QA/Meetings/20090415

= Attendees =


 * Will Woods (wwoods)
 * Adam Williamson (adamw)
 * Jóhann Guðmundsson (viking_ice)
 * John Brown (tk009)
 * Jesse Keating (f13)
 * James Laska (jlaska)

= Previous meeting follow-up =


 * 1) [jlaska+adamw] mediawiki semantic update (packaging and hosting)
 * 2) * REVIEWED - 490001 - Review Request: mediawiki-semantic - The semantic extension to mediawiki
 * 3) * UNDER REVIEW - 490171 - Review Request: mediawiki-semantic-forms - An extension to MediaWiki that adds support for web-based forms
 * 4) ** User:tibbs posted some additional concerns for mediawiki-semantic-forms around licensing which I haven't followed up on yet
 * 5) ** fedora-infrastructure request sent for fedoraproject.org/wiki database copy for testing
 * 6) [jlaska] - reach out to pmuller on packaging rhtslib
 * 7) * Discussed briefly with pmuller the current status of rhtslib packaging, will reach out again this week
 * 8) [jlaska] - improve the kickstart file used for generating test day live images
 * 9) * Documented test day live image procedur at QA/Test_Days/Live_Image (thanks to User:katzj for guidance)
 * 10) [adamw] - send details of nss rawhide issue to warren for posting to rawhidewatch.wordpress.com
 * 11) * Submitted for review and posted at http://rawhidewatch.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/rawhide-x86_64-firefox-and-rpm-broke-workaround-procedure/
 * 12) [jlaska] - talk to John Poelstra about adding a few F11Blocker review meetings to the schedule
 * 13) * Discussed with User:poelstra, the schedule has a blocker bug review meetings (see task#39 in schedule http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-11/f-11-releng-tasks.html)
 * 14) * Will save the open issue of "what makes a bug a blocker?" for later in this meeting (see below)
 * 15) [adamw] - review Test Day X11 bugs to ensure they are represented on F11Blocker
 * 16) * noveau bugs - I was looking at nouveau bugs, then checked in with darktama and he says he's already doing a review of all of them himself
 * 17) * radeon/intel bugs - I will talk to matej and francois about
 * 18) * I am a bit worried about radeon, there are rather a lot of open reports on it, several looking quite serious
 * 19) [wwoods] - review pulseaudio/alsa bugs and work with lennart and jaroslav for F11Blocker representation
 * 20) * working with Lennart (PA author) and Jaroslav (kernel sound maintainer) we've determined
 * 21) *# PulseAudio is *not* at fault (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485734#c16) and
 * 22) *# Intel sound hardware sometimes is flaky about reporting certain bits about its internal state
 * 23) * as of kernel -70 it should be fixed for a majority of cases
 * 24) * Two blocker bugs intel-hda: snd_pcm_avail overflows and snd-intel8x0: timing unstable (snd_pcm_avail overflows, signals POLLOUT when it shouldn't)
 * 25) * Will noted it would be good to have a test day for pulseaudio, but consensus was there is no room in the test day schedule and the hardware people are having issues on is very common

= Autoqa update =


 * Next steps:
 * continue improving existing test reporting
 * interim goal of sending automated test result mails to autoqa-results
 * wwoods suggested there are fixes that he would like to get into upstream beaker
 * reach out to pmuller for information on packaging rhtslib

= F-11 Blocker Bugs =

James Laska asked to brainstorm on a way to open up the process of assessing milestone blocker bugs. Adam noted he has been engaging the bugzapper team on this topic but they have expressed concerns as they feel they might not do it right. Will Woods acknowledged that expanding and clarifying release criteria (or having separate blockercriteria) might be a good idea.

There are several resources available now:
 * QA/ReleaseCriteria - current release criteria list
 * User:Beland/Bugzilla_Legend - draft bugzilla severity and priority definitions

Adam noted I guess if we adopted that system going forward, triage would naturally feed into blocker bug evaluation

Jesse questioned whether ''exposing and actually trusting severity/priority in bugs is worthwhile ... Every person's pet bug is high priority high severity.''

Jesse asked what success would look like for a trial run?
 * no revert wars, positive feedback from maintainers looking at their bug lists
 * community participation in the escalation of blocker bugs

Jesse offered concern that the first instinct of many people will be to think that QA will want to force what people will work on.
 * James suggested QA just provides data/guidance on the bugs. How the list acted on is a different topic.

Adam summarized by noting he is working on a draft for developer feedback, this process is intended to advise developers (not dictate). If it works great, if it doesn't we'll kick it to the curb, and we can evaluate down the road how severity/priority and blocker lists are/should be interacting.

Jesse suggested that Triage and setting of priority/severity can certainly help the maintainer make that decision, so long as they have the ultimate say. Jesse also concluded that whatever helps us or maintainers find the critical issues sooner rather than later will help

Jóhann added that this will never work. Adam encouraged optimism.

= Open discussion =

There wasn't enough time for open discussion in the meeting. Please send thoughts/ideas to fedora-test-list@redhat.com.

fedora-qa-bookmarks package?
Cool idea proposed by wwoods - a Fedora QA bookmarks package (installable for test days, rawhide testers, live images etc...). Jesse Keating noted it's a challenge to have this co-exist with the fedora-bookmarks package.

= Upcoming QA events =
 * 2009-04-16 - yum-presto
 * 2009-04-21 - BugZappers/Triage_days
 * 2009-04-21 - Minimal platform
 * 2009-04-23 - TAFS (Test A FileSystem)

= Action items =


 * [jlaska] - announce live image create wiki update to fedora-test-list
 * [adamw] - discuss with mcepl and francois about radeon and intel F11Blocker bug status
 * [adamw] - post to fedora forums asking for feedback on pulseaudio issues
 * [jlaska] - schedule autoqa discussion w/ wwoods and jkeating - is there any work we can do prior to F-11 GA?
 * [adamw] - send a priority/severity definition draft to fedora-test-list for review before sending to developers/maintainers

= Next QA meeting =

The next meeting will be held on 2009-04-22 16:00 UTC

= IRC Transcript =

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by [mailto:marius@pov.lt Marius Gedminas] - find it at mg.pov.lt!