QA/Meetings/20110620

From FedoraProject

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Attendees

People present (lines said):

  1. jlaska (112)
  2. j_dulaney (40)
  3. adamw (30)
  4. vhumpa1 (28)
  5. tflink (17)
  6. jskladan (2)

Unable to attend:

  1. Rhe (hopefully sleeping)
  2. Hongqing (hopefully sleeping)
  3. wutao85 (hopefully sleeping)
  4. kparal (PTO)

Agenda

Gnome Shell duplicate application names

  • Upstream GNOME not interested in resolving duplicate application names - Fedora free to resolve as it sees fit
  • We are free to make a path or gnomeshell extension - but should not "expect them to condone it"
  • ACTION: j_dulaney - will gather a full list of the application name collisions, then decide as a group how to proceed

AutoQA updates

  • We've been working to test and finish up AutoQA 0.5.0 and at the moment we're hoping to finish up and release this week some time
  • we still have 2 issues to work out (that I'm aware of) - jskladan has submitted a patch for one and I'm still working on the other
  • Look for a new release announcement later this week!
  • Fedora infrastructure team planning to move existing autoqa systems on July 12 ... jlaska working with smooge+nirik to prepare install/configure new servers (prod + stage) ahead of time

R3 - Retrospective recommendation review

  • https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_15_QA_Retrospective#Recommendations
  • Jlaska finally pulled together the retrospective feedback into some recommendations. I'd like to start converting these tasks into tickets and begging for volunteers. if there is something you like on the list, and want to get started on ... by all means, go for it.
  • j_dulaney noted that bugzilla now allows any logged in user to set the Blocks field

Open Discussion - <your topic here>

Including security spin test matrix in F16 test runs?

  • jlaska asked whether we should include athmane's security test matrix in the list of F16 release validation matrices (refer to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Athmane/Fedora_15_Security_Lab_Testing) (jlaska, 15:48:43)
  • Early consensus is YES! Adamw will be working on a process allow for additional test matrix for non-desktop and non-installer tests. For example, this could be used to cover some of jdulaney's btrfs tests as well.

Action Items

  1. j_dulaney - will gather a full list of the application name collissions
  2. * - review and comment on Fedora 15 retrospective recommendations

IRC Log

jlaska #startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting 15:00
zodbot Meeting started Mon Jun 20 15:00:24 2011 UTC. The chair is jlaska. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 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
jskladan j_dulaney: hi there. Well, got struck by two most unpleasant things at once - illness and end-semester exams 15:00
* j_dulaney waves 15:01
* jskladan steps out of the shadows 15:01
j_dulaney jskladan: Man, that sucks 15:01
jlaska Hey j_dulaney, jskladan 15:01
adamw yo 15:01
jlaska hey adamw 15:01
j_dulaney tflink, adamw, jlaska 15:02
jlaska hey robatino 15:02
* jlaska sees tflink joined too 15:02
jlaska anyone else I'm forgetting? 15:02
vhumpa1 Hi there 15:03
jlaska Vita! 15:03
jlaska okay, let's get things moving ... 15:03
* vhumpa1 stands out of his dark dungeon 15:03
j_dulaney Yo, bro 15:03
jlaska we didn't have a meeting last week ... so I have no previous items to cover 15:04
jlaska but if something surfaces, let's discuss in open-discussion 15:04
jlaska #topic Release Criteria Updates 15:05
jlaska adamw: I don't know if you had any remaining criteria updates ... or if you've made all the planned changes already 15:05
jlaska the other item on under this topic, was vhumpa1's investigation into the Shell duplicate application names 15:05
adamw there may be something else, i'm still kinda swimming upstream here 15:06
adamw i know vita's been working hard on that but i haven't caught up with that thread yet, vita can update i'm sure :) 15:06
jlaska adamw: what's the upstream work you're doing? re: shell? 15:06
vhumpa1 I reached up to some upstream people and the response I got was that it was an non-issue 15:07
* j_dulaney sort of expected as much 15:07
jlaska vhumpa1: oh rats, so they're not interested in a solution that better distinguishes duplicate application names in the menu? 15:08
vhumpa1 Basically, we are free to do what we want about this issue, but they want to have nothing to with it 15:08
adamw jlaska: oh, no, metaphorically swimming upstream 15:08
adamw jlaska: as in freeing myself from giant piles of email 15:08
jlaska #info Upstream GNOME not interested in resolving duplicate application names - Fedora free to resolve as it sees fit 15:08
jlaska adamw: oh oh roger :) 15:08
j_dulaney If we were to submit a patch or some such, would they actually apply it? 15:09
vhumpa1 jlaska: I really just have the same input as I told you on Friday 15:09
jlaska vhumpa1: right on 15:09
* j_dulaney notes that he was literally going upstream yesterday, in a boat 15:09
vhumpa1 Since, it an issue of when you have multiple environments mixed up, it is people's problem 15:09
jlaska Upstream is focusing only on their desktop experience, not when you mix applications from multiple DE's ? 15:10
vhumpa1 And they don't want to have design decision driven by this 15:10
jlaska okay 15:10
vhumpa1 jlaska: exactly 15:10
jlaska vhumpa1: is this important enough that we want to continue persuing options? 15:10
adamw vhumpa1: how about the parallel discussion about stuff like the GenericName field and app descriptions in tooltips? 15:11
vhumpa1 We are free to make a path or gnomeshell extension - but should not "expect them to condone it" :) 15:11
vhumpa1 jlaska: A good question, I think it is, yet not with very high priority 15:12
jlaska #info We are free to make a path or gnomeshell extension - but should not "expect them to condone it" 15:12
vhumpa1 adamw: I believe that is the same stuff 15:12
vhumpa1 adamw: I mean that is what I was asking for the upstream opinion for 15:13
adamw so, no movement there either? hum. 15:13
vhumpa1 adamw: renaming the desktop files in Fedora packing process seems like a no-go now based on some input I got 15:13
j_dulaney What about just editing the menu names in the .desktop file? 15:14
vhumpa1 Ah sorry for mistyping, that is what I ment in the previous post 15:14
adamw from a fedora packaging perspective? 15:15
j_dulaney Ah 15:15
vhumpa1 Yep 15:15
j_dulaney How so? 15:15
j_dulaney It doesn't seem like it would be difficult. 15:15
* adamw doesn't see anything specifically forbidding it in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Desktop_files 15:15
vhumpa1 We take the desktop files from upstream... So they'd have to be modified with each new version etc... if I am not mistaken 15:15
jlaska maintenance? 15:15
vhumpa1 jlaska: exactly 15:15
adamw vhumpa1: i've modified .desktop files before, it's not terribly hard 15:15
j_dulaney Could not a script be created? 15:16
vhumpa1 adamw: definitely not :) Depends on if maintainers would be willing to do so 15:16
j_dulaney Include it as an automated part of the build process so that it wouldn't be forgotten 15:16
adamw you can usually run a sed command inside the spec 15:16
jlaska so ...do we want to take this to the packaging-list with suggestions for updating the Desktop_files guidance? 15:16
vhumpa1 j_dulaney: I suppose so, that it could be automated from inside spec files somehow 15:17
j_dulaney jlaska +1 15:17
adamw well, this is only feedback from one upstream 15:17
vhumpa1 jlaska: might be worth it 15:17
adamw have we looked at all the current name collisions and seen how many actually involve GNOME packages? (and how many involve *two* GNOME packages?) 15:17
jlaska good question 15:17
jlaska what's the scope of the problem space? 15:17
j_dulaney adamw: I can think of one such within Gnome 15:18
vhumpa1 i'd say, it would not be more than 10-15 packages 15:18
j_dulaney The Update/Updates thing 15:18
vhumpa1 even less if we target really only the most obvious one 15:18
j_dulaney vhumpa1: +1 15:18
vhumpa1 ones 15:18
adamw j_dulaney: i think one of those is a Fedora package, not a GNOME one 15:19
vhumpa1 Still: how exactly to rename them and how is an question 15:19
adamw oh, no, they're both from gnome-packagekit. i lose. 15:19
adamw i think we could prevail upon hughsie to fix that one, though. 15:19
vhumpa1 Might bring some unhappiness from some upstream people if we rename some apps in a way they dont like it 15:19
adamw yeah, it's a slightly touchy subject 15:20
adamw i think we should check on the other collisions and see what upstream projects they involve 15:20
j_dulaney vhumpa1: Of course, in some instances, we are the upstream... 15:20
jlaska anyone want to pull together a complete list of the collisions? 15:20
* j_dulaney can 15:20
jlaska s/want to/want to volunteer/ 15:20
jlaska thanks j_dulaney 15:20
jlaska #action j_dulaney - will gather a full list of the application name collissions 15:21
vhumpa1 j_dulaney: you can find a sketch of such in the testlist discussion 15:21
jlaska anything we need to discuss before we have the complete list of collisions? 15:21
jlaska or will that list be used to figure out step#2? 15:21
j_dulaney vhumpa1: Roger 15:21
jlaska anything else to cover on this topic? 15:22
adamw i think that's important to figuring out step #2 15:23
jlaska yeah, that makes sense 15:23
jlaska okay, getting ready to move on then 15:23
jlaska thanks all for the update ... we'll follow-up on the list with this topic 15:24
jlaska #topic AutoQA updates 15:24
adamw brb, nature calls 15:24
jlaska kparal is out today ... tflink, can you guide us through the latest and greatest? 15:24
jlaska quick give adamw action items! 15:24
tflink not a problem 15:24
tflink proposed #action adamw finish AutoQA 0.5.0 15:24
jlaska ack! 15:25
jlaska  :) 15:25
j_dulaney LOL 15:25
j_dulaney +1 15:25
jlaska actually ... adamw is really good at giving out action items to me ... so I'll be +0 on this :) 15:25
tflink We've been working to test and finish up AutoQA 0.5.0 and at the moment we're hoping to finish up and release this week some time 15:25
jlaska #info We've been working to test and finish up AutoQA 0.5.0 and at the moment we're hoping to finish up and release this week some time 15:26
tflink the major features are bodhi comment email reduction and better log data presentation (in HTML) 15:26
* jlaska loves the error highlighting in the HTML reports 15:26
tflink we still have 2 issues to work out (that I'm aware of) - jskladan has submitted a patch for one and I'm still working on the other 15:27
tflink that's about all I can think of to say from AutoQA land. Look for a new release announcement later this week! 15:27
jlaska tflink: given the testing you guys have already done ... does it seem feasible to resolve those 2 issues and release this week? 15:28
tflink jlaska: I think so. jskladan's patch looks good and I'm still having issues reproducing the last bug 15:29
jlaska tflink: cool, are you getting what you need out of the test instance we setup? 15:30
tflink if I still can't reproduce it in the next couple of days, I'm of the opinion that we can ship with it and fix it if it becomes a problem 15:30
jlaska okay 15:30
jlaska #info we still have 2 issues to work out (that I'm aware of) - jskladan has submitted a patch for one and I'm still working on the other 15:30
jlaska #info Look for a new release announcement later this week! 15:30
tflink to reproduce that bug? No, that setup isn't set up for reproducing the issue 15:30
jlaska this is the email issue, right? 15:30
tflink yep - the wonders of tight coupling! 15:31
jlaska would it help if you had autoqa-results-staging@ ? 15:31
* vhumpa1 goes back to studies 15:31
jlaska tflink: on fedorahosted i mean, instead of your private setup? 15:31
jlaska vhumpa1: good luck! 15:31
vhumpa1 jlaska: thx! will need it 15:31
tflink jlaska: it wouldn't matter. The SMTP traffic is being blocked 15:31
adamw #action vhumpa1 finish autoqa 0.5.0 15:31
tflink either fedorahosted or my list are outside the network and affected 15:31
jlaska adamw: strikes! 15:31
tflink and the emails that go out to that list are different 15:32
jlaska I see 15:32
tflink the issue has to do with the bodhi comment emails 15:32
jlaska ah! 15:32
tflink which are disabled on the test system 15:32
jlaska tflink: thanks for the details 15:33
tflink np 15:33
jlaska okay, if nothing else on the autoqa front, we'll move on 15:33
jlaska fingers crossed for a successful autoqa release this week 15:33
tflink that makes at least two of us. I want to get this stuff into production 15:33
jlaska oh well, I might as well #info something ... 15:33
jlaska #info Fedora infrastructure team planning to move existing autoqa systems on July 12 ... jlaska working with smooge+nirik to prepare install/configure new servers (prod + stage) ahead of time 15:34
jlaska so thanks to those two for providing guidance, and what is shaping up to be a much more official setup 15:35
jlaska more news @ 11 15:35
j_dulaney Try to have 0.5.4 or .5 out by then? 15:35
jlaska who knows what %{version} we'll be at then :) 15:35
jlaska okay ... moving on ... 15:36
jlaska #topic R^3 - Retrospective recommendation review 15:36
jlaska #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_15_QA_Retrospective#Recommendations 15:36
jlaska I finally pulled together the retrospective feedback into some recommendations 15:36
jlaska I've blogged and fired this off to the list to the thunderous sound of crickets 15:36
jlaska if you have a moment, please review what I've documented on the page so far 15:37
jlaska some of these things are already inprogress (b/c you guys naturally like to fix problems) 15:37
jlaska s/guys/people/ :) 15:37
jlaska there aren't a lot of earth shattering changes proposed imo ... but of course, it would be nice to have some input 15:38
jlaska some highlights ... 15:38
* j_dulaney likes 15:38
jlaska Since the Alpha's have always slipped, and each time it's due to live image-related problems (creation or install) 15:38
* adamw will have feedback soon 15:38
jlaska I thought we should ask to have live images included during TC1 (updated SOP), and also with the acceptance test runs leading up to the TC 15:39
jlaska I've got a few items on the list that we'll need to approach other teams on 15:39
jlaska for example ... there are 3 items that need to be reviewed with rbergeron 15:39
jlaska same for rel-eng (likely dgilmore) 15:40
adamw yay more lives 15:40
* j_dulaney notices that he now can set blocker status. 15:40
j_dulaney Is that across the board for all Bugzilla account holders, or just those with a FAS? 15:41
jlaska j_dulaney: related to a feature awilliam requested maybe? 15:41
jlaska .bug 707252 15:41
zodbot jlaska: Bug 707252 Allow any registered user to change the Blocks: field - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707252 15:41
adamw yeah, i've been waiting on that one for a bit 15:41
j_dulaney jlaska: Indeed 15:41
adamw j_dulaney: so far it's been that you need editbugs privileges to set that field 15:42
adamw which packagers and bugzappers and rh staff get 15:42
jlaska okay ... so please all take a minute to review, add feedback, tell me what sucks or is missing 15:42
jlaska (in as constructive a way as possible of course) :) 15:42
jlaska I'd like to start converting these tasks into tickets and begging for volunteers 15:42
jlaska if there is something you like on the list, and want to get started on ... by all means, go for it 15:43
j_dulaney adamw: So, it is across the board now, then? 15:43
jlaska #info I finally pulled together the retrospective feedback into some recommendations. I'd like to start converting these tasks into tickets and begging for volunteers. if there is something you like on the list, and want to get started on ... by all means, go for it 15:43
* j_dulaney wonders about how to prevent things like the GlibC almost-foulup 15:43
jlaska #info j_dulaney noted that bugzilla now allows any logged in user to set the Blocks field 15:43
jlaska any other comments/thoughts/concerns on this? 15:44
jlaska if folks are okay with this process/format ... I'll also add a ticket for me to SOP this 15:44
adamw j_dulaney: i dunno, i hadn't heard of any change 15:44
jlaska okay, I'll stay tuned to the list for ideas 15:46
jlaska thanks all! 15:46
jlaska #topic Open Discussion - <your topic here> 15:46
jlaska I had one item I just remembered ... but someone else can go first 15:46
jlaska actually ... my topic was a bout whether we should include athmane's security test matrix in F16 release validation runs 15:47
jlaska but I think I'll actually just add that to the retrospective recommendations 15:47
* j_dulaney raises hand 15:48
jlaska #info jlaska asked whether we should include athmane's security test matrix in the list of F16 release validation matrices (refer to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Athmane/Fedora_15_Security_Lab_Testing) 15:48
adamw i'd say definitely, and one thing i'm trying to do is come up with a third test matrix for releases which will include those and a few other tests that aren't really install or desktop 15:48
j_dulaney Btrfs test case creation 15:48
adamw but i've been terminally short on round tuits :( 15:48
jlaska adamw: nice, I think I've got that suggestion from you on the retrospective 15:49
j_dulaney adamw: Know the feeling 15:49
jlaska j_dulaney: re: btrfs ... do you mean tests related to installing systems with btrfs partitions? 15:49
jlaska or more about post-install btrfs tasks? 15:49
jlaska (or both) 15:49
j_dulaney For instance: 15:50
j_dulaney Both 15:50
j_dulaney https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jdulaney/Draft_Testcase_Mount_btrfs 15:50
j_dulaney https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jdulaney/Draft_Testcase_btrfs_migration 15:50
jlaska j_dulaney: I've got it on the retrospective to talk with rhe about adding installer coverage for btrfs (actually, it was her idea) 15:50
jlaska perhaps your additional tests might line up with the additional stuff adamw is talking about 15:51
j_dulaney Indeed 15:51
jlaska definitely as package specific tests to start with 15:51
j_dulaney adamw: Let's talk on this later this week? 15:51
j_dulaney when I have time? 15:51
jlaska Okay .... last call for open-discussion topics ... 15:52
jlaska I'll #endmeeting in 2 minutes 15:52
* jlaska sets fuse 15:52
jlaska 1 minute until #endmeeting ... 15:53
adamw j_dulaney: sure 15:54
jlaska alright ... thanks everyone! 15:54
j_dulaney What about, say Wednesday? 15:54
jlaska I'll send minutes to the list later today 15:54
jlaska #endmeeting 15:54

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