QA/Meetings/20110103

From FedoraProject

< QA | Meetings
Revision as of 19:41, 3 January 2011 by Jlaska (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Attendees

People present (lines said)

  1. jlaska (127)
  2. adamw (37)
  3. Viking-Ice (23)
  4. kparal (18)
  5. rbergeron (4)
  6. jskladan_home (3)
  7. wwoods (2)

Unable to attend:

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

Agenda

Previous meeting follow-up

  1. Bodhi feedback patch from fcami (see infrastructure ticket#701 awaiting review
No updates on https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/bodhi/2010-December/000543.html

Call for Test Days

Owner 
AdamW
Summary
Call for ideas/owners for Fedora 15 QA/Test_Days
Monitor list of approved features for ideas
Several events scheduled so far (GNOME 3, Xfce 4.8 and X Test Week)
Hurry and Alam scheduled another l10n/i18n test day (see https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/158)
Next steps ...
  1. Schedule systemd event?
  2. HELP - Approaching last call to pitch (or host) test days for Fedora 15.
  3. Reach out to xorg-x11-drv maintainers to see if they want to move the test week at all

Requirements review for Fedora test case management

Owner 
rhe
Summary
See fedora-qa ticket#152 -- Requirements review for Fedora test case management
Hurry drafting requirements at Rhe/tcms_requirements_proposal
Use case identification -- see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Rhe/tcms_use_cases
Use case comparison -- see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Rhe/tcms_Comparison
Next steps ...
HELP - More feedback needed from testers (anyone who has participated or hosted an installation test event or test day)

Critical Path test case development

Owner 
adamwill
Summary
See fedora-qa ticket#154
Still experimenting with some mock-ups/examples
Next steps ...
HELP - More feedback needed from testers and developers
If no additional feedback, and we assume no news is good news, the next step is converting existing test cases, and getting people started writing new ones developed
Reach out to f-e-k and bodhi teams to discuss tools integration

AutoQA Update

Owner 
kparal
Summary
Kparal pushed mkrizek's support for staging server into master
Next steps ...
  1. What's the status of depcheck?
    1. Wwoods posting blog article explaining the need for autoqa ticket#248
    2. Determine appropriate strategy for watcher and depcheck integration, and revise patchset as needed
  2. Merge clumens branch into master

Open discussion - <Your topic here>

Suggestions for improving IRC meetings

Owner - jlaska
Summary
Jlaska asked for ideas/thoughts on improving IRC meetings
Suggestions included ...
  • Merge BugZappers and QA meetings
  • Post and solicit meeting topics on Friday, conditionally host meetings on Monday
Next steps ...
Will post and solicit topics on Friday
No current action, but open to merging BugZapper and QA meetings in the future

Action items

IRC Transcript

jlaska #startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting 16:00
zodbot Meeting started Mon Jan 3 16:00:00 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 #meetingname fedora-qa 16:00
zodbot The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa' 16:00
jlaska #topic Gathering in the lobby 16:00
* kparal welcome 16:00
jlaska Happy 2011 fedora-qa! Who is ready to join me hosting the first awesome meeting of 2011? 16:01
* jskladan_home is lurking from the shadows, but will be departing soon :-/ 16:01
jlaska howdy jskladan and kparal 16:01
jlaska mkrizek is out this week, so hopefully he's hitting the books hard 16:02
jlaska and wwoods is now fully transitioned over to anaconda-devel 16:02
wwoods well, I'm still lurking here 16:03
* rbergeron peeks in 16:03
wwoods but unofficially! 16:03
jlaska Anyone else lurking? Viking-Ice, robatino, adamw etc... 16:03
jlaska rbergeron: hi there :) 16:04
rbergeron jlaska: howdy sir! 16:04
kparal I think adamw has holiday, if he's in Canada 16:04
* Viking-Ice drops in Happy New year ;) 16:04
jlaska oh goodness, my gnome-shell session just froze .... one moment while I recover folks 16:06
jlaska apologies for delay 16:06
jlaska okay ... we'll run this from the console then ... 16:06
jlaska #topic Previous meeting follow-up 16:07
jlaska The only item I had on the list was tracking the bodhi patch that fcame sent out for review 16:07
jlaska kparal: thanks, I didn't realize today was a holiday in Canada 16:08
jlaska I haven't seen any updates in the ticket. I have it listed as infrastructure ticket#701, but I think I must have typo'd that from a previous meeting 16:10
jlaska Will likely need to catch up with fcami and lmacken for an update here 16:10
jlaska So ... into the agenda ... 16:11
jlaska Nothing earth shattering planned for today ... just a recap on current activities so we don't completely forget what we were working on 16:11
jlaska #topic Fedora 15 Test Days 16:11
jlaska The schedule looks pretty good so far 16:11
jlaska The open items I have are that AdamW was waiting to hear back from mezcalero on the timing of a systemd test day 16:12
jlaska Aside from that ... there are still a handfull of open slots remaining (7 slots) 16:12
jlaska we don't have to have each of these filled of course, and as AdamW notes, while they are typically held on Thursdays ... folks are certainly welcome to choose a more applicable day of the week 16:13
rbergeron jlaska: does the QA team normally have these test days individually added / detailed on the Fedora schedule? 16:13
Viking-Ice If they suddenly will get filed we might need to drop some of those Gnome-Shell event I think I saw AdamW marked three testdays dedicated to Gnome-shell.. 16:14
jlaska rbergeron: no, we've debated adding them to the official schedule, but given the dynamic nature of the test day slots ... we've held off on doing that 16:14
jlaska Viking-Ice: that'll be a good problem to have! Too many people interested in hosting events :) 16:14
Viking-Ice hehe ;) 16:14
jlaska I understand that the 3 gnome-shell events lines up with what was requested on @desktop list and based on feedback from some of the upstream GNOME QA folks 16:15
jlaska rbergeron: does that answer your q? 16:15
rbergeron jlaska: indeed. 16:15
* jlaska trying to figure out how to cut'n'paste links from `links` 16:15
jlaska #info If anyone has topic suggestions, or would like to host an event, please reach out on test@lists.fedoraproject.org 16:16
Viking-Ice Has not experience tough us not being hosting *DE test days until after alpha just before beta + I think we would need to host the systemd test day before Gnome-shell one 16:16
jlaska #link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Fedora_15_test_days 16:16
Viking-Ice perhaps all the graphics card related once as well ( Intel Radeon Nouveaou ) 16:17
jlaska Viking-Ice: definitely! I know that idea came up with regards to priorizing the xorg-x11-drv* stuff before the shell events 16:17
Viking-Ice yeah I think systemd should be there as well 16:18
jlaska okay 16:18
jlaska #info Viking-Ice suggested that systemd and xorg-x11-drv-* test days should be scheduled *before* gnome-shell events 16:18
jlaska anything else on the test day topic? 16:18
jlaska Alright ... 16:20
jlaska #topic Fedora TCMS use case review 16:20
jlaska Just a quick heads up on some of the work Hurry has been doing ... 16:20
jlaska #link http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/152 16:20
jlaska She has drafted 2 new pages ... 16:20
jlaska #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Rhe/tcms_use_cases - to list all of our current test management use cases 16:21
jlaska #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Rhe/tcms_Comparison - Comparison of the features of the different use cases 16:21
jlaska I find that second document very readible ... but I like tables and colors :) 16:21
jlaska As always, I'm sure any ideas or suggestions to help Hurry move forward on this subject would be appreciated 16:22
Viking-Ice I prefer the tables and colors as well 16:23
jlaska I believe the first goal is to identify and document all current uses of the wiki for test management (cases, plans and results) 16:23
adamw hiya 16:23
adamw sorry, lunch overran... 16:23
jlaska from there, and I'm not sure of the order, to identify which features are present in nitrate, and to prioritize the missing features so they are on the nitrate development roadmap 16:24
jlaska adamw: hi there! 16:24
jlaska Viking-Ice: okay 16:24
jlaska adamw: no worries, we actually thought you were on holiday today 16:24
* jlaska suspects this is all part of the adamw beach beverage plan 16:24
jlaska good timing though ... 16:25
adamw wasn't sure if we were supposed to be on holiday or not 16:25
jlaska #topic CritPath Test Case development 16:25
jlaska #link http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/154 16:25
jlaska adamw: I'm still coming up to speed on your latest here, but it looks like you have some new drafts/mock-ups? 16:25
adamw well, just what i did right before xmas 16:26
adamw they're not new, exactly, i just picked a set of existing test cases and converted them to the new naming scheme as an exampke 16:26
jlaska I'm cut'n'paste deficient at the moment ... got any handy links? 16:26
adamw you can drill down from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Test_Cases to see how it works 16:27
adamw to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_xorg-x11-drv-ati_test_cases and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Critical_path_test_cases 16:27
jlaska nice! 16:27
jlaska I still have a few unread updates from you on the subject, I'll try to respond and clarify and comments shortly 16:28
jlaska any other updates or next steps you want to share? 16:28
adamw well, i was kinda hoping for some feedback over xmas break, but haven't seen any 16:29
adamw if we assume no news is good news then next step is simply continuing to convert existing test cases, and getting people started writing new ones 16:30
jlaska #help Feedback on ticket#152 and ticket#154 needed 16:30
adamw then talking to the tool devs 16:30
jlaska #info Need more feedback from testers/developers 16:30
jlaska sounds great, thanks adamw 16:30
jlaska #topic AutoQA Updates 16:31
kparal ah 16:31
jlaska kparal: what's the latest? Do we have a holiday easter egg implanted in autoqa now? :) 16:31
kparal I don't really have anything prepared for today. I must admit I haven't been working on autoqa over christmas :) 16:32
jskladan_home neither have I 16:32
* jskladan_home blushes 16:32
kparal but today I pushed to master mkrizek's support for staging server 16:32
jlaska good for you guys! 16:32
kparal so at least mkrizek deserves kudos 16:32
jlaska heh ... already mkrizek :) 16:32
jlaska kparal: in general, how are things looking for the next %{version} of autoqa? 16:33
jlaska or is it too soon to tell? 16:33
kparal well, I am not sure how it looks about depcheck 16:34
kparal I am sure we can adjust the koji watcher in time 16:34
kparal I believe the next release should occur this month 16:35
jlaska cool! I'm not sure on the status of depcheck either, I started a thread with wwoods on that topic, so hopefully we'll know more soon. 16:35
jlaska clumens and I finished up some work on his private branch, which includes a new installer test called 'compose-tree' that does a pungi test whenever a new anaconda is built in koji 16:36
jlaska I also have a preliminary git-post-receive hook (along with companion .wsgi app) to allow us to trigger tests based on 'git push's 16:37
kparal sounds great 16:37
kparal what's the wsgi app for? 16:38
jlaska the wsgi app is how the git-watcher triggers tests on the autoqa server 16:38
kparal ok 16:38
jlaska I'll have to document this in more detail of course, I took a stab at a long README in the hook directory for this 16:38
jlaska but I'm sure it'll need more docs 16:38
jlaska oh, I should also mention that Hongqing Yang joined the group in Beijing. He's tasked with coming up to speed on our installation testing and looking for areas to automate 16:40
jlaska alright ... open-discussion time ... 16:40
jlaska #topic Open discussion - <your topic here> 16:40
jlaska quick topic for rbergeron ... are there any open items related to QA and the F15 schedule? 16:40
kparal jlaska: does that mean that Honqging will cooperate with clumens or will it be a separate task? 16:41
jlaska kparal: unsure at this time ... they may end up converging, but the initial scope is somewhat different 16:41
jlaska Another question for everyone ... 16:42
jlaska #info Are there any suggestions/ideas on how we can make our weekly meetings more effective? 16:42
Viking-Ice Merge Bug Zappers meetings with this one 16:43
jlaska Change the format, change the frequency, rotate meeting chair, More open to topic submissions etc... 16:43
jlaska Viking-Ice: that's an idea ... hmmm 16:43
kparal it depends what 'more effective' means... shorter? :) 16:43
jlaska kparal: to me, more effective means it served a purpose, and we all found it a valuable use of our time 16:44
adamw do we think it's currently ineffective? 16:44
jlaska and shorter would be nice! 16:44
Viking-Ice posting the topics with a bit more advance then hour before meeting ;) 16:44
jlaska adamw: I don't think it's ineffective, but I think it could be more effective 16:44
jlaska Viking-Ice: that's always something I struggle with ... indeed, I could do a better job of that 16:44
adamw do 'em on friday 16:44
adamw put them on a wiki page people can edit 16:45
jlaska the meetings, or the agenda? 16:45
adamw agenda 16:45
jlaska hmm, likey 16:45
jlaska that might facilitate more topic suggestions 16:45
adamw that's how we do/did it for bugzappers, it works fine when people actually have things to contribute 16:45
adamw in fact it was just a rolling list 16:45
* jlaska would like to stop carrying all the topics 16:45
adamw whoever does the meeting announcement grabs everything off the list and puts it in 16:45
jlaska well, that's a quick fix I can implement for the next meeting ... thanks! 16:46
jlaska following that idea ... if there are no topic submissions, is it acceptable to not have a meeting? 16:47
adamw fine by me. 16:47
jlaska is it *bad* if we go 2/3/4 weeks without a meeting? I would think that means we have a problem somewhere, no? 16:47
Viking-Ice I think the bug zappers meeting should be merged with this one 16:47
adamw but we have some recurring topics at present which would cause that to be very unlikely. 16:47
jlaska #topic Improve QA meetings 16:48
jlaska #info idea - Merge BugZappers and QA meetings 16:48
jlaska #info idea - Post and solicit meeting topics on Friday, conditionally host meetings on Monday 16:48
kparal I have just a slight idea how BugZappers meeting look like. but keeping it separate looks more reasonable to me 16:48
Viking-Ice why ? 16:49
jlaska Viking-Ice: sounds like we should also raise this for discussion on the next BugZapper meeting? 16:49
kparal Viking-Ice: because going over proposed bugs is outside of my usual tasks 16:49
Viking-Ice yeah it was them that split of the process from QA in the first place so they might not like it so much 16:50
jlaska Viking-Ice: I wouldn't completely kill the idea, but seems worth more info/exploration 16:50
adamw kparal: that's not what happens in bugzappers meetings 16:50
kparal adamw: ah, ok. so first I should attend one, before speaking, sorry :) 16:51
Viking-Ice having one meeting for the whole QA community is what I'm after it will alow reporters to be a bit more aware of what's happening on that side 16:51
adamw kparal: you can see logs at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/bugzappers/ if you like 16:51
Viking-Ice I personally never attend any "BugZappers" meeting 16:51
adamw we haven't actually had many bugzappers meetings at all lately so it's somewhat academic 16:51
jlaska Well, by being more transparent with collecting meeting topics for this meeting, we can certainly encourage more BugZapper participation 16:52
jlaska if the meetings consistently go over 1 hour in length, I would probably have to shoot myself 16:53
jlaska That'd be my personal goal :) 16:53
Viking-Ice from my stand point we all work as one group or we split of QE in their corners bugzapper in theirs and reporters in their corners 16:53
kparal after reading the logs, it doesn't seem so bad. taking back my statement :) 16:53
jlaska Viking-Ice: let's start the discussion with the bugzappers ... see what they think 16:54
jlaska I don't think it's as black and white as you articulate (QA vs BugZappers) ... but I'm open to combining the meetings 16:54
jlaska for this week, I'll adjust the meeting topic process. 16:55
adamw can we go back to test days, since I missed that bit of the meeting? 16:55
jlaska sure ... you got 4 minutes :) 16:56
jlaska #topic Fedora 15 Test Days 16:56
jlaska adamw: any updates/topics/cautionary_tales to add? 16:56
adamw just to say the ordering of the test days i've put in so far isn't just me throwing stuff at a wall 16:56
adamw the gnome test day schedule is based on me talking to the desktop team, that's the schedule they want 16:56
* jlaska nods 16:56
adamw we don't need to do the systemd test day before the gnome3 test days unless we're particularly scared that zillions of people will be unable to boot f15, which by all current experience isn't the caes 16:57
Viking-Ice I propose xorg-x11-drv test and systemd before first gnome-shell test 16:57
adamw we can't do that, practically speaking 16:57
Viking-Ice why 16:57
adamw wouldn't be enough time for everything 16:57
Viking-Ice  ? 16:58
adamw systemd and xorg devs don't want their test days really early 16:58
adamw especially for xorg, it'd mean we were testing code with little relevance to what we were actually going to ship 16:58
jlaska Viking-Ice: it sounds like current schedule was developed in conjunction with desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org ... /me searches for desktop@ link 16:59
Viking-Ice yeah well we have had problems in the past with the X not being in good enough shape before *DE tests when hosting DE before the X tests 16:59
adamw the only particular benefit of doing them before gnome3 test days is if we're really worried systemd or x drivers are going to cause lots of people to be unable to get into gnome3, yes? at present that doesn't look like it'd be the case 16:59
adamw jlaska: most of the discussion was on irc, but i can provide a log if anyone wants (i'd have to check with mclasen first as it was in /query) 16:59
jlaska Viking-Ice: I don't have a lot of data on the retrospective pages about people being unable to test desktop environments due to a large number of xorg-x11-drv issues 16:59
Viking-Ice F8 and F9 X changes and radeon 17:00
jlaska That's when we introduced modesetting for the first time, right? 17:01
Viking-Ice yeah 17:01
adamw we could move X up to late february, but i'd have to check with the X devs 17:01
jlaska okay 17:01
jlaska I don't think we're in the same boat with regards to disruptive core xorg-x11-drv-* changes like we were when modesetting landed 17:01
adamw systemd really doesn't worry me, we've had people using it for quite a long time now and it really hasn't presented any problems 17:01
adamw the systemd test day will be 'polishing advanced use cases' not 'omg does this thing work', i think 17:02
Viking-Ice adamw: not on fresh install I dont think it's the same with upgrades. . . 17:02
adamw Viking-Ice: that's fine. we don't get many people doing upgrades for test days. 17:02
jlaska alright, we've exceeded the one hour limit ... let's start to wrap-up 17:02
jlaska so summary ... 17:02
jlaska * reach out to xorg devs to see if there is any wiggle room for the Xorg Test Week? 17:03
jlaska * Add upgrades to the list of use cases to explore during systemd test day? 17:03
jlaska </proposed> 17:03
jlaska adamw: Viking-Ice: that sound right? 17:04
adamw sure 17:04
Viking-Ice yup 17:04
jlaska eggsellent 17:04
jlaska okay folks ... let's close out unless there are any other topics 17:04
jlaska #topic Open Discussion - <your topic here> 17:04
* jlaska sets the fuse for 1 minute 17:05
jlaska 15 seconds... 17:05
jlaska Thanks for your time everyone! 17:06
jlaska I'll follow-up with minutes to the list 17:06
jlaska #endmeeting 17:06

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