:02 |
| adamw | 1) i talked to andre about that one and we edited the text of the announcements somewhat to make it clearer that the 'changelog' is in the trac ticket | 17:02 |
| adamw | 2) unfortunately didn't get to that one yet | 17:02 |
| adamw | 3) we did that | 17:02 |
| cwickert | I'd appreciate if we can discuss some things | 17:02 |
| * Viking-Ice still lost... | 17:02 | |
| adamw | cwickert: nope | 17:02 |
| Viking-Ice | I will be there kparal as well | 17:03 |
| adamw | Viking-Ice: these are requests from some time back, i don't recall exactly what the forum was but i recall the discussion now | 17:03 |
| adamw | cwickert: right, you can talk to viking and kparal there (probably also jskladan) | 17:03 |
| Viking-Ice | perhaps this should end up in our trac instance | 17:03 |
| adamw | cwickert: did you miss the tracker bug renaming thing? cos that was a whole thing a few weeks back. | 17:03 |
| kparal | in a pub :) | 17:03 |
| adamw | i think it may well be there | 17:03 |
| Viking-Ice | kparal, with rotten shark bits ;) | 17:03 |
| adamw | i'm pretty sure i filed tickets at the time | 17:03 |
| kparal | Viking-Ice: that's not really a czech speciality | 17:04 |
| adamw | https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/273 is the ticket for the 'browsability' thing | 17:04 |
| adamw | https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/272 is for the 'changelog' thing...it's not that we didn't give you any feedback, really, but andre didn't entirely agree with the proposal... | 17:05 |
| Viking-Ice | 307 for some of it? | 17:05 |
| adamw | that wasn't part of cwickert's request, no. but i do need to finish that up. sigh | 17:05 |
| adamw | so much stuff to do | 17:05 |
| adamw | anyhoo, we're a bit over time | 17:06 |
| Viking-Ice | kparal, I will be bringing a box of bits for people to try as requested ;) | 17:06 |
| Viking-Ice | yup | 17:06 |
| adamw | so let's wrap up | 17:06 |
| cwickert | adamw: 3) we did that? | 17:06 |
| adamw | cwickert: the tracker bug renaming,. | 17:06 |
| cwickert | adamw: I don't think so | 17:06 |
| cwickert | what are the names now? | 17:06 |
| adamw | cwickert: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2013-January/113405.html | 17:07 |
| kparal | Viking-Ice: let's hope it's not an attempt to wipe out Brno's Red Hat office :-) | 17:07 |
| cwickert | I am searching the wiki for 5 minutes now for the NTH have bugs :( | 17:07 |
| adamw | cwickert: they're called FreezeException now | 17:07 |
| adamw | cwickert: and they're always listed at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Trackers | 17:07 |
| adamw | which is linked from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Blocker_Bug_FAQ and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process | 17:08 |
| * adamw sets fuse | 17:09 | |
| * cwickert needs to bail out for the FAmSCo meeting | 17:10 | |
| adamw | cwickert: let us know what you think about the new names | 17:11 |
| cwickert | adamw: I made a proposal, so I probably prefer what I proposed, right? | 17:12 |
| adamw | well i'd *hope* not everyone thinks that way :) | 17:12 |
| adamw | i had a proposal too, and so did tflink, but we both prefer the final scheme | 17:12 |
| cwickert | I mean, the new names are better than the old ones, but still I consider mine better :P | 17:12 |
| adamw | anyhoo | 17:12 |
| adamw | time to end this nightmare! | 17:12 |
| adamw | thanks for coming folks | 17:12 |
| adamw | #endmeeting | 17:12 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.11.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!