From Fedora Project Wiki

< BugZappers‎ | Meetings

Revision as of 07:56, 18 September 2016 by Jibecfed (talk | contribs) (internal link cleaning)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Bug Triage Meeting :: 2009-05-12

Attendees

  • adamw
  • arxs
  • john5342
  • mcepl
  • poelcat
  • SMParrish
  • tk009
  • will

Meeting Topics

-mcepl's "Feedback Request" to the -devel-list received no negative responses to date. adamw will send a progress mail to the list asking that one of the alternatives be chosen.

  • 000-Not-Sure-What-Component-To-File-Against idea (avoid bugs getting filed against 0xFFFF inappropriately) - Decided that this wasn't necessary at this time given the very limited number of bugs filed under xFFFF component.

IRC Transcript

--- Log opened Tue May 12 11:02:58 2009
* john5342 is here 11:02
tk009 here 11:03
mcepl pong 11:03
poelcat the important thing for today is sending the warning about the rawhide rebase to fedora-devel-announce 11:03
poelcat did anyone have any suggested changes to the text? 11:03
poelcat http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora11#Warning_to_Package_Maintainers 11:03
poelcat #2 should say Fedora 9, not Fedora 10 11:04
adamw looks fine to me 11:04
tk009 same 11:05
will looks good to me 11:05
poelcat okay, i'll send it later today 11:05
arxs nice work 11:05
SMParrish_ looks like it says release is F12 when should be F11 11:05
will so it does nice catch 11:06
poelcat SMParrish_: good catch :) 11:06
* poelcat thinking in too many different releases 11:06
adamw heh 11:07
adamw i keep doing the same thing so i didn't notice ;) 11:07
mcepl +1 to the letter 11:07
poelcat fixed 11:07
poelcat that would have been embarrassing :( 11:08
poelcat next up was the query to select the rawhide bugs to rebase 11:08
poelcat BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora11#Qualifying_Criteria 11:08
poelcat jds2001 was trying to help add criteria last nightg 11:08
poelcat so that if a rawhide bug is blocking one of the F12 blockers it won't get touched 11:09
jds2001 yeah, failed pretty miserably :( 11:09
arxs maybe some comment to the flag [enh] 11:09
arxs dcbw (NetworkManager) use it to reflect enhancement requests 11:10
jds2001 poelcat: if i can give a direct DB query that works in upstream BZ, will eng-ops take it? 11:10
poelcat we can work on the query more outside of the meeting 11:10
poelcat jds2001: maybe, i can ask 11:10
poelcat any questions/discussion about the overall http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora11 page ? 11:11
adamw looks fine to me 11:12
adamw add arxs's explanation for the enh keyword 11:12
poelcat what is that? 11:12
poelcat i thought it was a typo and was going to remove it 11:12
jds2001 seems dan williams uses it. 11:12
arxs poelcat, please see some line above 11:12
poelcat is it a keyword or a flag? 11:13
poelcat and why does it matter for this? 11:13
adamw by arxs' explanation, it's used for feature requests 11:14
adamw and those by their nature should be set to rawhide, not any specific already-released versioin 11:14
poelcat adamw: why doesn't he use FutureFeature? 11:14
adamw don't ask me =) 11:14
adamw maybe he doesn't know 11:14
adamw arxs: ? 11:14
arxs it's at the start of the summary line, but i added the FutureFeature keyword on the bugs 11:15
arxs so we can remove it from the query 11:15
poelcat FutureFeature is what we've used for multiple releases and I think it is a bad idea to add another one that means the same thing 11:15
adamw ok 11:15
* poelcat removes critiera for enh 11:16
arxs poelcat: right, enh is not a keyword, it only in the title, and all bugs with this, i added the FutureFeature keyword 11:17
mcepl should I try to persuade dcbw nicely to give up on enh or we don't care? 11:17
* poelcat sees another error... RFE is not a keyword either 11:17
arxs mcepl: i inform him myself, but thanks 11:18
mcepl ok 11:18
poelcat sometimes people use it in the summary so we look there as a doublecheck 11:18
poelcat move on? 11:19
adamw sure 11:19
will sure 11:19
arxs poelcat, the query look right, they check the summary for RFE not the keyword 11:19
poelcat arxs: right, the wiki page was wrong 11:19
poelcat next topic... Triage Metrics - http://publictest14.fedoraproject.org/triageweb/ 11:19
poelcat anyone have an update? 11:20
poelcat 5/16 was our goal? 11:20
mcepl poelcat: 404 11:20
will i get 404 too 11:20
SMParrish same 11:21
tk009 it has been that way since we got the python port help 11:21
adamw comphappy's been...fun to get a hold of 11:21
tk009 I thought it was jsut waiting on test data 11:21
adamw i managed to chat to him for about five minutes this week 11:21
adamw and asked him to provide the test data 11:21
adamw but haven't heard from him since then :\ 11:22
adamw a possible alternative approach: does anyone know how he *got* the test data? did someone help him with that? 11:22
poelcat okay so, "status and ETC unknown" 11:22
adamw if we know what format it was in and how he dumped it, we can just re-create it 11:22
poelcat adamw: he generated it by querying bugzilla 11:22
tk009 there is a README 11:22
adamw poelcat: well, yeah, but it's the specifics i'm interested in :) 11:23
poelcat and i believe it took a long time (hours/days) because of the way he had to query it 11:23
adamw ah. fun. 11:23
adamw so, i'll keep trying to get hold of him 11:23
poelcat adamw: that would be great :) 11:23
poelcat next topic ,,,, Severity/priority - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Beland/Bugzilla_Legend update on progress 11:23
arxs no responses to the mail... 11:24
tk009 not a one 11:24
tk009 that seems a bit strange 11:24
arxs maybe we can ask some good known developer to make a comment to it, do bring it in front maybe? 11:25
adamw personally, i don't mind :) 11:25
adamw the point of the mail was to flush out any active negative feedback 11:26
adamw i.e. "this will ruin my life because of X" 11:26
tk009 does that mean we would just go ahead wit hte idea after a time if no one replies? 11:26
adamw i wasn't really expecting that we should get actively positive feedback before going ahead 11:26
adamw yes 11:26
adamw imho, anyway 11:26
tk009 how long till that plan would go into effect? 11:27
adamw my deadline was tomorrow; after that i'm planning to propose we just go ahead with it and see what happens, we can use the f12 cycle as our 'test period' (or earlier if it turns out to be breaking stuff) 11:27
adamw however, we have to choose one of the alternative schemes - mine / beland's, or matej's (not that the people involve matter much, i don't mind at all if we go with matej's) 11:27
adamw so i'll send a progress mail to the list outlining this and asking that we pick one of the alternatives 11:27
adamw so, that's that topic for me 11:29
adamw any comments? 11:29
will none from me 11:30
poelcat sounds good 11:30
arxs me too 11:30
mcepl +1 11:31
adamw ok, next topic :) 11:31
tk009 I believe that was all of them 11:31
poelcat we're out of topics :) 11:31
tk009 I have one 11:31
tk009 000-Not-Sure-What-Component-To-File-Against idea (avoid bugs getting filed against 0xFFFF inappropriately) 11:32
tk009 did we ever get anywhere wit hthis? 11:32
adamw no, don't think we did...i don't remember where the discussion died 11:32
tk009 I don't think we can do much on this before release 11:33
tk009 but shopuld we look at it after? 11:33
mcepl what's wrong with "throw it somewhere in the appropriate direction" (which is what I have been doing for the last two years)? 11:33
tk009 bring it up again? 11:33
tk009 this was jsut something left on the agenda list | belend was leading it I believe 11:34
mcepl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=component%3A0xFFFF gives me 11 bugs, which seem to be possible to be dispersed to better places. 11:34
mcepl should we do as one of the pre-GA actions cleaning up this component? 11:35
adamw sure, couldn't hurt 11:35
adamw btw, does anyone know what the hell 0xFFFF actually *is*? 11:35
tk009 triage day item? for today? 11:35
tk009 I do but forgetting atm 11:35
mcepl adamw: it used to be some testing stuff by David Woodhouse (who used to be RH) 11:36
adamw so, nothing important 11:36
adamw oh, i think i remembered what the objection to the proposal is 11:37
adamw it encourages laziness 11:37
tk009 0pen Free Fiasco Firmware Flasher 11:37
mcepl yeah, something like that 11:37
adamw i.e. if the first thing everyone sees is that there's a bug called 000-Not-Sure-What-Component-To-File-Against , they might assume it's fine to just file everything against that 11:37
tk009 just like that =P 11:37
arxs some time ago we talked about the relation of triager and upstream bugs. I don't remember what are the final result on this. Should the triager take care of upstream bugs and link them to exists BZ bugs? 11:37
adamw which would lead to one of us poor sods spending half his life assigning bugs to appropriate components 11:37
adamw arxs: i think we agreed it should be just optional-but-nice... 11:38
adamw arxs: is it in the How to Triage page? let me look 11:38
adamw arxs: yeah, it is: BugZappers/How_to_Triage - it's an Optional Step 11:38
adamw so, it's nice to do it, but you don't have to 11:39
tk009 so my question is, should 0pen Free Fiasco Firmware Flasher 11:39
tk009 oopos 11:39
tk009 should the 000- remain a an agenda item 11:39
arxs adamw: thanks for pointing me to this, i search the wiki for "upstream" but there to many results displayed :) 11:39
arxs some the answer is so close... :) 11:40
adamw tk009: well, we could discuss it here, we have a good number 11:40
adamw does the benefit of the 'better' name outweigh the disadvantage of encouraging lazy reports? 11:40
tk009 sounds like we don't need it 11:40
tk009 I think mecpl has it right, 11 of them are not a big deal 11:41
arxs tk009: think also, does anyone know how many bugs are reports false against it? 11:41
john5342 could do with a component 000 that automatically throws and error back at the user to make an effort to find the right component. 11:42
tk009 can that be done? 11:42
john5342 no idea 11:42
arxs john5342: this is hard to implement it bugzilla 11:43
tk009 that is my thinking sa well 11:43
adamw yeah, and we don't want to go patching bugzilla for relatively trivial issues 11:43
tk009 not to mention the person that does the work probably wont want too 11:43
arxs until a heavy customized BZ make it also hard to make updates on it 11:44
adamw tk009: that's who I meant by 'we' :) 11:44
tk009 =) 11:44
john5342 didnt think it would work. in an ideal world though 11:44
adamw yeah, it'd probably be nice to have a default selection which didn't 'work' 11:45
adamw so put it on our "in a world of rainbows and ponies" list and move on :) 11:45
tk009 that is y feeling as well 11:45
poelcat sounds like this is all for today? 11:46
tk009 for me yes 11:46
adamw any other business? 11:46
mcepl actually really, how many people file bugs without knowing against which they file it? 11:46
adamw mcepl: quite a few, but most know to at least make a guess 11:46
mcepl *without knowing component 11:46
tk009 it belands thing brother so I couldn't answer taht one 11:46
mcepl and I think that's we ask them to do ... make a gues 11:46
adamw oh, my usual thing: anyone worried about any bugs they're triaging that look like serious issues for f11? 11:47
adamw just want to make sure we're not missing anything for the f11 blockers 11:47
tk009 one blocker that poelcat and richard are working out =P 11:47
* mcepl bumbles something about xorg being completely broken, but nobody is probably surprised by that ... 11:47
adamw yeah, i waved the white flag on that one =) 11:48
adamw at first i was going to put all "X doesn't start up!" bugs on the x11 blocker bug, then i counted how many there were, then i shelved that plan 11:48
adamw sigh 11:48
tk009 commandline is all you need 11:48
adamw heh 11:48
tk009 irssi works 11:48
tk009 I guess that is it then? 11:49
adamw sounds like it 11:49
adamw so, next is triage day in #fedora-bugzappers 11:49
adamw we could clean up the 0xFFFF list as suggested 11:49
adamw and also, we have at least will who's new - will, will you be around? would you like some help getting started with zapping? 11:49
tk009 he can't excape now =) get him! 11:50
will yes, i will be around for the triage hour so that would be great 11:50
adamw awesome 11:51
tk009 on behalf of poelcat that is a wrap. see everyone in bugzappers 11:51
poelcat <EOM> 11:53
poelcat :) 11:53
--- Log closed Tue May 12 11:57:41 2009

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!

Retrieved from "https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=BugZappers/Meetings/Minutes-2009-May-12&oldid=471993"