| tflink
|
#startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting
|
16:01
|
| zodbot
|
Meeting started Mon Feb 11 16:01:02 2013 UTC. The chair is tflink. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
|
16:01
|
| zodbot
|
Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
|
16:01
|
| tflink
|
#meetingname fedora-qa
|
16:01
|
| zodbot
|
The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa'
|
16:01
|
| tflink
|
#topic Roll Call
|
16:01
|
| tflink
|
#chair kparal
|
16:01
|
| zodbot
|
Current chairs: kparal tflink
|
16:01
|
| * kparal waves
|
16:02
|
| * satellit listening
|
16:02
|
| * jskladan tips his hat
|
16:02
|
| dan408-
|
im not here
|
16:03
|
| * kparal nudges pschindl
|
16:03
|
| * tflink waits another minute before getting things started
|
16:04
|
| tflink
|
bit of a small group today but let's get started
|
16:05
|
| dan408-
|
no adamw?
|
16:05
|
| tflink
|
holiday in canada
|
16:06
|
| dan408-
|
snowboarding holiday
|
16:06
|
| kparal
|
adamw is slacking off
|
16:06
|
| dan408-
|
okay continue please
|
16:06
|
| tflink
|
and a public holiday, but either way
|
16:06
|
| tflink
|
#topic Previous Meeting Followup
|
16:06
|
| * pschindl is here
|
16:07
|
| tflink
|
#info adamw to draft up a proposal for revising the presentation of the release criteria
|
16:07
|
| tflink
|
#info adamw has been working on the release criteria presentation, no proposal has been sent out yet. will be covered later in meeting
|
16:08
|
| tflink
|
#info adamw to draft up a kickstart criterion for f19
|
16:08
|
| tflink
|
I don't think this was done, either
|
16:08
|
| tflink
|
did I miss something?
|
16:09
|
| dan408-
|
nope
|
16:09
|
| dan408-
|
+1
|
16:09
|
| tflink
|
#info this hasn't been done yet
|
16:10
|
| tflink
|
anything else from meeting followup?
|
16:10
|
| tflink
|
I don't see anything from the minutes
|
16:10
|
| * tflink assumes silence == nothing else
|
16:11
|
| tflink
|
#topic Criteria Revision
|
16:11
|
| * Viking-Ice joins in
|
16:12
|
| dan408-
|
hello Viking-Ice
|
16:12
|
| tflink
|
We started the conversation a bit last week, but it sounded like there was general agreement that the presentation of the release criteria could be improved
|
16:12
|
| tflink
|
#info adamw has been working on a draft update to the presentation of the release criteria
|
16:12
|
| tflink
|
#link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_alpha_criteria_sandbox
|
16:13
|
| kparal
|
interesting
|
16:13
|
| tflink
|
I don't think that he's done yet but it shows a re-thinking of the current presentation
|
16:13
|
| dan408-
|
where can we make suggestions here?
|
16:13
|
| kparal
|
dan408-: test list
|
16:14
|
| tflink
|
dan408-: test@
|
16:14
|
| tflink
|
it turns out that figuring out how to present the information is not an easy problem
|
16:14
|
| dan408-
|
sigh
|
16:14
|
| tflink
|
one thought that I had was to take the criteria out of the wiki so that we aren't restricted by wiki formatting
|
16:15
|
| dan408-
|
there's nothing wrong with the wiki
|
16:15
|
| dan408-
|
maybe we can use talk?
|
16:15
|
| dan408-
|
test is way too busty
|
16:15
|
| dan408-
|
i dont even pay attention to it
|
16:15
|
| Viking-Ice
|
tflink, yeah if we can put it on the qa criteria page you are working on
|
16:15
|
| dan408-
|
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamwill/Draft_alpha_criteria_sandbox&action=edit&redlink=1
|
16:15
|
| tflink
|
I took a snapshot of what adamw was working on, translated it to rst and generated a really basic proof-of-concept
|
16:15
|
| Viking-Ice
|
I dont think nesting this is a way to go as adam is doing there
|
16:16
|
| tflink
|
#info tflink made a proof-of-concept of taking the release criteria out of the wiki
|
16:16
|
| tflink
|
#link http://tflink.fedorapeople.org/criteria_display/
|
16:16
|
| tflink
|
I haven't done _any_ theming or admonition work yet
|
16:16
|
| Viking-Ice
|
since it requires the user to perform additional click to get that information
|
16:16
|
| tflink
|
so the layout is really rough
|
16:16
|
| dan408-
|
this is prettier..
|
16:16
|
| tflink
|
but my thought is that it would allow for easier integration with the blocker proposal app, would give us _much_ more flexibility in presentation and wouldn't make it too much more difficult for people to contribute to the criteria writing
|
16:17
|
| kparal
|
I have some comments about it, but I think this would be best discussed on the list
|
16:17
|
| Viking-Ice
|
should really that many people be editing the criteria
|
16:18
|
| tflink
|
the whole thing would live in a git repository, criteria revisions could be discussed like code reviews and the static html would be generated automatically on push to git master
|
16:18
|
| Viking-Ice
|
tflink, your page is better presented then what adam has been working on
|
16:18
|
| tflink
|
the question becomes how long it would take to translate everything
|
16:19
|
| Viking-Ice
|
should it really be translated ?
|
16:19
|
| tflink
|
but either way, we need to figure out how to present the information
|
16:19
|
| tflink
|
Viking-Ice: translation from mediawiki to rst
|
16:19
|
| tflink
|
poor choice of words on my part, sorry
|
16:19
|
| Viking-Ice
|
ok took it as language translation
|
16:19
|
| tflink
|
yeah, I should have phrased it differently
|
16:20
|
| tflink
|
one thought was to talk with the design team about how to present the information
|
16:20
|
| kparal
|
I don't think we need the design team for everything. this page should be mainly useful for us, because general users/testers won't read it anyway
|
16:21
|
| kparal
|
we should have a simplified version for them, and _that_ could be discussed with the design team
|
16:21
|
| tflink
|
I'm jumping around a bit but the main concern that I have about moving the criteria out of the wiki is the time needed to write all the templates/css and the work needed to set up reviews and the automatic generation of html
|
16:22
|
| kparal
|
tflink: how do you imagine the review process?
|
16:22
|
| tflink
|
kparal: agreed, but I also think that it would be good to see if we can get some outside ideas on how to present the information in a relatively easy-to-read fashion
|
16:23
|
| Viking-Ice
|
tabs?
|
16:23
|
| tflink
|
if we want people to cite criteria when proposing blockers, they need to be relatively easy to understand
|
16:23
|
| tflink
|
kparal: reviewboard
|
16:23
|
| kparal
|
that's yet another project to polish :)
|
16:24
|
| tflink
|
I finished setting up a reviewboard instance that we're using for the blocker tracking app
|
16:24
|
| tflink
|
it will do email notifications of code reviews on top of supporting inline and overall comments
|
16:24
|
| kparal
|
great
|
16:24
|
| tflink
|
the only thing it doesn't do is integrate with FAS
|
16:24
|
| tflink
|
and that's due to lack of support for openid upstream
|
16:25
|
| Viking-Ice
|
but so we are clear we are only talking about revisiting the presentation of the criteria not the criteria itself ?
|
16:25
|
| Viking-Ice
|
that topic can be a bit misleading
|
16:25
|
| tflink
|
Viking-Ice: at the moment, yes
|
16:25
|
| tflink
|
I assume that's what adamw had in mind when he wrote the agenda, anyways
|
16:25
|
| kparal
|
if we don't have FAS integration, we can use github comments, for instance. is there any further benefit of reviewboard?
|
16:26
|
| tflink
|
#info as a clarification, this topic is about the presentation of the release criteria, not revising the criteria themselfs
|
16:26
|
| tflink
|
kparal: I'd really rather not rely on github if we don't have to but it sounds like I might about the only one who thinks that
|
16:27
|
| * kparal shrugs
|
16:27
|
| Viking-Ice
|
no we should keep this inhouse
|
16:27
|
| kparal
|
it might be easier than to maintain another app
|
16:27
|
| tflink
|
kparal: yeah, it would be
|
16:27
|
| kparal
|
if github explodes, it doesn't hurt much
|
16:27
|
| tflink
|
and it's not like we would be the only ones doing it - pretty much all of fedora infra is on github now
|
16:28
|
| Viking-Ice
|
interesting
|
16:28
|
| kparal
|
except some of the past discussion could be inaccessible
|
16:28
|
| tflink
|
kparal: it's still a hosted service outside our control and not open source
|
16:28
|
| kparal
|
I don't have a clear opinion on this, I just sometimes feel like having a NIH syndrome
|
16:29
|
| misc
|
tflink: mhh, no, I think the fedora infra is still in house
|
16:29
|
| akshayvyas
|
oops i am late :-(
|
16:29
|
| misc
|
( and pushing stuff to git hub make it more complex since this is not tied to FAS )
|
16:29
|
| tflink
|
misc: I'm pretty sure they moved everything after FUDCon Lawrence
|
16:29
|
| tflink
|
https://github.com/fedora-infra
|
16:30
|
| kparal
|
misc: yeah, that's true
|
16:30
|
| tflink
|
to clarify, I mean most of the apps that fedora infra uses
|
16:30
|
| nirik
|
we did not move everything. ;) We allowed projects that wished to use it to use it.
|
16:30
|
| tflink
|
nirik: outside of koji, which projects didn't move?
|
16:30
|
| tflink
|
but I digress a little bit
|
16:31
|
| kparal
|
tflink: I think you should post the links (when it's somewhat ready) to test list, there will be surely lots of interesting comments
|
16:32
|
| nirik
|
lots of things I'm sure. I don't have a list.
|
16:32
|
| tflink
|
#info one large concern about moving the criteria out of the wiki is the theming work and the work needed to re-generate the HTML on git push
|
16:33
|
| tflink
|
#info both reviewboard and github are possibilities for reviewing criteria changes if we moved out of the wiki
|
16:33
|
| tflink
|
either way, we wouldn't be the first group that did stuff outside of fedorahosted
|
16:34
|
| tflink
|
kparal: yeah, I imagine that there would be some interesting discussion around any proposed changes
|
16:35
|
| kparal
|
:)
|
16:35
|
| tflink
|
but we don't have a whole lot of time left before F19
|
16:35
|
| tflink
|
any other thoughts on this for today or is it OK to move on to the next topic?
|
16:36
|
| kparal
|
proposal: let's skip testing F19 and hack on infra instead
|
16:36
|
| kparal
|
let's move on
|
16:36
|
| tflink
|
kparal: as much as I'd like to +1000 that ...
|
16:36
|
| tflink
|
#topic Fedora 19 Test Days
|
16:37
|
| tflink
|
now that the F19 schedule has been accepted, we have test days to organize
|
16:37
|
| tflink
|
organize/oversee/whatever-you-want-to-call-it
|
16:37
|
| tflink
|
is anyone interested in volunteering to coordinate the F19 test days?
|
16:38
|
| tflink
|
don't everyone volunteer at the same time :-P
|
16:39
|
| kparal
|
this is something I don't really enjoy :)
|
16:39
|
| Viking-Ice
|
just ensure all the *D
|
16:39
|
| * tflink hears a volunteer :-D
|
16:39
|
| Viking-Ice
|
just ensure all the *DE testing takes place after alpha
|
16:40
|
| tflink
|
any ideas for test days that haven't already been proposed?
|
16:40
|
| tflink
|
I think that KDE and GNOME test days have already been requested for F19
|
16:40
|
| Viking-Ice
|
I'm just referring to the schedule
|
16:40
|
| Viking-Ice
|
I'm planning on hosting a iscsi test day
|
16:40
|
| Viking-Ice
|
we fully migrated it to systemd sometime before christmas
|
16:41
|
| tflink
|
power management and NM test days have also been requested
|
16:41
|
| tflink
|
#info Viking-Ice suggested an iscsi test day
|
16:42
|
| tflink
|
if there's nothing else, we can move on
|
16:43
|
| Viking-Ice
|
tflink, I did not suggest I *will* be hosting a iscsi test day
|
16:43
|
| tflink
|
#undo
|
16:44
|
| zodbot
|
Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0xb87ed50>
|
16:44
|
| tflink
|
#info Viking-Ice will be hosting an iscsi test day
|
16:44
|
| Viking-Ice
|
date scheduled on later date ;)
|
16:44
|
| tflink
|
#undo
|
16:44
|
| zodbot
|
Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0xba8ced0>
|
16:44
|
| tflink
|
#info Viking-Ice will be hosting an iscsi test day. Exact date TBD and proposed later
|
16:45
|
| tflink
|
ok, anything else on this?
|
16:45
|
| Viking-Ice
|
we need to test "enterprise storage" in anaconda it's expected to be back ( gui wize if I'm not mistaken (
|
16:45
|
| Viking-Ice
|
uhum )
|
16:45
|
| Viking-Ice
|
;)
|
16:45
|
| Viking-Ice
|
this release cycle
|
16:45
|
| tflink
|
Viking-Ice: yeah but that's hard to do in a test day - few people have access to "enterprise storage"
|
16:46
|
| tflink
|
well, access to "enterprise storage" they can test fedora installs with
|
16:46
|
| Viking-Ice
|
puff how does not have a san rack at home
|
16:46
|
| Viking-Ice
|
;)
|
16:46
|
| * tflink hasn't touched a SAN since his days in storage testing
|
16:47
|
| Viking-Ice
|
nirik, what kind of storage infrastructure does infra have
|
16:47
|
| Viking-Ice
|
local disk only or something more "advanced"
|
16:47
|
| tflink
|
mostly netapp filers, I think but testing fedora installs in the fedora infra sounds like a really bad idea to me
|
16:47
|
| nirik
|
we have local disk/lvm and some iscsi stuff. Nothing too odd
|
16:48
|
| Viking-Ice
|
tflink, why is that a bad idea?
|
16:48
|
| tflink
|
Viking-Ice: what part of testing installs of a pre-release OS on production infrastructure doesn't sound like a bad idea?
|
16:49
|
| Viking-Ice
|
tflink, hows exporting an empty share to on an pre-release os
|
16:49
|
| Viking-Ice
|
it's not like they would export something with mission critical data on it to the clients
|
16:50
|
| Viking-Ice
|
just and empty filesystem/partition
|
16:50
|
| Viking-Ice
|
s/and/an
|
16:50
|
| nirik
|
we possibly could, but don't want it to interfere with any production setups... would have to look if we have spare/isolated space for such a thing
|
16:51
|
| tflink
|
that's a discussion you/we can have with infra, if they're OK with it, I'm not going to stop attempts - I'm just really cautious about addressing storage
|
16:51
|
| * nirik nods. I don't want prod interfered with.
|
16:52
|
| * tflink has seen far too many "enterprise" storage systems explode
|
16:52
|
| tflink
|
but we digress
|
16:52
|
| tflink
|
this is a discussion that can happen outside of the meeting, on test@ and with infra
|
16:52
|
| jsmith
|
tflink: :-)
|
16:53
|
| tflink
|
since we're almost out of time ...
|
16:53
|
| tflink
|
#topic Fedora 18 Retrospective
|
16:53
|
| tflink
|
This is something that we haven't talked about too much post-F18
|
16:53
|
| tflink
|
a few things have been added to the retrospective page
|
16:53
|
| Viking-Ice
|
it's simply really never do anaconda/upgrade rewrites again
|
16:53
|
| tflink
|
#link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_QA_Retrospective
|
16:53
|
| tflink
|
Viking-Ice: while I don't think that we'll see another major rewrite like that anytime soon, I don't think it's as simple as "never rewrite again"
|
16:54
|
| tflink
|
just go about doing it differently _if_ it ever happens again
|
16:55
|
| tflink
|
but either way, constructive additions to that page would be appreciated
|
16:55
|
| Viking-Ice
|
tflink, no really if anaconda needs another rewrite in the distant future it should just be thrown away altogther and replaced with something written from scratch
|
16:55
|
| tflink
|
Viking-Ice: I don't see how it's our place to tell devs what to do
|
16:56
|
| * satellit require install on hardware plus in Virtualiztion
|
16:56
|
| Viking-Ice
|
tflink, it is when their mess ends up at our door step ;)
|
16:56
|
| tflink
|
#info Constructive additions to the retrospective are appreciated
|
16:56
|
| jsmith
|
Viking-Ice: Most of the anaconda code *has* been rewritten from scratch
|
16:56
|
| Viking-Ice
|
hurray!
|
16:56
|
| tflink
|
Viking-Ice: we'd be naive to pretend that it was all their fault
|
16:57
|
| tflink
|
there is plenty of blame to go around
|
16:57
|
| tflink
|
blame/fault
|
16:57
|
| Viking-Ice
|
fesco has the other half
|
16:57
|
| tflink
|
but blamestorming doesn't help anything
|
16:57
|
| Viking-Ice
|
in anycase "I wish, that f18 alpha was not declared GOLD, knowing that it will destroy data, by default. Even after such a decision was made, i wish the announcement informed us clearly that f18alpha *will destroy data*, and not wait one more week until the release notes become available. "
|
16:57
|
| Viking-Ice
|
I thought it was common knowledge that pre-release testing did make the requirement to throw away their current installs at release time
|
16:58
|
| tflink
|
#info Constructive additions to the retrospective page would be appreciated, tickets will be created from retrospective items shortly
|
16:58
|
| tflink
|
Viking-Ice: I don't see that on the retrospective, where did it come from?
|
16:59
|
| Viking-Ice
|
it's there straight under "Could have been better"
|
16:59
|
| tflink
|
oh, I skipped over it due to formatting
|
16:59
|
| Viking-Ice
|
the rest seem to be just adamw with criteria bits which we are already working at and Wutao85 with personal retrospective
|
17:00
|
| Viking-Ice
|
as in himself could do better at replying to bugs
|
17:01
|
| tflink
|
hence the request for more ideas :)
|
17:01
|
| tflink
|
anyhow, we're over time already
|
17:01
|
| tflink
|
anything else that people want to cover re: F18 retrospective
|
17:01
|
| tflink
|
?
|
17:01
|
| Viking-Ice
|
well what did we learn about the blocker bug meetings
|
17:02
|
| tflink
|
that we didn't already know before F18?
|
17:02
|
| tflink
|
they don't scale all that well
|
17:02
|
| tflink
|
but the hope is that F18 was very much an outlier
|
17:02
|
| Viking-Ice
|
well we should set a fixed channel and keep with the 3hour max limit
|
17:03
|
| Viking-Ice
|
we kinda ended up doing that
|
17:03
|
| tflink
|
sure, but I think that the blocker review process is a little outside the F18 QA retrospective
|
17:03
|
| tflink
|
especially when we're already over time
|
17:04
|
| * tflink isn't trying to say that the process is perfect or that it shouldn't be discussed
|
17:04
|
| Viking-Ice
|
yeah sure whatever fits your meeting needs
|
17:04
|
| * satellit added comment to retrospective
|
17:05
|
| tflink
|
#info discussion around the blocker review process for F19 would be wise before we get into testing
|
17:05
|
| tflink
|
#topic Open Floor
|
17:06
|
| tflink
|
Anything else that should be discussed today?
|
17:06
|
| satellit
|
when will koji try again for lives?
|
17:06
|
| tflink
|
I think there were some problems with rawhide over the weekend
|
17:06
|
| tflink
|
something about getting comps, I think but I didn't read the details
|
17:07
|
| tflink
|
either way, I'm not sure what the decision was regarding the frequency of rawhide compose attempts
|
17:07
|
| * nirik restarted rawhide compose for today, should land in a few hours.
|
17:07
|
| tflink
|
does anyone else know what the plan is?
|
17:07
|
| satellit
|
thanks
|
17:08
|
| tflink
|
s/else//
|
17:08
|
| nirik
|
lives I can do after that. for install there was talk of doing weekly... but thats not yet started that I know of.
|
17:08
|
| tflink
|
I think that dgilmore was working with anaconda devs when they requested a compose
|
17:09
|
| satellit
|
FYI I installed anaconda from http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2340/4912340/Fedora-19-Nightly-20130129.10-x86_64-Live-xfce.iso
|
17:09
|
| tflink
|
anyhow, if there are no other topics, I'll set the fuse for ~ 5 minutes
|
17:10
|
| Viking-Ice
|
yeah it kinda serves no purpose to start composing images until anaconda says go
|
17:10
|
| * nirik nods
|
17:10
|
| tflink
|
Viking-Ice: IIRC, they were one of the groups requesting rawhide composes
|
17:10
|
| Viking-Ice
|
yup
|
17:11
|
| tflink
|
Thanks for coming, everyone!
|
17:14
|
| tflink
|
#endmeeting
|
17:14
|
