QA/Meetings/20110228

From FedoraProject

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Attendees

People present (lines said)

  1. jlaska (167)
  2. kanarip (50)
  3. adamw (46)
  4. kparal (25)
  5. tflink (19)
  6. Viking-Ice (16)
  7. robatino (13)
  8. wwoods (6)
  9. nb (5)
  10. lmacken (4)
  11. ianweller (3)
  12. vhumpa (2)
  13. red_alert (2)
  14. dgilmore (2)
  15. jskladan (1)
  16. Alam (1)

Unable to attend:

  1. Rhe (hopefully sleeping)
  2. Hongqing (hopefully sleeping)

Agenda

Previous meeting follow-up

  1. Viking-Ice - solicit feedback on test@lists.fedoraproject.org to see whether we need to require only bugzilla.redhat.com use during test days
    No updates yet
  2. jlaska - review blocker bug meeting SOP and add include bug summary by way of #info for each bug
    No updates, will look later this week

F-15-Alpha RC2 status

Summary
RC2 available for testing. Test matrices available at the usual place (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fedora_15_Alpha_RC_Test_Results)
Continue to monitor the accepted and proposed blocker bug lists
Accepted Alpha blockers - http://bit.ly/f15-alpha-blocker-accepted
Proposed Alpha blockers - http://bit.ly/f15-alpha-blocker-proposed
firstboot crash and mesa 32-bit (aka mutter crashing) resolved in RC2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678720
List of blocker bugs that were not VERIFIED -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting#Review_CLOSED.2C_but_not_VERIFIED_Blocker_Bugs
Next steps
Continue testing and discuss potential blocker bugs

AutoQA update

Summary
Our new_koji_watcher was finally pushed to master
upgradepath was modified to conform to the new batched events type
tflink created a new branch 'pytest' containing proof of concept (and even documentation!) of using py.test in autoqa
Next steps
autoqa-0.4.4 release
tflink will explore a nose or unittest based unittest implementation

Upcoming QA events

Tuesday, March 1 - l10n/i18n Installation Test Day
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-03-01_L10n_i18n_Installation
http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/158
Wednesday, March 2 - F-15-Alpha - Go/NoGo meeting
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Go_No_Go_Meeting
Schedule - http://rbergero.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-15/f-15-quality-tasks.html
Thursday, March 3 - i18n Desktop Test Day
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-03-03_I18n_Desktop
http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/158

Infrastructure hosting of delta ISO images

Summary
Robatino creates delta ISOs, but could use a more appropriate hosting service for publishing delta ISO images.
Next steps
jlaska and robatino to discuss and consider options with infrastructure team

FreeIPA v2 Test Day feedback -- schedule another event

Summary
dpal posted challenges/problems encountered from FreeIPA v2 test day -- https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/163#comment:10
Viking-Ice suggested a more narrow scope for the test day (e.g. only directory server)
Next steps
Update ticket with feedback

Open discussion - <Your topic here>

adamw noted that the X test week recap is delayed, but will be coming to test-announce@ soon
adamw reminded that before F-15-Alpha is released, we need to document the current list of CommonBugs -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F15_bugs
lmacken announced that wiki test case integration is now live in bodhi
kanarip asked about continuous integration. tflink volunteered to discuss further and the two would return with some ideas on how to proceed.
kanarip asked whether testopia is being considered. Jlaska discussed previous attempt to use testopia (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Testopia_Evaluation). Kanarip will integrate his work with https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Tcms_Comparison

Action items

  • No items at this time

IRC transcript

jlaska #startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting 16:00
zodbot Meeting started Mon Feb 28 16:00:40 2011 UTC. The chair is jlaska. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00
zodbot Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:00
jlaska #meetingtname fedora-qa 16:00
jlaska #topic Roll call 16:01
jlaska Hey kanarip 16:01
kanarip hey jlaska 16:01
* jskladan is here 16:01
* kanarip here 16:01
jlaska Anyone else ready for a QA checking? 16:01
* red_alert 16:01
vhumpa Hey everybody 16:01
kanarip not really a part of the QA team but regardless ;-) 16:01
jlaska starting off on the right foot ... "check-in" 16:01
* kparal is here 16:01
* tflink is present 16:01
adamw yo 16:01
* Alam in 16:02
jlaska hey all 16:02
* vhumpa here 16:02
jlaska will get started in 30 seconds 16:02
jlaska who else we waiting for ... robatino, Viking-Ice? 16:03
* robatino here 16:03
jlaska Hey there 16:03
jlaska I'll be walking through the agenda posted at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20110228 16:03
* Viking-Ice jumps in 16:04
jlaska alright, let's get movin 16:04
jlaska #topic Previous meeting follow-up 16:04
jlaska #info Viking-Ice - solicit feedback on test@lists.fedoraproject.org to see whether we need to require only bugzilla.redhat.com use during test days 16:04
jlaska Viking-Ice: any updates on your end ... is this something you'd like to continue tracking? 16:05
jlaska we can come back to that ... 16:06
jlaska next up ... 16:06
Viking-Ice jlaska: it's on the agenda 16:06
jlaska it is? 16:06
Viking-Ice but let's just get back to it after I post the list and get feed back from the RFE I mentioned to you 16:06
jlaska okay 16:06
Viking-Ice jlaska: as in me continue on that topic 16:07
jlaska #info jlaska - review blocker bug meeting SOP and add include bug summary by way of #info for each bug 16:07
Viking-Ice the agenda it's on my agenda ;) 16:07
jlaska no updates from me, I'll look at this sometime this week 16:07
jlaska Viking-Ice: okay :) 16:07
jlaska #topic F-15-Alpha RC2 status 16:08
jlaska adamw: what's the word? 16:08
adamw yo 16:08
jlaska #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Desktop_Test 16:08
adamw erm, bird? 16:08
jlaska #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test 16:08
jlaska adamw: don't you know about the word? 16:08
adamw if the word happened during the weekend, hell no. 16:09
jlaska #info Accepted Alpha blockers - http://bit.ly/f15-alpha-blocker-accepted 16:09
jlaska #info Proposed Alpha blockers - http://bit.ly/f15-alpha-blocker-proposed 16:09
jlaska adamw: can you give an update on how things are looking please? 16:09
jlaska (outside of the links above) 16:09
jlaska the highlights ... good/bad/ugly 16:09
adamw rc2 fixes the known blockers we were dealing with last week. 16:09
adamw given that it was built late friday and i haven't done any real work over the weekend, i don't know much more about it. :) 16:10
adamw oh, it also fixed two key (for me) nth bugs 16:10
jlaska splendid 16:10
adamw the firstboot crash on certain key input bug, and the mesa 32-bit bug 16:10
* Viking-Ice only encountered 32 bit bug.. 16:10
adamw we (we being me, toshio and dgilmore) declared the password-echoed-to-screen bug not a blocker based on the difficulty of reproducing it 16:11
jlaska #info firstboot crash and mesa 32-bit (aka mutter crashing) resolved in RC2 16:11
Viking-Ice adamw: *cough* and others *cough* 16:11
jlaska I agree ... shall we move that off the proposed list? 16:11
jlaska https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678720 16:11
Viking-Ice oh you mean on the bug not the meeting.. 16:12
adamw Viking-Ice: yeah :) 16:13
adamw jlaska: sure 16:13
jlaska done ... good, I like to see 2 empty blocker lists 16:14
jlaska adamw: so what's the plan between now and the go/no_go meeting? 16:14
jlaska test test and more testing? 16:14
dgilmore jlaska: i hope so 16:14
jlaska dgilmore: :) 16:14
adamw jlaska: yup. 16:14
adamw test and validate. 16:14
dgilmore make sure there is no new blockers 16:14
jlaska do we have a list of bugs that need VERIFIED? 16:14
adamw given that we didn't change anaconda, i would expect rc2 to wind up good. 16:14
adamw technically speaking, the only one that needs to be VERIFIED is the gdm bug, i believe 16:15
adamw er 16:15
adamw keyboard layout bug 16:15
adamw since that's the outstanding blocker 16:15
jlaska okay 16:15
jlaska note ... thanks to bruno, we have some queries to find UNTESTED blocker bugs 16:15
jlaska #info List of blocker bugs that were not VERIFIED -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting#Review_CLOSED.2C_but_not_VERIFIED_Blocker_Bugs 16:16
jlaska okay ... if nothing else, we'll move on to the next topic in 30s 16:16
jlaska thanks all for testing against the test composes and the RC's ... let's keep getting results in so we can have enough data to support the go/no_go decision 16:17
jlaska #topic AutoQA update 16:17
jlaska kparal: What's the latest on the autoqa front? 16:17
kparal ok, here are the news: 16:18
kparal #info Our new_koji_watcher was finally pushed to master. 16:18
kparal Most of the work did jskladan. We also had to solve some issues with missing -pending tags in Koji and Bodhi not correctly marking updates. But lmacken pushed fix recently and therefore everything should be pretty ok now. The new watcher watches for both Koji and Bodhi events and fixes a lot of issues. It also sends "batch" events for tests we can to execute on many events at once. 16:18
jlaska very nice ... good to see that in master. Kudos jskladan 16:19
lmacken I cleaned up all of the stray builds in the pending tags over the weekend as well 16:19
kparal lmacken: I noticed. thanks for that :-) 16:19
kparal #info upgradepath was modified to conform to the new batched events type 16:19
kparal The patch is now waiting in autoqa-devel. We will execute upgradepath on all updates waiting in -pending tag all over and over again, because we currently don't have any means how to re-schedule a test. When we are able to do that, we will change upgradepath to test only the new updates once again. 16:19
jlaska kparal: can you remind me on the need for rescheduling? 16:20
kparal jlaska: sure. let's say upgradepath is broken because rawhide contains an old package 16:21
jlaska this is when we have a FAIL result for one update ... and an update to a newer release resolves the issue 16:21
kparal then you fix it - push to rawhide most recent version 16:21
kparal but the failed update won't be re-tested again 16:21
jlaska I see, thanks 16:21
kparal ok 16:22
kparal #info tflink created a new branch 'pytest' containing proof of concept (and even documentation!) of using py.test in autoqa 16:22
tflink and fixed the shell script, so it should work now 16:22
jlaska I'm sorry, what is this documentation you speak of? :D 16:22
kparal  :) 16:22
kparal Great work tflink, testing is largely unknown to me :) 16:23
jlaska What's the plan for that branch ... is it pending review, and then going into master ... or is more exploration planned? 16:23
kparal it seems a little complicated, I'll have to study it more. I'm interested in comparing the approaches with standard unittest library 16:23
tflink thanks, I'm just glad not to have to fight tooth and nail to get working on it 16:23
kparal I am excited for the most simplest method :-) 16:23
jlaska +1 :) 16:24
tflink I'm planning to do another proof of concept using nose/unittest this week 16:24
kparal jlaska: just proof of concept 16:24
tflink and update the documentation to reflect that proof of concept and do a comparison between the two tools 16:24
jlaska nice approach 16:24
wwoods in anaconda we're using nose 16:24
kparal I think that covered the last week 16:25
kparal did I forget some{thing,one}? 16:26
wwoods there's also an interesting helper module called 'mock' that lets you set up fake versions of real objects and dictate their behavior 16:26
jlaska hmm ... that sounds interesting for simulating bodhi/koji calls 16:26
kparal wwoods: tflink introduced dinguses, it's a little confusing but seems interesting concept :) 16:27
wwoods so you can do unit testing without necessarily needing to set up whole complex environments to run them in 16:27
tflink wwoods: yeah, I was using Dingus, which is a similar tool. 16:27
wwoods tflink: interesting, I'll check that out 16:27
wwoods anyway, thought that might be worth mentioning. also: hi! 16:27
tflink wwoods: thanks, I'd be interested to see what you think of the proofs of concepts once they're done 16:28
jlaska kparal: how we looking for doing some more pre builds of 0.4.4? 16:28
kparal jlaska: well, jskladan has now pushed some patches to depcheck to adjust it for new koji watcher. after that is accepted, I think we can do full build 16:29
wwoods tflink: sure 16:29
jlaska excellent ... I'll stay tuned and get ready to build 16:29
jlaska okay ... anything else to cover for AutoQA? 16:30
kparal that's all from me 16:30
jlaska thanks! 16:30
jlaska okay ... a brief reminder of upcoming events ... 16:31
jlaska #topic Upcoming QA events 16:31
ianweller aaaaa 16:31
jlaska #info Tuesday, March 1 - l10n/i18n Installation Test Day - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-03-01_L10n_i18n_Installation 16:31
ianweller whoops 16:31
* ianweller hides 16:31
kparal  :)) 16:31
jlaska ianweller: no worries 16:31
jlaska Igor just recently announced the event ... the wiki looks good and it uses RC2 ... so that's an extra bonus 16:32
adamw yup, looking nice 16:32
jlaska #info Wednesday, March 2 - F-15-Alpha - Go/NoGo meeting - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Go_No_Go_Meeting 16:32
adamw it would be really good to get lots of participation in the week 16:32
jlaska Another go/no_go meeting is planned for this Wednesday 16:33
jlaska hopefully, not a repeat of last week ... but let's keep testing and stay tuned to the blocker lists posted earlier 16:33
jlaska #info Thursday, March 3 - i18n Desktop Test Day - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-03-03_I18n_Desktop 16:33
jlaska Part#2 of this weeks i18n test days will focus on the desktop 16:33
jlaska same as before ... good looking wiki and very concise test cases available 16:34
jlaska any other events folks would like to call attention to? 16:34
jlaska if not ... we'll move on to a topic I added for robatino 16:34
red_alert next blocker bug meeting? 16:35
jlaska red_alert: Wednesday 16:35
jlaska #topic Infrastructure hosting of delta ISO images 16:35
jlaska robatino: still there? 16:35
robatino yes 16:35
jlaska Hey! So I added this to the agenda after we spoke on the subject last week 16:36
jlaska to summarize ... this is to find a more appropriate hosting solution for the delta ISOs you generate? 16:36
robatino yes - i have space, but it's on crummy infrastructure (not a real HTTP server) 16:36
jlaska initially, you were thinking about asking for more quota on fedorapeople.org ... and I think this prompted some discussion on whether there might be a more appropriate solution 16:36
robatino actually, i'd prefer fedorapeople if possible, since it's set up and has the necessary facilities 16:37
jlaska have you reached out to infrastructure already on this topic? 16:37
robatino but unfortunately i'd like about 25 G which is much larger than the standard 2G quota 16:37
jlaska robatino: it would be nice to have a solution where others could help you 16:38
robatino jlaska: not yet, you suggested i fill out an RFR ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/RFR ) but i need to discuss that with you some more 16:38
jlaska okay 16:38
jlaska let's sync up after meeting and we can talk further 16:38
jlaska if anyone else has ideas or suggestions, feel free to shout 16:39
jlaska robatino: do you currently have a way to gather download metrics for your delta ISOs? 16:39
robatino jlaska: adrive does show number of downloads, but i don't know how reliable it is 16:39
jlaska okay 16:40
kanarip re 16:40
kanarip is this topic on hosting delta images for live images as well? 16:40
jlaska I'm assuming these images are used frequently during testing, since I do see some regular feedback on the list about them 16:40
robatino kanarip: afaik there's no good delta compression, so no 16:40
robatino (for live images, i meant) 16:41
kanarip robatino, right, that's what i wanted to add, it's squashfs that randomizes the bits so much there's no delta 16:41
jlaska okay, so action here is for robatino & I to continue discussion 16:41
jlaska robatino: anything else you wanted to add before we move on? 16:42
robatino not that i can think of 16:42
jlaska robatino: okay, thanks 16:42
jlaska #topic FreeIPA v2 Test Day feedback 16:42
jlaska This is an open topic from last week 16:42
jlaska dpal had mentioned hosting another FreeIPAv2 test day 16:42
jlaska which, I don't have any objections to ... but wasn't sure that the challenges listed would be resolved by hosting another event 16:43
jlaska anyone else have opinions/suggestions here? 16:43
nb robatino, you need about 25G? 16:43
nb i'll ask 16:43
nb i have the capability to grant it, but want to check before giving that large 16:44
jlaska #info dpal posted challenges/problems encountered from FreeIPA v2 test day -- https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/163#comment:10 16:44
Viking-Ice perhaps breaking it up to more test days specific to each part of freeipa would be better 16:44
jlaska Viking-Ice: so improve the scope? 16:44
jlaska s/improve/narrow/ 16:44
robatino nb: actually the way that works out is about 10-15G for QA TCs/RCs, about another 10G for Alpha/Beta/Final disos, which would be nice 16:44
robatino if possible 16:45
Viking-Ice jlaska: yup host a directory server test day etc.. 16:45
jlaska adamw: thoughts? 16:45
jlaska #info Viking-Ice suggested a more narrow scope for the test day (e.g. only directory server) 16:46
jlaska if nothing else ... we'll move on and track this in the ticket 16:46
Viking-Ice jlaska: series of each component test day followed by reusing vm images for a final freeipa2 test day? 16:46
jlaska Viking-Ice: I like the idea, but that's a lot of test days to manage 16:46
Viking-Ice so? 16:47
Viking-Ice  :) 16:47
jlaska test days aren't free unfortunately 16:47
jlaska someone has to prepare and execute them 16:47
Viking-Ice and :) 16:47
Viking-Ice get more people involved 16:47
jlaska sounds like a great idea 16:48
Viking-Ice hehe :) 16:48
jlaska this was one of the comments I had in the ticket 16:48
jlaska feel free to add your suggestions along those lines 16:48
nb robatino, who all should have access to write? we're putting it on /pub/alt/stage 16:48
jlaska would be nice to figure out how to drum up more interest in the subject 16:48
jlaska alright ... moving on .. 16:49
jlaska #topic Open discussion - <Your topic here> 16:49
robatino nb: afaik, just me 16:49
jlaska any topics folks would like to cover? 16:49
adamw quick note - i'm sorry not to have followed up on X test week yet 16:49
adamw got ambushed by the alpha rcs 16:50
adamw another quick one, we need to go through the CommonBugs list and make sure everything gets documented before Alpha hits 16:50
jlaska Thanks for reminder ... I wasn't planning to visit those after the go/no_go meeting 16:50
jlaska #info adamw noted that the X test week recap is delayed, but will be coming to test-announce@ soon 16:51
lmacken bodhi unit test integration is live 16:53
jlaska #info Before F-15-Alpha is released, we need to document the current list of CommonBugs -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F15_bugs 16:54
jlaska anything else on the list 16:54
jlaska kanarip? 16:54
adamw lmacken: wahay 16:54
kanarip here i am 16:54
adamw lmacken: also the improved comments on bug reports, I noticed 16:54
lmacken adamw: indeed! 16:54
kanarip may i fire away? 16:54
kparal lmacken: any example page? 16:54
lmacken kparal: I haven't seen any updates that have them yet :( 16:55
kanarip adamw and i briefly discussed two topics during fudcon in tempe, which i wanted to bring under your attention / consideration 16:55
jlaska #info lmacken announced that test case integration is now live in bodhi 16:55
jlaska #undo 16:55
zodbot Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x2b025b9b7c90> 16:55
jlaska #info lmacken announced that wiki test case integration is now live in bodhi 16:55
jlaska kanarip: okay, what did you have in mind? 16:55
kanarip one is Continuous Integration, which polls a source code management system for changes and can then build the sources on various platforms, as well as provide test case coverage 16:56
jlaska ah ... a timely topic :) 16:56
kanarip i know that many upstream parties just don't have the resources, man-power, and that of course also, fedora project is upstream for a variety of applications 16:56
jlaska kanarip: autoqa has some support for git post-receive (aka git push) event notification. We use this to trigger some anaconda tests 16:57
kanarip i think perhaps package maintainers would also be interested, or at least some of them 16:57
kparal kanarip: it would be used for fedorahosted projects? or some broader scope? 16:57
tflink kanarip: you're talking about providing CI for projects, right? 16:57
kanarip kparal, i'd think some broader scope actually 16:58
kanarip tflink, yes, fedora project projects and perhaps also upstream "external" projects 16:58
kanarip i suppose one or the other party interested in getting CI going on their project could trigger the project to be included in the CI environment 16:58
kanarip like if QA was interested in project X, then QA would request inclusion of project X, but other stakeholders include package maintainers, developers, and such and so forth 16:59
kanarip i'm hoping it makes sense ;-) 16:59
jlaska are there projects included in Fedora that already have tests intended for continuous int. execution? 16:59
nb robatino, can you join #fedora-admin please 16:59
kanarip jlaska, well, packages for sure; hudson.cyrusimap.org 17:00
adamw kanarip: what was the example you showed me at fudcon? is it something public? 17:00
tflink who would maintain the wrapper layer between the CI and non fedorahosted projects 17:00
kanarip many ruby gem projects also have CI, code coverage, and the likes 17:00
* jlaska nods 17:00
kanarip adamw, the example i showed you is not, but it's hudson.ogd.nl where a customer of mine has CI running for a ruby on rails web app 17:01
jlaska kanarip: "packages" ? 17:01
jlaska kanarip: any specific packages, or just package testing in general? 17:01
kanarip jlaska, applications packaged and included with Fedora 17:01
jlaska kanarip: that's too broad 17:01
jlaska kanarip: I think we needed to tighten that up first 17:01
adamw jlaska: er, i think you're at cross-purposes 17:01
kanarip jlaska, not the point, you asked whether fedora project internal projects were set up to be used with CI environments 17:01
jlaska kanarip: hmm, that's a good question too ... but I was thinking of a different topic 17:02
adamw jlaska: i don't think kanarip was saying 'we should do this for anything that's a package', he was giving a definition of the word 'packages' as he thought you asked for one :) 17:02
kanarip to which i responded that i didn't know, but i knew for a fact some packages included with fedora do have themselves set up for unit/functional testing, which could be utilized with a ci environment 17:02
jlaska adamw: gotcha 17:02
jlaska kanarip: cool, that's good to know 17:02
kanarip not in so many words though ;-) 17:03
jlaska heh :) 17:03
jlaska I'm certainly not opposed to the idea ... who doesn't want more testing :) 17:03
jlaska Oh I know, the people who like to club baby seals 17:03
kanarip anyway, perhaps we all ponder on this one a little while... 17:03
kanarip the other thing i showed off to adamw is testopia as a test case management suite 17:03
tflink so is the proposal to have CI available to fedorahosted projects? or to set it up for them? 17:03
adamw are we kind of looking at a way to maybe glue together an example package/project which is set up for CI, and autoqa? 17:03
jlaska One of the open questions I have are if/how we can intersect this with the goals of autoqa 17:04
jlaska adamw: bingo 17:04
tflink I'm not sure that the CI idea isn't orthagonal to autoqa 17:04
jlaska right 17:04
adamw tflink: right, that was my question 17:04
tflink don't get me wrong, I'm all for CI 17:04
adamw does it make sense to bring it under autoqa or is it something different 17:04
adamw remembering that i'm probably the dumbest lunk in this particular discussion =) 17:05
jlaska I think we need to better understand the concept/goals that kanarip is discussing 17:05
tflink I just tend to think of it as something that is useful for developers instead of the functional integration testing that we tend to do 17:05
kanarip ci is mostly towards unit testing and code coverage reporting, if you will 17:05
jlaska we have preliminary support for commit (well git-push) time testing in AutoQA now 17:06
adamw kanarip: could you maybe write up a detailed proposal (ideally of something with reasonable bounds that make it not a big, scary, open-ended project at first) for the list, with mockups and stuff? 17:06
adamw or is that too much to ask? 17:06
kanarip that doesn't make it mutually exclusive with functional testing, but it is something different 17:06
tflink I'm not articulating incredibly well at the moment, so that isn't helping 17:06
jlaska yeah ... I think we'll need some vision to start working towards 17:06
* adamw trying to think of ways to move the process forward 17:06
kanarip adamw, i could whip something up, but i can't tell you when it'll be done ;-) 17:06
kanarip my day only has 24 hours and i'm short another 24 if you will 17:06
jlaska understood :) 17:07
adamw kanarip: yeah, i know what you mean :) 17:07
adamw jlaska: maybe we could task someone to try and work with kanarip on this? tflink? 17:07
kanarip do we have someone with some developing / continuous integration experience perhaps? 17:07
* tflink is interested 17:07
adamw (sorry, just threw you under the bus there, tim) 17:07
kanarip awesome 17:07
jlaska sounds like we have a candidate ;) 17:07
adamw kanarip: did you get to meet tim at fudcon btw? 17:07
kanarip not sure, sorry! 17:07
adamw oh well :) 17:08
tflink no worries, I'm not sure either :) 17:08
jlaska kanarip: AutoQA has some *basic* continuous integration support ... but I know tflink understands formal CI better and can help me understand the differences 17:08
kanarip jlaska, sure, that's cool 17:08
kanarip i suppose we get a publictest instance up with jenkins and something with autoqa and look how these things fit together exactly, or not at all, and we'll churn out a nice list of bullet points from there 17:09
jlaska that's one option 17:09
jlaska should we revisit after you and tflink have had time to discuss? 17:09
kanarip there's lots of work after the "me like yummie yummie" point either way, so... 17:09
kanarip yes please 17:09
adamw awesome. 17:09
kanarip cool 17:09
tflink sounds like a plan to me, I'm still trying to understand the scope and integration of the proposal 17:09
kanarip the other thing then, if we still have some time? 17:10
jlaska #info kanarip asked about continuous integration. tflink volunteered to discuss further and the two would return with some ideas on how to proceed 17:10
kanarip i showed off testopia to adamw for test case management 17:10
jlaska well, this will be a quick topic :) 17:10
kanarip it seems it's pretty much covered with mediawikiwiki fu for the moment... 17:10
adamw duct tape, yes :) 17:10
kanarip but i was wondering whether testopia has some features that you're interested in 17:11
jlaska yes and no 17:11
jlaska we tried *many* releases ago to use testopia 17:11
kanarip noted of course a major blocker in any testopia case would be the fact that it is bugzilla.*redhat.com* ;-) 17:11
jlaska and had to stop due to licensing issues with the javascript library used 17:11
jlaska and some other maint. issues with keeping it in sync with bugzilla HEAD (like we do with bugzilla.redhat.com) 17:11
adamw i mentioned this to kanarip at the time, but for the meeting, we are already evaluating our needs in a tcms with reference to mediawiki vs. nitrate - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Tcms_Comparison 17:11
jlaska kanarip: https://fedorahosted.org/nitrate 17:11
jlaska the nitrate project uses the same db schema as testopia but removes the parts that just didn't work for us 17:12
adamw my takeaway from discussion with kanarip was along the lines of we should consider other candidates and make it a more general comparison; the way rhe has it set up now, this wouldn't be such a change 17:12
jlaska notably the unusable UI and the license conflict 17:12
kanarip jlaska, the reason i'm bringing it up is... i'm using it and i'm shipping packages for it, so the maintainance overhead can be very, very low 17:12
adamw but of course the licensing issue with testopia removes it as a candidate 17:12
adamw (unless it gets fixed, i guess) 17:12
jlaska sure ... you can definitely add your feedback to the comparison pages that rhe is maintaining 17:13
kanarip i'll look into the licensing thing, do we have some reference perhaps? 17:13
jlaska I'm not overly thrilled about the UI of testopia, it's really really unpleasant 17:13
kanarip a review request in bugzilla < does anyone know whether it had been udner review? 17:13
jlaska https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Testopia_Evaluation 17:13
kanarip jlaska, agreed, yet again, there's a balance to be sought if not inspiration to be distilled from it ;-) 17:13
jlaska kanarip: right on 17:14
jlaska there are other challenges that we'll have with testopia, but we can talk about those later 17:14
kanarip alright, so that's another quick topic then ;-) 17:14
kanarip tflink, your fas account name is... tflink? 17:14
tflink kanarip: yep 17:14
kanarip then i know your email address... scary huh? 17:15
jlaska #info kanarip asked whether testopia is being considered - Will integrate his work with https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Tcms_Comparison 17:15
jlaska thanks kanarip 17:15
jlaska okay ... I've got nothing else 17:15
jlaska and we are 15 mins over 17:15
jlaska thanks everyone for your time 17:15
jlaska as always, I'll send minutes to the list 17:15
tflink well, its not like I hide it much :) If you knew my home address, I'd be more worried 17:15
jlaska #endmeeting 17:15

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