QA/Meetings/20090624

From FedoraProject

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Attendees

  • (Southern_Gentlemen)
  • Jóhann Guðmundsson (viking-ice)
  • Will Woods (wwoods)
  • Seth Vidal (skvidal)
  • James Laska (jlaska)
  • John Poelstra (poelcat)


Agenda

Proposed meeting agenda

Previous meeting follow-up

  • [jlaska] - update QA/Goals wiki document

No traction over the last week. Still a high priority item for jlaska. Lot's great things happening in QA, and some common themes around them. Just looking for a concise way to document those efforts into a single page.

  • [wwoods] - updates on Rawhide acceptance test plan

Test plan: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Rawhide_Acceptance_Test_Plan created. Some feedback on fedora-test-list helped shape the list of tests to include.

Viking_ice asked if we forgot to include a test for network connectivity as a basic functionality test?

Fedora 12 QA schedule changes

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-June/msg00507.html

  • wwoods asked if additional blocker bug days were listed
  • Viking_ice and jlaska both were on the fence with regards to whether or not to include test days in the formal Fedora schedule. Viking_ice suggested test days need more flexibility currently when it comes to the schedule.
  • poelcat hilighted the second change in the schedule around compose checkpoints during each milestone.

The next step will be to propose the schedule changes to rel-eng. If approved, we then work to plan around the changes.

AutoQA - update from wwoods

https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa

Wwoods provided an update on where the autoqa project is. Real Soon Now we'll be trying to write some test code and wikifying what we learn about writing tests for autotest. I expect next meeting (or the one after that) we may have some test code and/or results to show and a list of cases we need help writing.

Additionally, writing test cases in the wiki has already started and will be ongoing.

Wwoods intends to solicit volunteers to help with defining test cases, and once defined, automating the test cases. Anyone with a little python skill can likely contribute.

Test Day SOP draft - update from awilliam

Adamw was unable to make the meeting, but sent a quick update to the mailing list on a Fedora Test Day SOP document. Adam's draft email can be found https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-June/msg00662.html. Please pass along any constructive feedback to the mailing list.

Improve Bug Reporting proposal - update from viking_ice

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/QA/Improve_reporting

Viking_ice introduced several topics noted in the above document. All topics outline areas where improvements could be made around bug reporting.

Viking_ice provided good news for those concerned about the look'n'feel of the bugzilla reporting page. Bugzilla-3.4 intends to simplify this view (see http://lpsolit.wordpress.com/2009/05/24/simpler-form-to-file-bugs-in-bugzilla-3-4/).

Jlaska asked what specific feedback viking_ice was interesting in, and suggested possibly teaming up with the BugZappers since several of the proposed ideas line up with BugZapper goals.

Viking_ice commented, So to get one thing clear this is the problem that we are faced with ( taken from my improve_reporting page )

  • Lack of needed information for maintainer(s) to be able to successfully work with the report. - The reason for the lack of the needed information on a report is in most cases simply that the reporter has not a clue what to include in the report itself and is not mandatory to provide that information.The underlying problem is not the reporter nor the triager which often ask the reporter to include wrong information because the triager has no better clue what to include in the report so he ask for the most common include case ( usually to include /var/log/messages). The problem is that the maintainer(s) them self have failed to provide this information or has done so only to the reporter on a report bases.When a maintainer introduces a component into Fedora it should be mandatory for him to provide this information along with how to enable debug output and to provide test plans for the component.

Viking_ice asked if any one knew how abrt is solving this problem. Wwoods mentioned that IIRC they had (or were planning to have) plugins or conf files that specify what files to attach. Which does not solve the problem they just pass the burden to the maintainer to write that plugin or config file or us and since we need to have that info in other places like bugzilla then it's question if we should not gather that info from maintainers perhaps file a bug against all components in bugzilla and asking the maintainer for that info and we then we would write that plugin or config file or abrt would fetch the info for that in the same db as bugzilla would?

Viking_ice summarized by saying we need to come up with some plans on how to gather the info from maintainers on what they want on their reports on how to get that info from them. and pointed to User:Johannbg/QA/Kernel as an example based on j-rod's suggestion from the Fedora 11 retrospective meeting.

Jlaska suggested having a way to catalog content (e.g. debugging tips, or bug filing tips) for testers to easily find could be a great start.

Viking_ice notified the team he had started on User:Johannbg/QA/Kernel in regards to j-rods wish on the F-11 Release Retrospective meeting

Open discussion

Target Audience for israwhidebroken.com?

Viking_ice asked who are the target audience with israwhidebroken.com and what is being hope to accomplish with that? Adding that we, as testers, know that rawhide is largely broken before beta.

Jlaska suggested pulled content from the IRB.COM FAD proposal ... Provide a single, well-known location with information about whether or not Rawhide is broken, and a link to the last known-good Rawhide tree. Jlaska summarized, for me ... it's all about consistently gathering data to facilitate decision making.

Upcoming QA events

Action items

  • [viking_ice] - check-in with abrt
  • [wwoods] - add post-install network test to basic functionality in rawhide acceptance plan
  • [jlaska] - update QA/Goals wiki document

IRC Transcript

jlaska | #startmeeting Jun 24 12:00
fedbot | Meeting started Wed Jun 24 16:00:05 2009 UTC. The chair is jlaska. Jun 24 12:00
fedbot | Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot , Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. Jun 24 12:00
jlaska | #meetingtopic Fedora QA Meeting Jun 24 12:00
--- | fedbot has changed the topic to: (Meeting topic: Fedora QA Meeting) Jun 24 12:00
jlaska | #topic gathering bodies Jun 24 12:00
--- | fedbot has changed the topic to: gathering bodies (Meeting topic: Fedora QA Meeting) Jun 24 12:00
jlaska | I think we have a few folks out today ... adamw and f13 Jun 24 12:00
jlaska | show of limbs for folks hanging out for the QA meeting today Jun 24 12:01
* | Southern_Gentlem Jun 24 12:01
* | Viking-Ice .. Jun 24 12:01
jlaska | Southern_Gentlem: Viking-Ice: greetings! Jun 24 12:01
* | skvidal is here Jun 24 12:01
jlaska | skvidal: howdy :) Jun 24 12:01
* | wwoods appears Jun 24 12:02
jlaska | wwoods: hey hey! Jun 24 12:03
jlaska | alright ... let's get started Jun 24 12:03
jlaska | I've got a proposed agenda out to the list, so if no objections, we'll just walk the agenda Jun 24 12:03
jlaska | agenda - https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-June/msg00652.html Jun 24 12:04
jlaska | #topic Previous meeting follow-up Jun 24 12:04
--- | fedbot has changed the topic to: Previous meeting follow-up (Meeting topic: Fedora QA Meeting) Jun 24 12:04
jlaska | a short list of follow-up items from last week ... and I'm fail on the first item Jun 24 12:04
jlaska | :( Jun 24 12:04
jlaska | * [jlaska] - update QA/Goals wiki document Jun 24 12:04
jlaska | Still high up on my list ... just trying to figure out a good way to represent ideas and let it grow Jun 24 12:04
jlaska | I'm referencing the community architecture goals page as a starting point Jun 24 12:05
skvidal | jlaska: interpretive dance works well in the wiki Jun 24 12:05
jlaska | skvidal: no kidding! :) Jun 24 12:05
jlaska | so this will remain on my list for next week Jun 24 12:06
jlaska | we've got a lot of cool things going on ... and a some common themes to the work, I just want to wrap some wording around it Jun 24 12:06
* | jlaska struggling with that atm Jun 24 12:06
jlaska | okay, the only other item on the list is sort of vague ... but I know work has been happening there Jun 24 12:07
jlaska | * [wwoods] - updates on Rawhide acceptance test plan Jun 24 12:07
jlaska | did we lose wwoods? Jun 24 12:08
wwoods | sorry Jun 24 12:09
jlaska | oh good, no worries Jun 24 12:09
wwoods | so we have a test plan: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Rawhide_Acceptance_Test_Plan Jun 24 12:09
wwoods | it suggests 10 test cases for rawhide acceptance Jun 24 12:09
wwoods | we filled out 10 tickets in the autoqa trac to write those test cases Jun 24 12:09
wwoods | (see the link in the Test Cases section) Jun 24 12:09
jlaska | got some good feedback on the list for the plan Jun 24 12:10
wwoods | I've written one already: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Comps_Validity_Test_Case Jun 24 12:10
jlaska | thanks to ldimaggi_ for pitching in! Jun 24 12:10
wwoods | yeah, the list of test cases etc. was determined after some discussion on fedora-test-list and on the wiki Jun 24 12:10
jlaska | wwoods: using the format you specified in the wiki text, I added my nick to the list of reviewers Jun 24 12:11
wwoods | anyone who wants to help write up (or review) the test cases.. we'd appreciate it Jun 24 12:11
* | jlaska encourages others who want to help review the test plan (or listed test cases) to do the same Jun 24 12:11
jlaska | wwoods: nice, any other updates on that front, anything to carry forward to next week? Jun 24 12:13
Viking-Ice | Arent we forgetting in the "Basic Functionality" to check if an network connection can be established ? Jun 24 12:13
wwoods | hm. yeah, that's worth checking Jun 24 12:14
Viking-Ice | no shit :) Jun 24 12:14
wwoods | as is seeing if yum can pull down packages Jun 24 12:14
wwoods | (which sort of implies network functionality) Jun 24 12:14
Viking-Ice | exactly Jun 24 12:14
Viking-Ice | the whole being able to update :) Jun 24 12:15
wwoods | okay, good call Jun 24 12:15
jlaska | I'm not quite comfortable yet on where to draw the line between acceptance testing of rawhide ... and more functional testing Jun 24 12:15
skvidal | the line in my mind is this Jun 24 12:16
skvidal | acceptance testing is 'do all the bits fit somewhere' is it POSSIBLE to install this given the depsolving requirements Jun 24 12:16
skvidal | AND Jun 24 12:16
skvidal | can a scripted installed actually succeed Jun 24 12:16
skvidal | if those two both test out correctly then, rawhide is acceptable Jun 24 12:17
* | jlaska lines that up with the comments in the introduction Jun 24 12:17
skvidal | beyond that is functional testing Jun 24 12:17
wwoods | Well, a scripted install as we typically run them Jun 24 12:17
wwoods | would require network and yum to work Jun 24 12:17
wwoods | since anaconda would be using those to fetch and install packages Jun 24 12:17
wwoods | right? Jun 24 12:17
jlaska | wwoods: I was wondering that as well Jun 24 12:18
skvidal | wwoods: well, it requires the LOADER network works Jun 24 12:19
skvidal | it doesn't require that the booted kernel network works Jun 24 12:19
jlaska | okay, so the take away is to add an additional network check on the post-installed system? Jun 24 12:20
wwoods | it's trivial to test, since typically our tests are going to report their status using the network Jun 24 12:21
skvidal | <shrug> Jun 24 12:21
jlaska | right Jun 24 12:21
skvidal | wwoods: fair enough Jun 24 12:21
wwoods | but there's thousands of different ways it can possibly fail Jun 24 12:21
wwoods | so it's not a very, uh, focused test Jun 24 12:21
wwoods | but then, irb.com is answering a very general question Jun 24 12:22
skvidal | international rugby board? Jun 24 12:22
wwoods | I dunno. I can go either way here. Technically we can perform installs without network Jun 24 12:22
* | skvidal must have missed something Jun 24 12:22
jlaska | #action add post-install network test to basic functionality in rawhide acceptance plan Jun 24 12:22
wwoods | but the vast majority of our tests (and testers) would be kinda busted if network or yum stopped working Jun 24 12:22
wwoods | skvidal: sorry - shorthand for israwhidebroken.com Jun 24 12:23
skvidal | oh right, sorry Jun 24 12:23
skvidal | I actually went to irb.com Jun 24 12:23
skvidal | curious how international rugby board and is rawhide broken have a lot of things in common, though Jun 24 12:23
wwoods | Being able to test yum functionality is the highest priority for the critical-path stuff Jun 24 12:24
jlaska | good point Jun 24 12:24
wwoods | so that proposal (and ensuing test plans/cases) will definitely cover that use case Jun 24 12:24
wwoods | stuff left off the Rawhide Acceptance Test Plan will *not* be ignored Jun 24 12:24
wwoods | but we won't even bother looking at the critical path tests until the acceptance test passes Jun 24 12:25
skvidal | agreed Jun 24 12:25
Viking-Ice | kinda goes without saying.. Jun 24 12:25
wwoods | so the informal line is something like this: can someone actually test this thing. "Is Rawhide Broken?" Jun 24 12:25
wwoods | and I think most of us would consider it broken if networking was completely non-functional Jun 24 12:26
wwoods | or yum was unable to upgrade any packages Jun 24 12:26
jlaska | okay, we have a few topics to cover today ... any objections to moving on? Jun 24 12:26
wwoods | failures of *individual* network chipsets do not count as "broken" Jun 24 12:26
wwoods | nor wireless. Jun 24 12:26
jlaska | are there any other things we want to capture here? Jun 24 12:26
Viking-Ice | agreed Jun 24 12:26
wwoods | in short: yeah, Viking-Ice is right - we need test cases for network and yum Jun 24 12:26
wwoods | very, very basic test cases Jun 24 12:27
jlaska | does it smell ... [yes] [no] Jun 24 12:27
* | poelcat wonders if any of the tests or open tasks could be queued up for working on at the FUDCon in Berlin this weekend? Jun 24 12:27
skvidal | so you can do both, actually Jun 24 12:27
jlaska | poelcat: we can talk about that shortly Jun 24 12:27
skvidal | at the same time Jun 24 12:27
jlaska | poelcat: I've got an update from f13 on that subject Jun 24 12:27
wwoods | skvidal: right - the implementation of the test cases will be pretty trivial Jun 24 12:27
jlaska | #topic Fedora 12 QA schedule changes Jun 24 12:28
--- | fedbot has changed the topic to: Fedora 12 QA schedule changes (Meeting topic: Fedora QA Meeting) Jun 24 12:28
* | poelcat just saw http://spevack.livejournal.com/84441.html Jun 24 12:28
jlaska | poelcat sent an updated F12 QA schedule to the mailing list last week Jun 24 12:28
jlaska | See https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-June/msg00507.html Jun 24 12:28
jlaska | I wanted to talk about it briefly here to see what, if any, concerns the QA folks had about the schedule? Jun 24 12:29
jlaska | to hilight some changes that I keen on ... Jun 24 12:29
jlaska | A few of the informal activities that happened during F11 are now a bit more formal Jun 24 12:30
jlaska | like the scheduling of blocker bug days Jun 24 12:30
jlaska | and compose+hand_off of release candidate trees to QA Jun 24 12:30
jlaska | But poelcat has asked for additional guidance from the QA group Jun 24 12:31
jlaska | if I think back around F11, those 2 items listed above were items where it was unclear who was doing what when ... so I dig those changes Jun 24 12:32
jlaska | poelcat: are there any other areas of the schedule you're looking for feedback on? Jun 24 12:32
* | jlaska still on the fence with getting test days in the schedule Jun 24 12:33
jlaska | Viking-Ice: wwoods: do you folks have any concerns about the proposed changes? Jun 24 12:34
jlaska | or perhaps, looking for something extra? Jun 24 12:35
* | jlaska takes silence as violent agreement :) Jun 24 12:35
* | poelcat also wanted to volunteer to create an ical file for QA tasks if there is interest... something similar to http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-12/f-12-releng.ics Jun 24 12:36
wwoods | are there more frequent bug reviews in this schedule than in the F11 schedule? Jun 24 12:36
* | poelcat stepped away and is back Jun 24 12:36
jlaska | wwoods: yeah ... there are now 3 bug reviews ... 1 before freeze, and 2 following (prior to RC composes) Jun 24 12:36
poelcat | wwoods: yes Jun 24 12:36
* | Viking-Ice stands with jlaska on being on the fence with getting the test day's in the schedule.. Jun 24 12:36
jlaska | Viking-Ice: I'm there mostly since that schedule is *so* dynamic still :( Jun 24 12:37
wwoods | yeah, that was the only thing other than test-day scheduling that I wanted to be sure of Jun 24 12:37
jlaska | okay cool Jun 24 12:37
* | poelcat thinks wiki is probably best for the test days unless they will always happen on certain days Jun 24 12:37
jlaska | they always happen on Thursdays ... but that can change based on need Jun 24 12:38
poelcat | the other big distinction was two specific composes for a release and then subsequent testing Jun 24 12:38
Viking-Ice | I dont really want to nailed the test days to down to a schedule we need the flexibility Jun 24 12:38
jlaska | or at least are planned for thursdays Jun 24 12:38
jlaska | Viking-Ice: okay Jun 24 12:38
poelcat | so next step would be to see if releng can accomodate composes on the days proposed Jun 24 12:39
poelcat | and maybe plan for them in advance? Jun 24 12:39
jlaska | sounds good to me ... that gives us some time to prep the test results reporting and any other QA call for actions Jun 24 12:40
poelcat | i was try to formalize some of the past discussion about limited QA capacity and not being able to test every compose Jun 24 12:40
jlaska | assuming rel-eng is okay with them, I think it's worth a try for the upcoming release Jun 24 12:41
jlaska | poelcat: okay ... any other points you wanted to raise? Jun 24 12:41
poelcat | that's it Jun 24 12:42
jlaska | oh, I forgot your iCal idea Jun 24 12:42
jlaska | I don't have any strong feelings on that yet Jun 24 12:43
* | Viking-Ice brb.. Jun 24 12:43
* | jlaska is used to going to the wiki 12/Schedule page Jun 24 12:43
jlaska | might be neat to try for this next cycle Jun 24 12:44
jlaska | but I can't say whether or not it's critical Jun 24 12:44
jlaska | if anyone else has input or thoughts on providing an ical schedule, please do follow-up with poelcat Jun 24 12:45
jlaska | #topic AutoQA - update from wwoods Jun 24 12:45
--- | fedbot has changed the topic to: AutoQA - update from wwoods (Meeting topic: Fedora QA Meeting) Jun 24 12:45
jlaska | wwoods: we may have tackled a fair bit already, but I have a spot in the agenda for an update on the autoqa project Jun 24 12:45
wwoods | well, the step after writing up a bunch of test cases is.. automating 'em Jun 24 12:46
wwoods | I think we've got some docs on setting up autotest Jun 24 12:46
jlaska | yeah I think I put the link in the ticket ... 'cause I knew I'd forget Jun 24 12:46
jlaska | ... Jun 24 12:46
jlaska | https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/5 Jun 24 12:46
wwoods | so Real Soon Now we'll be trying to write some test code and wikifying what we learn about writing tests for autotest Jun 24 12:47
jlaska | the KVM guys did most of the hard work already for us ... http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/KVM-Autotest/Server_Install Jun 24 12:47
wwoods | so I expect next meeting (or the one after that) we may have some test code and/or results to show Jun 24 12:48
* | Viking-Ice back Jun 24 12:49
wwoods | and a list of cases we need help writing Jun 24 12:49
jlaska | wwoods: when you say writing, do you mean automating or just defining wiki test cases? Jun 24 12:49
wwoods | sorry, automating Jun 24 12:49
Viking-Ice | probably both :) Jun 24 12:49
wwoods | writing test cases in the wiki has already started and will be ongoing Jun 24 12:50
wwoods | hopefully finishing in the next week Jun 24 12:50
wwoods | automating those cases can start whenever we've got time to look at it Jun 24 12:50
jlaska | wwoods: f13 asked earlier today on #fedora-qa what things he could ask others to help with. I pointed to the list of test case tickets in autoqa trac Jun 24 12:51
--- | oget_zzz is now known as oget Jun 24 12:53
jlaska | wwoods: would you like help from others on defining the test cases ... or is that a head down solo activity? Jun 24 12:53
wwoods | help from anyone who understands how we test this stuff already would be much appreciated Jun 24 12:54
wwoods | we're really just writing down all the unwritten requirements Jun 24 12:55
jlaska | would it make sense to send something out to the list asking for interested volunteers? Jun 24 12:55
jlaska | I mean, if we think this is an activity folks might be interested in contributing Jun 24 12:55
wwoods | once we have that written up properly, anyone with a little python skill could probably figure out the autotest API and write tests Jun 24 12:56
wwoods | sure, I'll do that Jun 24 12:56
jlaska | maybe we setup some time on irc for folks to gather and discuss/share ... dunno? Jun 24 12:56
jlaska | f13 also passed along a URL for a presentation he is giving @ FUDCon this week around autoQA (http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/presentations/automatedqa.odp) Jun 24 12:58
jlaska | wwoods: any other updates on the autoQA front? Jun 24 12:58
wwoods | nothing I can think of offhand Jun 24 12:59
jlaska | okay Jun 24 12:59
jlaska | #topic Test Day SOP draft - update from awilliam Jun 24 12:59
--- | fedbot has changed the topic to: Test Day SOP draft - update from awilliam (Meeting topic: Fedora QA Meeting) Jun 24 12:59
jlaska | adamw is out today, but just a quick update on some documentation posted to the list for review Jun 24 13:00
jlaska | Adam's words do a better job explaining it than mine ... https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-June/msg00662.html Jun 24 13:00
jlaska | summary: a draft SOP around hosting a Test Day Jun 24 13:00
jlaska | Any feedback or thoughts to the list are welcome! Jun 24 13:00
jlaska | okay ... last agenda item on the list ... Jun 24 13:01
jlaska | #topic Improve Bug Reporting proposal - update from viking_ice Jun 24 13:01
--- | fedbot has changed the topic to: Improve Bug Reporting proposal - update from viking_ice (Meeting topic: Fedora QA Meeting) Jun 24 13:01
Viking-Ice | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/QA/Improve_reporting Jun 24 13:01
Viking-Ice | Read that :) Jun 24 13:02
jlaska | You posted a link to a draft proposal last week. I wanted to give you a chance to let folks know where things are with the proposal Jun 24 13:02
jlaska | and what sort of feedback you were looking for Jun 24 13:02
Viking-Ice | First status updates on QA task that I defined are on the draft Jun 24 13:03
Viking-Ice | There are good news for reporters that have thought bugzilla reporting form is to complicated Jun 24 13:03
Viking-Ice | when our bugzilla is upgraded to 3.4 ( which will happen not so long after it's release ) it will contain a simpler form by default ( user can click advanced to bring more elements into the reporting form ) Jun 24 13:05
Viking-Ice | see --> http://lpsolit.wordpress.com/2009/05/24/simpler-form-to-file-bugs-in-bugzilla-3-4/ Jun 24 13:05
wwoods | oh cool Jun 24 13:06
jlaska | Ah very nice ... so does that solve the first item you've listed in the proposal? Jun 24 13:06
Viking-Ice | yup Jun 24 13:06
jlaska | re: "Bugzilla reporting UI too complicated." Jun 24 13:06
wwoods | interestingly, it mentions http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ Jun 24 13:06
wwoods | which I hadn't heard of before Jun 24 13:06
Viking-Ice | Now this is the big deal on the draft "Lack of needed information for maintainer(s) to be able to successfully work with the report." Jun 24 13:07
jlaska | Viking-Ice: you've got a lot of QA tasks listed in the proposal ... are these things you will be doing, or are looking for help on? Jun 24 13:09
Viking-Ice | would not mind help Jun 24 13:09
Viking-Ice | Perhaps abrt has gather all the needed info for us? Jun 24 13:10
jlaska | have you raised your ideas during bugZapper meetings? Jun 24 13:10
Viking-Ice | nope Jun 24 13:10
Viking-Ice | usually dont make appearance on bugzapper meeting Jun 24 13:11
jlaska | I ask because some of the areas of improvement line up with what the BugZappers team is trying to accomplish Jun 24 13:12
jlaska | perhaps a good way to team up? Jun 24 13:12
Viking-Ice | Yeah sure Jun 24 13:12
Viking-Ice | The main thing we need to solve is getting the info from maintainers on what to report store that in a db and reguire reporter to attache those files when reporting Jun 24 13:13
Viking-Ice | does any one know how is abrt solving this issue ? Jun 24 13:13
jlaska | would it make sense for a more focused document on that topic? I know if working together during previous test days, this is a topic near & dear to ya Jun 24 13:14
jlaska | Viking-Ice: wwoods and I were discussing that yesterday. The project is active, but I'm not in the loop on their upcoming milestones Jun 24 13:14
Viking-Ice | Ok Jun 24 13:15
Viking-Ice | I'll try to digg up some info how they are addressing this issue Jun 24 13:15
jlaska | okay Jun 24 13:15
wwoods | IIRC they had (or were planning to have) plugins or conf files that specify what files to attach Jun 24 13:16
Viking-Ice | now "Duplicated reports" already filed upstream improvements to the new simplified reporting form Jun 24 13:16
wwoods | there's some notes on the abrt wiki Jun 24 13:16
wwoods | (https://fedorahosted.org/abrt/wiki) Jun 24 13:16
Viking-Ice | to atleast reduce somewhat the possibility on that Jun 24 13:17
Viking-Ice | https://bug499320.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=384113 Jun 24 13:17
jlaska | Viking-Ice: were there any other items you wanted to address during the meeting today? Jun 24 13:18
Viking-Ice | not really Jun 24 13:19
jlaska | anything you want to come back to for next weeks meeting? Jun 24 13:19
Viking-Ice | Anyway we need to come up with some plans on how to gather the info from maintainers on what they want on their reports on how to get that info from them Jun 24 13:19
Viking-Ice | and store it etc.. Jun 24 13:19
Viking-Ice | so both bugzilla and possible abtr can use it Jun 24 13:20
jlaska | I think that is something concrete enough that could generate good future discussion Jun 24 13:20
Viking-Ice | If someone feels something lacking feel free to express it on that page Jun 24 13:21
Viking-Ice | I've also started on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/QA/Kernel Jun 24 13:21
jlaska | nice Jun 24 13:21
Viking-Ice | with regards to j-rods wish on the F11RR meeting Jun 24 13:21
jlaska | seeing your second page makes it a little clearer what you're trying to do Jun 24 13:22
jlaska | I could see that growing rather nicely Jun 24 13:22
Viking-Ice | These are just rough sketches ( both the improvements and the KTT ) Jun 24 13:23
jlaska | right Jun 24 13:23
Viking-Ice | So I can keep track on things Jun 24 13:23
jlaska | for me ... like we've talked about before, just having a way to catalog content for testers to easily find would be a great start Jun 24 13:23
jlaska | anyhow ... let's open up for general discussion Jun 24 13:24
jlaska | #topic Open discussion Jun 24 13:24
Viking-Ice | ok Jun 24 13:24
--- | fedbot has changed the topic to: Open discussion (Meeting topic: Fedora QA Meeting) Jun 24 13:24
jlaska | we've gone way over today ... but I missed time for open-discussion last week Jun 24 13:25
jlaska | any topics/questions/concerns folks want to raise Jun 24 13:25
* | jlaska sets the fuse to 2 minutes Jun 24 13:25
jlaska | ... 30 seconds ... Jun 24 13:26
Viking-Ice | this may come as a stupid question but who are the target audience with israwhidebroken.com and what is being hope to accomplish with that ? Jun 24 13:26
jlaska | Viking-Ice: ah ... not a stupid question Jun 24 13:26
Viking-Ice | we testers ( atleast most of us ) know rawhide is more or less broken up to beta Jun 24 13:26
jlaska | yeah, I think we all know, but don't have concrete data readily available to prove it Jun 24 13:27
Viking-Ice | I read the FAD report but failed to see the purpose of this Jun 24 13:27
jlaska | pulling from the proposal ... "Provide a single, well-known location with information about whether or not Rawhide is broken, and a link to the last known-good Rawhide tree. " Jun 24 13:28
Viking-Ice | which servers who Jun 24 13:28
Viking-Ice | serves Jun 24 13:28
jlaska | all of this leads up to providing a known good rawhide ... which serves QA for bug verification, feature testing, test days Jun 24 13:28
jlaska | and the release team, by providing a history on the health of rawhide as we approach milestones (or are past them) Jun 24 13:29
Viking-Ice | Ah ok Jun 24 13:29
jlaska | for me ... it's all about consistently gathering data to facilitate decision making Jun 24 13:29
Viking-Ice | yup.. Jun 24 13:30
jlaska | does that help answer your q? Jun 24 13:30
Viking-Ice | indeed it does Jun 24 13:30
jlaska | cool! Jun 24 13:30
jlaska | alrighty ... unless any other thoughts, let's wrap it up Jun 24 13:31
jlaska | #endmeeting Jun 24 13:31
--- | fedbot has changed the topic to: Channel is used by various Fedora groups and committees for their regular meetings | Note that meetings often get logged | For questions about using Fedora please ask in #fedora | See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting_channel for meeting schedule Jun 24 13:31
fedbot | Meeting ended Wed Jun 24 17:31:30 2009 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . Jun 24 13:31
fedbot | Minutes: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/fedora-meeting/2009/fedora-meeting.2009-06-24-16.00.html Jun 24 13:31
fedbot | Log: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/fedora-meeting/2009/fedora-meeting.2009-06-24-16.00.log.html Jun 24 13:31
jlaska | thanks everyone! Apologies for yet another long meeting :( Jun 24 13:31
jlaska | I'll follow-up to the list later today with minutes Jun 24 13:31
wwoods | no prob - thanks for running things Jun 24 13:32

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