From Fedora Project Wiki

< QA‎ | Meetings

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Attendees

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)

Agenda

Release criteria updates


AutoQA updates

  • Kparal reported that the announcement of 'pretty patch' that was just posted into autoqa-devel - https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/autoqa-devel/2011-June/002344.html
  • 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 - Fixing_features

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

IRC Log

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 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
* 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 QA/Test_Day:2011-06-08_IPv6 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 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_NetworkManager_ipv6 15:25
jlaska #link 15:25
jlaska #link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_NFS_ipv6 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 --> http://ipv6eyechart.ripe.net/ <-- 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 www.fedoraproject.org listed as participant on isoc.org 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 https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/autoqa-devel/2011-June/002344.html 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 http://kparal.fedorapeople.org/autoqa/upgradepath2.html 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 http://kparal.fedorapeople.org/autoqa/depcheck.html 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 https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&milestone=Fedora+15 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 Releases/16/Schedule 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 http://rbergero.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-15/f-15-quality-tasks.html vs. http://rbergero.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-16/f-16-quality-tasks.html 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 Fixing_features <--- 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/cloud/2011-June/000632.html 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 irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!

Retrieved from "https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=QA/Meetings/20110606&oldid=472391"