QA/Meetings/20120507

Attendees

• adamw (130)
• tflink (65)
• kparal (33)
• pschindl (16)
• akshayvyas (13)
• zodbot (5)
• mkrizek (4)
• satellit_ (4)
• Cerlyn (1)
• robatino (1)

Agenda

• Previous meeting follow-up
• Fedora 17 Final status / planning
• Test Day report
• Upcoming QA events
• AutoQA update
• Open floor

Previous meeting follow-up

• pschindl to poke gnome-boxes devs about Thursday's test day - pschindl followed up, event was not prepared in time so was pushed out another week, needs checking up again

Fedora 17 Final status/planning

• tflink is planning a 'bugs that need re-testing' summary
• We still need to complete the TC3 matrix to find any other lurking blockers, no point waiting till the RC

Blocker review

• AGREED: rhbug:819371 is accepted as a blocker - Violates the following F17 final release criterion: "All applications listed under the Applications menu or category must withstand a basic functionality test and not crash after a few minutes of normal use"
• AGREED: rhbug:819140 is accepted as a blocker per criterion "There must be no file conflicts (cases where the files in some packages conflict but the packages have explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (DVD) install"
• AGREED: rhbug:819139 is accepted as a blocker per criterion "There must be no file conflicts (cases where the files in some packages conflict but the packages have explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (DVD) install"
• AGREED: rhbug:819138 is accepted as a blocker per criterion "There must be no file conflicts (cases where the files in some packages conflict but the packages have explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (DVD) install"
• AGREED: rhbug:818935 is rejected as a blocker as it is fixable with an update and seems to occur very infrequently, some testers have never seen it
• AGREED: rhbug:819492 is accepted as a blocker per criterion "All known bugs that can cause corruption of user data must be fixed or documented at Common F17 bugs"
• AGREED: rhbug:818378 is a blocker per criterion "In most cases (see Blocker_Bug_FAQ), a system installed according to any of the above criteria (or the appropriate Beta or Final criteria, when applying this criterion to those releases) must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation, without unintended user intervention, unless the user explicitly chooses to boot in non-graphical mode." - this breaks 32-bit install

Upcoming QA events

• GNOME Boxes Test Day on 2012-05-10
• RC compose scheduled for 2012-05-08
• Final blocker review #5 2012-05-11

AutoQA update

• No news due to Final testing

Action items

• adamw to check in on Boxes test day once more

IRC Log

adamw	#startmeeting Fedora QA meeting	15:03
zodbot	Meeting started Mon May 7 15:03:36 2012 UTC. The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.	15:03
zodbot	Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.	15:03
adamw	#meetingname fedora-qa	15:03
zodbot	The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa'	15:03
adamw	#topic roll call	15:03
adamw	oy! roll! c'mere!	15:03
* mkrizek is here		15:03
* satellit_ listening		15:04
* Cerlyn is here		15:04
* tflink is here		15:04
adamw	alrighty	15:05
adamw	now, chaaaarge	15:05
adamw	#topic previous meeting follow-up	15:05
adamw	we just had one here - "pschindl to poke gnome-boxes devs about Thursday's test day"	15:05
adamw	since that got postponed (again?) to this week, i guess it happened.	15:06
* kparal is in afk mode		15:06
tflink	he pinged me last week about the test day	15:07
tflink	I guess that there was some miscommunication on who was actually going to write the test cases and it didn't look as if everything was going to be done on time	15:07
tflink	I haven't heard anything else since we moved the test day back a week, though	15:07
adamw	so they pushed it out again, okay.	15:07
adamw	#info pschindl followed up on Boxes test day, event was not prepared in time so was pushed out another week, needs checking up again	15:08
adamw	#action adamw to check in on Boxes test day once more	15:08
adamw	#topic Fedora 17 Final status/planning	15:08
adamw	so...we're supposed to be rolling an RC tomorrow. this is looking somewhat unlikely =)	15:08
adamw	of course, the blocker list is https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Current_Release_Blockers	15:09
* tflink has a list of blockers that need to be retested w/ tc3		15:09
tflink	hasn't finished fleshing out the 'how to test' part of it, though	15:09
tflink	14 blocker and NTH bugs that need to be retested w/ TC3 if they haven't been already	15:10
adamw	shall we go through the proposed blockers that weren't covered on friday?	15:10
tflink	have they moved much? I didn't see much activity on bz over the weekend	15:11
* pschindl is here (train has delay)		15:11
tflink	the list seems to have re-populated, though	15:12
adamw	there's 8 i can see	15:12
adamw	pschindl: hiya, you didn't miss a lot, we covered your action item	15:12
pschindl	so I'm late :(	15:12
pschindl	adamw: any additional information needed?	15:13
adamw	pschindl: nope, it was fine	15:13
adamw	okay, so let's go for a mini blocker-review	15:13
adamw	#topic Mini blocker review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819563	15:13
adamw	i don't see a huge amount of info here, kparal...	15:14
kparal	I reported this just right now	15:14
kparal	the logs are there	15:14
tflink	this sounds like another flavor of the time bug we saw earlier	15:14
tflink	WRT fsck errors	15:14
kparal	I need someone to re-test	15:15
adamw	it seems like it's having some problem with an existing root partition / VG?	15:15
kparal	I used "use all space"	15:15
adamw	there's errors about /dev/mapper/vg-lv_root in storage.log and program.log	15:15
adamw	tflink: which bug's that?	15:15
* tflink doesn't remember off hand, searches		15:15
tflink	.bug 811706	15:17
zodbot	tflink: Bug 811706 fsck errors during install from livecd if system time is too far behind - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811706	15:17
tflink	I doubt that they're closely related - the timing of the error message just sounded familiar	15:18
kparal	my VMs don't have system time shifted, I just checked	15:19
tflink	those fsck errors are different, anyways	15:19
adamw	sorry, dealing with a medical emergency	15:19
tflink	adamw: I can continue the review if you #chair me	15:20
tflink	that's weird - anaconda formats the lv then fsck says it's not ext4 when it attempts to mount it	15:20
kparal	maybe it's mounted while formatting?	15:21
tflink	doesn't look like it - there's some lv monkeying after formatting	15:21
adamw	#chair tflink kparal	15:21
zodbot	Current chairs: adamw kparal tflink	15:21
kparal	can somebody do just a quick install of i686 live in VM?	15:22
adamw	seems like an anaconda logic error	15:22
adamw	don't have it here, and dl.fp.o is slow atm	15:22
tflink	yeah, I can get one started once I download the live	15:22
adamw	anyway, shall we agree needs more info and move on?	15:22
kparal	let's just wait a day until somebody confirms or not	15:22
adamw	propose #agreed need more info to determine state of 819563	15:22
tflink	yeah, sounds liek a plan to me	15:22
tflink	ack	15:22
kparal	ack	15:23
adamw	#agreed need more info to determine state of 819563	15:23
adamw	#topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819371	15:23
adamw	seems like an obvious blocker to me (note: calligra is the new name for koffice)	15:23
adamw	so these are stock apps on the KDE live, crashing on launch	15:23
kparal	+1 blocker, patch is coming	15:24
tflink	proposed #agreed - 819371 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F17 final release criterion: "All applications listed under the Applications menu or category must withstand a basic functionality test and not crash after a few minutes of normal use"	15:25
adamw	ack	15:25
kparal	ack	15:26
tflink	#agreed - 819371 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F17 final release criterion: "All applications listed under the Applications menu or category must withstand a basic functionality test and not crash after a few minutes of normal use"	15:26
tflink	in retrospect, I shouldn't have done that. Now it's not clear who's driving this thing :)	15:27
adamw	#topic Mini blocker review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819140	15:27
* adamw elbows tflink out of the driver's seat		15:27
adamw	repoclosure issue, +1 blocker.	15:27
* tflink wonders where zodbot is, though		15:28
tflink	+1 blocker	15:28
adamw	propose #agreed 819140 is accepted as a blocker per criterion "There must be no file conflicts (cases where the files in some packages conflict but the packages have explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (DVD) install"	15:28
kparal	ack	15:29
tflink	ack	15:29
pschindl	ack	15:29
adamw	#agreed 819140 is accepted as a blocker per criterion "There must be no file conflicts (cases where the files in some packages conflict but the packages have explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (DVD) install"	15:29
adamw	there's two more repoclosure bugs, let's do those quick	15:30
adamw	#topic Mini blocker review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819139	15:30
adamw	tflink: zodbot never seems to work when we do a blocker review in here not -bugzappers	15:30
kparal	ack ack	15:30
adamw	propose #agreed 819139 is accepted as a blocker per criterion "There must be no file conflicts (cases where the files in some packages conflict but the packages have explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (DVD) install"	15:30
tflink	ack	15:30
adamw	#agreed 819139 is accepted as a blocker per criterion "There must be no file conflicts (cases where the files in some packages conflict but the packages have explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (DVD) install"	15:30
kparal	repoclosure bugs are automatic acks I think	15:31
adamw	#topic Mini blocker review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819138	15:31
adamw	propose #agreed 819138 is accepted as a blocker per criterion "There must be no file conflicts (cases where the files in some packages conflict but the packages have explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (DVD) install"	15:31
adamw	i don't think we have process for that, but i've done it before...	15:31
kparal	ack	15:31
adamw	#agreed 819138 is accepted as a blocker per criterion "There must be no file conflicts (cases where the files in some packages conflict but the packages have explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (DVD) install"	15:31
tflink	ack	15:31
adamw	satellit_: please quit ccing yourself to bugs, it's giving me inflight collisions =)	15:32
satellit_	k	15:32
adamw	satellit_: it's okay, just kidding	15:33
tflink	adamw: says the man who has a habit of updating bugs while we talk about them	15:33
adamw	i may have overridden some of them though	15:33
adamw	tflink: heheh	15:33
adamw	three to go	15:33
adamw	#topic Mini blocker review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818935	15:33
adamw	hum, didn't we talk about this friday? but i don't see a record	15:33
adamw	it's kparal	15:33
adamw	kparal's mysterious 'someone else is logged in' bug	15:34
tflink	I think it's a split off of the two issues in the other bug	15:34
tflink	so it's the same issue, just separated out into a new bug	15:34
tflink	well, part of the same issue	15:34
kparal	I still believe it's directly connected to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=814690	15:34
kparal	and that one bug received some development progress	15:34
kparal	halfline found some issues in systemd	15:35
kparal	but 818935 is sooo hard to reproduce	15:35
adamw	i'm still probably -1 blocker if it's so hard to hit. though actually, i think i hit it yesterday.	15:36
kparal	I think it would be ok to downgrade it to NTH	15:37
adamw	i was very, very tired, so i'm not going to commit to everything. but afair, i got off the plane, booted up my system, ran yum update, read some mails and stuff, and went to shut down, and got the 'other people are logged in' dialog. oh, wait. i might have had a facebook open.	15:37
* adamw runs facebook as another user.		15:37
kparal	does it help wrt privacy? :)	15:38
adamw	so yeah, i guess i'm -1...	15:38
tflink	yeah, -1 unless it starts happening more often	15:38
adamw	kparal: basically, that's the idea. i have a 'facebook' user whose firefox profile only ever logs into facebook. my main user is configured to reject everything at all from facebook. read about it on a blog somewhere, so obviously it's a good idea .;)	15:39
* tflink makes note to write blog post about how firing people all the time is a bad idea		15:39
adamw	heh	15:39
adamw	that's okay, i don't read your blog	15:39
kparal	ok, what about having it as NTH? any votes?	15:40
tflink	my plans, they have been foiled!	15:40
adamw	are we even NTH on this bug, though? i'm not sure it really hits live?	15:40
adamw	have you ever seen it in a live boot?	15:40
kparal	hmm	15:40
tflink	I think the concern is the possibility of someone hitting this before updating	15:40
kparal	you're right it doesn't really matter on live	15:40
pschindl	I have hit this bug today	15:40
pschindl	I'm +1 on NTH	15:40
adamw	pschindl: have you hit it before?	15:41
pschindl	adamw: long time ago	15:41
kparal	on livecd you don't really care about it, liveuser is in wheel without password	15:41
pschindl	it happened to me twice	15:41
pschindl	as I remember	15:41
adamw	pschindl: so like kparal, you see it very occasionally	15:41
adamw	kparal: oh right	15:41
* kparal takes back NTH request		15:41
kparal	let's -1 blocker it then	15:42
kparal	and come on, I have to go soon	15:42
adamw	ok	15:42
akshayvyas	i think i am late	15:43
adamw	propose #agreed 818935 is rejected as a blocker as it is fixable with an update and seems to occur very infrequently, some testers have never seen it	15:43
kparal	ack	15:43
tflink	ack	15:43
adamw	#agreed 818935 is rejected as a blocker as it is fixable with an update and seems to occur very infrequently, some testers have never seen it	15:44
adamw	#topic Mini blocker review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819492	15:44
adamw	two doozies coming up, looks like :/	15:44
kparal	I hit this one when I tried to copy a movie for my girlfriend. it never worked for her	15:45
adamw	so this would be "All known bugs that can cause corruption of user data must be fixed or documented at Common F17 bugs" (final)	15:45
adamw	seems pretty clearly +1 for me	15:45
tflink	+1	15:45
kparal	right, +1	15:45
mkrizek	+1	15:46
akshayvyas	+1	15:46
adamw	propose #agreed 819492 is accepted as a blocker per criterion "All known bugs that can cause corruption of user data must be fixed or documented at Common F17 bugs"	15:47
pschindl	ack	15:47
tflink	ack	15:47
adamw	#agreed 819492 is accepted as a blocker per criterion "All known bugs that can cause corruption of user data must be fixed or documented at Common F17 bugs"	15:47
adamw	#topic Mini blocker review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818378	15:47
adamw	so, this is the 'can't install the i686 DVD' bug, basically	15:48
adamw	AIUI anyway	15:49
adamw	has everyone who's tried an i686 DVD install hit this? or is it more chancy?	15:49
akshayvyas	this is kinda obscure bug	15:49
* satellit_ i have on vb		15:49
robatino	i tried every kind of 32-bit install and hit it every time	15:49
* tflink is still downloading i686 media		15:49
pschindl	me too	15:49
adamw	akscram: '32 bit installs always explode' isn't exactly obscure =)	15:49
akshayvyas	working god for me	15:50
pschindl	I tried to install to i386 laptop and grub wasn't installed correctly everytime	15:50
adamw	akshayvyas: did you use an x86_64 or i686 image?	15:50
akshayvyas	adamw:i686 as my old p4 supports	15:50
adamw	akshayvyas: with tc3?	15:50
akshayvyas	yep	15:50
adamw	still, even if one person got success, if two get multiple failures, that's bad enough to be blocker for me...	15:51
tflink	it seems odd to be installing a 32bit distro to a DL560, though	15:51
* satellit_ has to do with OLPC tree?		15:51
tflink	IIRC, they didn't come with anything but 64bit capable processors	15:52
tflink	but I could be remembering wrong	15:52
tflink	yes, I am remembering wrong - ignore me	15:53
adamw	not sure we need to get too specific on this one, since grub and kernel folks are both on it	15:53
akshayvyas	adamw: +1	15:53
tflink	yeah, sounds like blocker material for now	15:53
pschindl	I'm +1	15:53
mkrizek	+1	15:53
adamw	propose #agreed 818378 is a blocker per criterion "In most cases (see Blocker_Bug_FAQ), a system installed according to any of the above criteria (or the appropriate Beta or Final criteria, when applying this criterion to those releases) must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation, without unintended user intervention, unless the user explicitly chooses to boot in non-graphical mode." - this breaks functional installation	15:54
adamw	in lots of tested cases	15:54
adamw	propose #agreed 818378 is a blocker per criterion "In most cases (see Blocker_Bug_FAQ), a system installed according to any of the above criteria (or the appropriate Beta or Final criteria, when applying this criterion to those releases) must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation, without unintended user intervention, unless the user explicitly chooses to boot in non-graphical mode." - this breaks 32-bit install	15:54
adamw	damn that criterion.	15:54
adamw	maybe we should stick in another that just says 'installed systems should damn well boot' for reasons of shortness. :)	15:55
tflink	unlcess our understanding changes, ack	15:55
pschindl	ack	15:55
mkrizek	ack	15:55
akshayvyas	ack	15:55
adamw	#agreed 818378 is a blocker per criterion "In most cases (see Blocker_Bug_FAQ), a system installed according to any of the above criteria (or the appropriate Beta or Final criteria, when applying this criterion to those releases) must boot to the 'firstboot' utility on the first boot after installation, without unintended user intervention, unless the user explicitly chooses to boot in non-graphical mode." - this breaks 32-bit install	15:56
adamw	okay, that's the lot	15:56
adamw	#topic Fedora 17 Final status/planning	15:56
adamw	so, back on the general topic...	15:57
adamw	#info tflink is planning a 'bugs that need re-testing' summary	15:57
adamw	thanks for that tflink	15:57
tflink	will be sending that out shortly	15:57
adamw	anything else on strategy? i'm trying to deal with the whipping devs into line side of things now, aside from that all we can do is re-test fixes i think	15:57
tflink	make sure that we get the test matrix filled out	15:58
tflink	but that may already be done	15:58
* tflink hasn't checked this morning		15:58
adamw	point	15:58
tflink	the area that I'd like to see focus on is USB installation media	15:58
adamw	it's pretty close, but still some more	15:58
adamw	#info we still need to complete the TC3 matrix to find any other lurking blockers, no point waiting till the RC	15:59
tflink	there have been a lot of changes there recently and I'm having a hard time keeping track of what works and what doesn't	15:59
adamw	tflink: bcl and I are planning to work on that	15:59
adamw	tflink: the high-level overview is that 17 should now be much like 16 only better (dd'ed images should boot via efi for e.g.)	15:59
adamw	and dd'ed DVD images should find the packages	15:59
adamw	all the malarkey about multiple partitions has gone, so just pretend it never happened	16:00
tflink	stuff like this makes me think I'm not the only one who's lost: http://ask.fedoraproject.org/question/1614/why-does-a-fedora-usb-made-from-the-dvd-iso-still	16:00
tflink	well, not lost but it would be nice to get everything straight soon	16:00
akshayvyas	tflink: that's abut fc 16	16:00
tflink	exactly	16:00
tflink	but most of the responses are fixes for F17	16:01
akshayvyas	yeah i see this since fc 15	16:01
akshayvyas	tep	16:01
akshayvyas	yep	16:01
adamw	it's always been the case. f17 is the _first_ release where it should work.	16:02
adamw	okay	16:04
adamw	so, i guess we all know what we need to do	16:04
adamw	#topic Upcoming QA events	16:04
adamw	so as mentioned the RC compose is scheduled for tomorrow but that's not looking terribly likely...but let's do all we can to clear out the blocker list	16:05
adamw	blocker review meeting on Friday, of course	16:05
tflink	when is go/no-go?	16:07
tflink	next week?	16:07
tflink	next tuesday	16:07
adamw	yeah	16:08
adamw	so it's not on this week's list	16:08
tflink	oh boy, lots to do before then	16:08
adamw	other thing is the Boxes test day, i already gave myself an action item for that; looks like it's still not in shape.	16:08
tflink	is boxes working yet?	16:08
* tflink still hasn't tried it		16:09
pschindl	we are working on it	16:10
adamw	me either. we put the anaconda memory requirement back down to 512 for the last build, which should help.	16:10
pschindl	but lot of things still isn't working	16:10
* kparal leaves		16:11
* akshayvyas is leaving,have a great day adamw and tflink		16:13
adamw	okay. so, anyway, i'll cover that	16:13
adamw	seems like we're running over	16:14
adamw	is there much autoqa news, tflink?	16:14
tflink	nope, we've been testing F17	16:14
adamw	okay	16:14
adamw	#topic AutoQA update	16:14
adamw	#info there is no news, autoqa team has been working on F17 validation	16:14
adamw	#topic open floor	16:14
adamw	anyone have anything for open floor?	16:15
tflink	nothing here	16:16
adamw	ok	16:18
adamw	thanks for coming, all	16:18
adamw	sorry for the overrun (pschindl, hope kparal doesn't mind :>)	16:18
adamw	#endmeeting	16:18

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.8 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!