From FedoraProject

Jump to: navigation, search



People present (lines said):

  1. jlaska (137)
  2. rbergeron (45)
  3. adamw (40)
  4. j_dulaney (40)
  5. vhumpa (35)
  6. kparal (15)
  7. Viking-Ice (15)
  8. tgr__ (14)
  9. tflink (6)
  10. athmane (4)
  11. jsmith (2)
  12. Southern_Gentlem (1)

Unable to attend:

  1. Rhe (hopefully sleeping)
  2. Hongqing (hopefully sleeping)
  3. wutao85 (hopefully sleeping)


Release criteria updates

AutoQA updates

  • Kparal reported that the announcement of 'pretty patch' that was just posted into autoqa-devel -
  • Tflink is finalizing test result email reduction patchset - expecting patch out for review later today
  • Jlaska noted that packaging/testing for soon-to-be-released autotest-0.13.0 is almost complete. Packages available in autoqa fedora-15-testing repo.
  1. Patch review and testing of autoqa-0.5.0 expected this week

IPv6 Test Day

Open Discussion - <your topic here>

Fedora-qa F15 TRAC tickets

F16 QA Schedule

Fixing features

  • Discussion is underway on how to identify and resolve specific issues with the feature proces
  • If you have any thoughts on the good, the bad, the ugly in the feature process, feel free to add your commentary to wiki page -

Fedora 16 Cloud Test Days

Action Items

  1. vhumpa/adamw - reach out to GNOME for opinions on presenting duplicate application names in overview
  2. adamw - send test-announce@ for IPv6 test day
  3. jlaska - test day wiki cleanup (remove boilerplate)
  4. tgr - provide wiki instructions for native ipv6 connectivity


jlaska #startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting 15:00
zodbot Meeting started Mon Jun 6 15:00:13 2011 UTC. The chair is jlaska. Information about MeetBot at 15:00
zodbot Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 15:00
jlaska #meetingname fedora-qa 15:00
zodbot The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa' 15:00
jlaska #topic Roll Call 15:00
* Viking-Ice here.. 15:00
adamw yo 15:00
jlaska tgr__: Hi there ... we're just doing roll call atm 15:00
jlaska Viking-Ice: adamw: hey hey 15:00
* tflink is here 15:00
* athmane is there 15:01
tgr__ well, i'm here :) 15:01
* jlaska greets tflink & athmane 15:01
* jsmith lurks 15:01
* j_dulaney waves 15:01
* kparal here 15:01
jlaska hi j_dulaney && kparal 15:01
* vhumpa says hi 15:02
jlaska helloooo 15:02
* rbergeron takes a seat 15:02
j_dulaney jlaska, vhumpa, kparal 15:02
jlaska okay, let's get started 15:02
jlaska we don't have a complicated/lengthy agenda today ... just checking in on a few recurring topics 15:03
jlaska as always, feel free to raise topics during open-discussion 15:03
jlaska and thanks to vhumpa j_dulaney and adamw for #chair'ing last week 15:03
j_dulaney .bacon 15:03
zodbot I love bacon, you love bacon, WE ALL LOVE BACON! 15:03
vhumpa jlaska: was fun 15:03
j_dulaney Indeed 15:03
jlaska So, I'm skipping the 'previous meeting follow-up' topic today ... since that's really covered by the agenda 15:04
* jlaska queues adamw first .. 15:04
jlaska #topic Release Criteria Updates 15:04
jlaska well, vhumpa too really 15:04
jlaska What's the word on the "too-similar menu names" proposal that went out last week? 15:04
vhumpa jlaska: I started a discussion on test + desktops mailing lists 15:05
* adamw defers to vhumpa 15:05
vhumpa People are supportive of the idea that *something* needs to be done with the issue 15:05
jlaska #info vhumpa started a discussion on test + desktop lists last week 15:05
vhumpa vhumpa: ideas spread from modifying the app launcher to make sure that they would differentiate the apps with same names properly - to just renaming some of the problematic apps 15:06
jlaska I guess depending on the solution ... a different group of people would need to make the changes? 15:07
vhumpa For example of this issue: You all know terminal/terminal etc. 15:07
j_dulaney Indeed 15:07
vhumpa jlaska: Yes, the first one, simply, is upstream 15:07
vhumpa thus not something I think we can do very quickly 15:07
vhumpa Should gnome-shell offer e.g. popups for the app icons, that would present one set of means how to deal with the issue 15:08
Viking-Ice how does QA fit into this discussion as in is this not something all the *DE should take care of among themselves ? 15:08
vhumpa But, I am not sure how reasonable it would be to push that through 15:08
adamw right,viking 15:08
adamw the fix isn't our problem exactly 15:08
athmane Viking-Ice, +1 15:09
jlaska Viking-Ice: yeah ... I'm just seeing this as QA bringing this to appropriate desktop attn 15:09
vhumpa That brings me to what FEdora can do... 15:09
adamw what we're concerned with is whether this should be a release requirement 15:09
j_dulaney Indeed 15:09
vhumpa It's a problem of a few apps really... So what we can do is merely to rename some of them, in their desktop files 15:09
Viking-Ice I'm not seeing this as an release requirement 15:09
vhumpa the QE connection: 15:10
vhumpa enforce that it is done with a requirement 15:10
athmane if we tests each desktop separately this issue will not raise, afaik 15:10
vhumpa athmane: true 15:10
vhumpa athmane: partially 15:11
j_dulaney The biggest issue I see is apps within the same desktop 15:11
vhumpa there are issues even withing single desktop 15:11
jlaska what's the ideal outcome for this topic? ... upstream acknowledgement of the issue? 15:11
vhumpa I suppose so 15:11
jlaska ... formalizing tests and applicable criteria? 15:11
jlaska (depending on whether it's accepted or not) 15:11
vhumpa Meaning.. upstream acknowledgment is a "pony" perhaps 15:12
adamw we should probably add it to the desktop menus test case 15:12
j_dulaney I'm thinking that a good outcome would simply be that what the user sees is different names for different apps 15:12
vhumpa I agree with Adam on this one. 15:12
jlaska I don't see any feedback from anyone upstream on this topic ... have they weighed in on this yet? 15:12
vhumpa jlaska: nope 15:12
athmane maybe we should fill bugs on upstream tracking app ? 15:13
j_dulaney The actual names don't necesarily have to be different for the actual app, just the menu choices 15:13
Viking-Ice are these apps that any of the *DE ship by default or is this something that is mixed apps between *DE ? 15:13
j_dulaney Viking-Ice: Default 15:13
j_dulaney For instance, within just Gnome: Softare Update and Software Updates 15:13
adamw so we have a plan for testing 15:14
vhumpa Some are issue in deafult, some become an issue when you have multiple environments installed 15:14
jlaska What's the next step? Should we focus on trying to get feedback/input from upstream on this topic? 15:14
Viking-Ice anyway this sounds to me just something that the relevant *DE maintainers need to take care of not something related to QA per se 15:14
adamw then the question is, should it be a release criterion, i.e., should we require same name situations to be resolved for release 15:14
jlaska adamw: should we move forward with testing and criteria without feedback from GNOME? 15:14
j_dulaney The QA angle would be enforcement 15:14
vhumpa I would concentrate in choosing menu names around Fedora desktops to minimize this issue... Upstream should come later 15:14
j_dulaney adamw: I think so 15:14
adamw jlaska: feedback would be good, i guess 15:15
jlaska adamw: seems like it should be required to me 15:15
jlaska how can we create criteria and tests without their input? 15:15
* jlaska might be missing something though 15:15
vhumpa The problem lies in how Fedora names apps, which I am not sure how connected is to upstream really 15:15
jlaska err ... I'd want to avoid creating tests and criteria that GNOME isn't interested in honoring/fixing etc... 15:15
jlaska vhumpa: good point ... it really depends on the implementation 15:16
adamw jlaska: well, addressing it upstream is only one approach 15:16
jlaska yes, I see now, gotcha 15:16
adamw i can see, for instance, that if upstream GNOME decide they don't care, we would decide Fedora still does care 15:16
jlaska right, that makes sense 15:16
vhumpa adamw: yes 15:16
jlaska so when will we know which of those routes to take? 15:16
Viking-Ice sounds like a ( test ) candidate for fit and finish 15:16
j_dulaney +1 15:16
jlaska I guess we can conclude that if we don't get GNOME feedback, then it's up to Fedora to decide? 15:17
vhumpa So the question is 1) Do we ask upstream to help with this 2) We just rename a few menu items in Fedora 15:17
* j_dulaney goes with 2 15:18
vhumpa +1 15:18
Southern_Gentlem both 15:18
j_dulaney Easiest solution 15:18
* jsmith goes with 1) 15:18
Viking-Ice both 15:18
jlaska we'll likely go with #2 ... but I'd like to give #1 another attempt 15:18
adamw vhumpa: i think that's kind of up to the devs to decide really 15:18
adamw i think we may be going round in circles at this point? 15:18
jlaska yup ... let's wrap up on this topic 15:18
vhumpa 1) definitely too - but facing reality that it would be a more long term solution but for later 15:18
vhumpa True 15:19
jlaska anyone want to approach GNOME with this topic this week? 15:19
jlaska if not ... I'll take it 15:19
jlaska or any other #action items ... feel free to grab 15:19
vhumpa If I know how to approach them, I will 15:19
jlaska vhumpa: okay, thank you 15:20
jlaska anything else to cover on this before next week? 15:20
adamw i'll sync up with you on that 15:20
Viking-Ice is this only relevant to Gnome or is this problem present in all *DE we ship ? 15:20
vhumpa Meaning: we'll be aproaching for modifing the launcher, right? You don't just mean renaming apps on Upstream side 15:20
vhumpa Unsure on that 15:20
jlaska #action vhumpa/adamw - reach out to GNOME for opinions on presenting duplicate application names in overview 15:21
j_dulaney Viking-Ice: I'm not sure about within other DEs 15:21
jlaska Viking-Ice: KDE solves it iirc, but it's not specific to a single DE 15:21
jlaska While we are here, anything else on release criteria? 15:21
jlaska adamw: any other notable criteria changes to highlight? 15:21
adamw er, i think i did some 15:22
jlaska heh 15:22
adamw but i think we may have covered them last week 15:22
jlaska okay 15:22
adamw oh, the 'release-blocking desktops' thing may have been this week 15:22
j_dulaney That was last 15:23
adamw okay. then, i think nothing new. 15:23
adamw (sorry, it's been a busy week.) 15:23
jlaska okay, then moving on 15:23
jlaska I'm switching the next two topics so we don't keep tgr__ waiting too long 15:23
jlaska #topic IPv6 Test Day 15:23
jlaska #link 15:23
jlaska #info World IPv6 Day is happening on June 8, along with a Fedora IPv6 test day 15:24
jlaska so this is just intended as a check-in for Test Day preparedness 15:24
* j_dulaney has the network in his house setup for IPv6 already 15:24
adamw i haven't checked in on this for a few days i'm afraid 15:25
adamw since my last email shot 15:25
adamw anyone know of any recent developments? 15:25
jlaska looks like we have 2 test cases linked .. .and one in need of a test case 15:25
jlaska tgr__: any updates/concerns on your end with regards to test day prep? 15:25
jlaska #link 15:25
jlaska #link 15:25
jlaska #link 15:25
jlaska #info test case needed for ipv6 printing 15:26
tgr__ Red Hat will announce the event in a blog and refer to the Fedora test and ask for participation 15:26
jlaska tgr__: do you know when that is going out? 15:26
* Viking-Ice throws in --> <-- for interested parties reading the meeting logs.. 15:27
tgr__ tomorrow if everything goes right 15:27
adamw awesome 15:27
rbergeron the press blog? 15:27
tgr__ I've written a howto which covers enabling ipv6 on RHEL/fedora 15:27
adamw today would be a good day to be blogging about this for everyone else 15:27
tgr__ using configuration file/NetworkManager 15:27
tgr__ and instructions how to verify if a website has been reached via IPv6 or not 15:27
tgr__ this alone should get us some feedback on any basic issues 15:28
j_dulaney tgr_: You want to link to that for info? 15:28
j_dulaney Or is it not online, yet? 15:28
* j_dulaney notes that he'll put something in his blog as well. 15:28
tgr__ it's not online yet, we are having ISP troubles 15:28
jlaska the wiki links to rawhide live images ... I assume we just want F15 live images for this? 15:29
tgr__ if we can't get it up within red hat I will provide the info via the fedora wiki 15:29
j_dulaney jlaska: +1 15:29
adamw yeah, good catch, let's fix that 15:29
* jlaska fixes 15:29
tgr__ i'm working on getting listed as participant on 15:30
jlaska anyone want to volunteer to send an event reminder to test-announce@ ? 15:30
tgr__ it's currently only listed as IPv6 enabled website 15:30
jlaska tgr__: nice! 15:30
adamw jlaska: i can do it 15:31
jlaska adamw: thank you 15:31
jlaska Anyone object if I move the different setup procedures out into unique wiki pages? 15:32
jlaska just to clean up the main page a little? 15:32
jlaska or is that not really needed 15:32
j_dulaney jlaska: Good idea 15:32
tgr__ i think that's a good idea 15:32
jlaska okay, I'll make a minor adjustment after the meeting 15:32
adamw yeah sounds great 15:32
tgr__ i will add instructions how to do setup if isp provides native ipv6 connectivity 15:32
adamw there's some boilerplate text still in there too which we should remove 15:32
j_dulaney +1 15:33
jlaska adamw: like the test results stuff? 15:33
adamw "Provide a list of test areas or test cases that you'd like contributors to execute. For other examples, see Category:Test_Cases. " 15:33
adamw and yes 15:33
adamw though we need to set up a proper table for that 15:33
jlaska okay ... I'll include that in my wiki cleanup 15:33
adamw thanks 15:33
jlaska #action adamw - send test-announce@ for IPv6 test day 15:33
jlaska #action jlaska - test day wiki cleanup (remove boilerplate) 15:33
jlaska #action tgr__ - provide wiki instructions for native ipv6 connectivity 15:34
jlaska feel free to grab any #action's that I missed 15:34
jlaska tgr__: thanks for joining today ... anything else you want to cover before we move on? 15:35
tgr__ jlaska: i think i'm done, thanks 15:35
jlaska tgr__: great, thank you! 15:35
jlaska #topic AutoQA Updates 15:35
* kparal goes on stage 15:36
jlaska it's time for a regular autoqa check-in! 15:36
kparal I have only one update today 15:36
* jlaska sees he has plenty of unread autoqa-devel mails to catch up on 15:36
kparal and that is the announcement of 'pretty patch' that was just posted into autoqa-devel 15:36
kparal #link 15:36
jlaska woah, that knocks out quite a few tickets :) 15:37
kparal this patch should allow us to create pretty html logs 15:37
* j_dulaney was just looking at that 15:37
jlaska yay! ... 15:37
jlaska #link 15:37
j_dulaney Shiny 15:37
kparal they should be more concise and readable than the previous logs 15:37
adamw ooooooh pretty 15:38
j_dulaney More shiny 15:38
vhumpa Thus the name :) 15:38
* j_dulaney likes shiny 15:38
adamw now people will break their packages just to see the failure 15:38
kparal now we need to review the patch and merge into master. but the most of the work should be done already 15:38
kparal adamw: let's hope not :) 15:38
jlaska #link 15:38
jlaska that's awesome stuff 15:39
jlaska I think I can understand depcheck output now :) 15:39
j_dulaney Wow, the shiny just keeps piling up 15:39
jlaska hopefully I can stop bugging tflink for help with that! 15:39
kparal this patch should be the core of 0.5.0 release, hopefully to come really soon 15:39
kparal together with email reduction patch from tflink 15:39
j_dulaney How's that one going? 15:40
tflink pretty much done, other than a little bit more of cleanup and testing 15:40
* j_dulaney keeps getting distracted; cheerleaders 15:40
tflink I'm planning to send out a patch email to autoqa-devel today 15:40
kparal tflink: great 15:40
vhumpa tflink: nice! 15:41
jlaska tflink: I still haven't heard back yet on the email notification for all passed results 15:41
j_dulaney +1 15:41
tflink jlaska: I'll make sure that the configuration works so that we can change it later 15:41
tflink without changing code 15:41
kparal jlaska: I have talked to some developers and they liked the idea of not getting bothered when everything works fine 15:41
jlaska tflink: but I now see my lucky ping recipient online ... so I'll see if we can get some more info 15:41
jlaska kparal: okay, good to know ... sounds like this will be tunable (without patching) based on how tflink is implementing 15:42
kparal well, and that was the big announcement of today. I have no further updates 15:43
jlaska #info tflink finalizing test result email reduction patchset - expecting patch out for review later today 15:43
jlaska With help from lmr, I've been packaging what will become autotest-0.13.0 15:43
jlaska finding a few bugs here and there (nothing major), but so far it's working okay 15:44
jlaska note, those changes are in the autoqa fedora-15-testing repo ... so make sure you *arent* using that when you are testing for the next autoqa release 15:44
vhumpa Need to run, bye for now everybody. 15:44
jlaska vhumpa: cya! 15:44
jlaska #info Packaging for soon-to-be-released autotest-0.13.0 almost complete 15:45
jlaska kparal: tflink: anything else to cover on AutoQA? I guess it depends on patch review for when we'll start the packaging machine for autoqa-0.5.0 ? 15:45
kparal jlaska: no. yes. :) 15:46
tflink nothing I can think of. review and testing for this week, yes 15:46
jlaska heh, okay ... thanks for the autoqa updates all 15:46
jlaska #topic Open Discussion - <your topic here> 15:46
* rbergeron raises her hand 15:47
jlaska I've got just a quick status update if there are no other open discussion topics 15:47
jlaska rbergeron: what's up? 15:47
rbergeron jlaska: go first, i have a few minor things 15:47
jlaska s/I've got/I have/ 15:47
jlaska #topic Open Discussion - fedora-qa F15 TRAC tickets 15:47
jlaska I'm doing some TRAC ticket maintenance to prepare for the retrospective tickets 15:48
* Viking-Ice points out we need to start looking at potential features being introduced and if we need to cover that ( grub2 and btrfs pop up to my mind ) 15:48
jlaska #link 15:48
rbergeron Viking-Ice: +1 15:48
jlaska Viking-Ice: good point ... I believe grub2 is in TRAC already, we'll need something for btrfs I believe 15:48
jlaska there are still some open tickets in the 'Fedora 15' TRAC milestone ... I closed out all the completed test events already 15:48
jlaska and I'll likely start annoying ticket owners to find the most suitable outcome for any remaining tickets 15:49
jlaska prepare to be annoyed! 15:49
jlaska #chair rbergeron 15:49
zodbot Current chairs: jlaska rbergeron 15:49
jlaska rbergeron: #topic away 15:49
rbergeron Woot. thanks 15:50
j_dulaney jlaska: Since I'm already using btrfs, I can start on test cases for it 15:50
rbergeron #topic Schedule 15:50
rbergeron #link 15:50
rbergeron #info schedule is posted, feedback is welcome, please. 15:50
jlaska rbergeron: is there any *easy* way to diff the F15 and F16 schedules? 15:50
rbergeron I know you guys have a retrospective; if there are things to be converted into schedule changes, let me know. 15:50
rbergeron jlaska: ahahahahaha. 15:50
jlaska okay, I'll be bugging you about any schedule topics that come out of the retrospective 15:51
rbergeron I assume you mean the "original" schedule vs. schedule as it turned out? 15:51
jlaska rbergeron: I should clarify ... a human-readable diff :) 15:51
rbergeron I haven't added anything *new* for you guys. 15:51
rbergeron I'd speculate that the easiest way would be this: 15:51
adamw are any of the windows noticeably different? 15:51
rbergeron vs. 15:52
rbergeron adamw: they shouldn't be. 15:52
rbergeron Other than - the dates showing in *that* F15 schedule are the slipped dates. 15:52
Viking-Ice you might want to compose any previous schedules as in what they where and how they turned out to be 15:52
jlaska ah, okay 15:52
rbergeron This schedule is more or less as the original f15 schedule was. 15:52
rbergeron Just, 6 months later. 15:53
jlaska I'll try to come up with more focused feedback after finishing the retrospective ... but the branch timing and Alpha still lend to slippage 15:54
jlaska I don't have any great ideas at the moment 15:54
jlaska will try to process 15:54
* rbergeron nods 15:54
rbergeron happy to have a brainstorming meeting with you / whoever else is interested. 15:54
rbergeron (or should be there, lol) 15:54
* jlaska notes ... there isn't an option to "Create a new month" in the schedule 15:54
* Viking-Ice is not foreseeing any slips this release cycle.. 15:55
rbergeron any other schedule q's/comments? 15:55
rbergeron #topic Fixing features 15:55
rbergeron I'll keep this brief: 15:56
rbergeron Basically some folks have mentioned that the feature process is perhaps not quite as robust as it could be, or could account for "different types of features" better (aka: marketing-ish features vs. stuff that is going to break the universe features) 15:56
rbergeron <--- your feedback is welcome. 15:56
rbergeron #info if you have any thoughts on the good, the bad, the ugly in the feature process, feel free to add your commentary to wiki page. 15:57
rbergeron And that's all on that. 15:57
* jlaska queues for reading 15:57
* rbergeron looks around before continuing 15:57
Viking-Ice features aren't mandadory process afaik .. 15:57
adamw yes 15:58
rbergeron well, i think that depends. and I think that's part of the problem. 15:58
rbergeron but not going to open pandora's box at the moment. :) 15:58
rbergeron Just wnated to give a heads-up to that, if you're interested. 15:59
jlaska yes, save that for #pandora :) 15:59
rbergeron #topic Cloud stuff 15:59
rbergeron You may notice that there are a boatload of cloud features for f16, we're already talking about test-day stuff, possibly breaking into two test days. 15:59
rbergeron ke4qqq posted something to the cloud list for anyone who might be interested in helping us work that stuff out. 15:59
rbergeron 15:59
rbergeron (basically, we haz lots of stuff, we should start planning now rather than last second like last time.) 16:00
adamw awesome 16:00
rbergeron because there is going to be a lotta stuff. :) 16:00
adamw it's definitely a good idea to hash out a clear test day topic 16:00
adamw 'cloud test day' is pretty vague, so splitting it like last time is good\ 16:00
j_dulaney Are there going to be any clouds setup specifically for us to test on? 16:00
adamw we can always make room for more test days, so don't worry about having too many 16:00
jlaska yeah, I think that worked pretty well 16:00
jlaska wasn't too vague 16:00
rbergeron yeah, and we can group them by different types of cloud apps. 16:00
jlaska cloud test week :) 16:00
rbergeron j_dulaney: unknown. that's part of what we need to solve ahead of time, so we can get that kind of thing set up for folks without it being a nightmare. 16:01
jlaska anyway ... will have to see how the features fall out 16:01
Viking-Ice cloud test week sounds like a good way to proceed 16:01
jlaska s/fall/pan/ 16:01
j_dulaney +1 16:01
rbergeron But: would appreciate any feedback if you're on the cloud list. :) 16:01
jlaska Viking-Ice: I know you like the test week idea ... assuming we have a series of clear topics, that might work 16:01
jlaska rbergeron: okay 16:01
rbergeron And would like to invite folks to come to a meeting maybe in 2 weeks or so, but will update on that next week. :) 16:02
rbergeron That's it. :) 16:02
j_dulaney Sweet 16:02
* j_dulaney is getting hungry 16:02
jlaska #topic Open Discussion - Last call for topics 16:02
Viking-Ice jlaska, cloud test week which would cover Aeolus,CloudFS,CloudStactk, Sheepdog testing.. 16:03
* jlaska sets the fuse for 2 minutes 16:03
jlaska Viking-Ice: yeah, could be ... will see what comes out of that thread 16:03
jlaska 1 minute until #endmeeting ... 16:04
* j_dulaney wanders off in search of food and to start thinking about btrfs test case 16:04
j_dulaney Peace, y'all 16:04
rbergeron Viking-Ice: yeah, and all the other ones I know of in the pipeline but aren't posted yet (openstack, pacemaker-cloud, $others) 16:04
jlaska cya j_dulaney 16:04
jlaska 30 seconds until #endmeeting ... 16:04
jlaska Thanks everyone for your time today!! ... I'll follow-up with minutes to the list 16:05
jlaska #endmeeting 16:05

Generated by 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!