Attendees
- adamw (141)
- tflink (63)
- dan408- (21)
- jreznik (8)
- nirik (6)
- robatino (5)
- zodbot (3)
- Cerlyn (3)
- maxamillion (3)
- misc (2)
- Southern_Gentlem (2)
- spoore (1)
- brunowolff (1)
- jskladan (1)
Agenda
- Previous meeting follow-up
- Release criteria revision
- Naming of TCs/RCs
- Open floor
Previous meeting follow-up
- adamw to find out who's writing the release announcement and make sure it calls out the biggest Alpha bugs
- tflink to draft up a freeze entrance requirements proposal for the list and we can take the idea from there
- pschindl to kill 'uncategorized package groups' criterion
- kparal to refine 'release-blocking package sets' criterion
- adamw to refine alpha partitioning criterion
Release criteria revision
- Follow-up on things left hanging last week
- Let's take a look at the whole Beta criteria list and try to get a set of Beta criteria we are happy with firmly enforcing
Naming of TCs/RCs
- This came up again on the list - we should really take some action here, we've had enough proposals. Tabled from last week
Open floor
IRC Log
15:02:00 <adamw> #startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting 15:02:00 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Sep 24 15:02:00 2012 UTC. The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:02:00 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 15:02:02 <adamw> #meetingname fedora-qa 15:02:02 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa' 15:02:24 <adamw> #topic roll call 15:02:29 * tflink is here 15:02:30 <dan408-> here somewhat 15:02:30 <adamw> who's about for a QA meeting? 15:02:52 <brunowolff> I'll be lurking for a little while, but have a work meeting soon. 15:03:04 <dan408-> ill be joining from the diner 15:03:20 <dan408-> providing my phone holds a decent charge 15:03:41 <Cerlyn> I'm hear to QA the QA meeting 15:03:59 <adamw> well I'm QA'ing your QA'ing of the QA meeting, and you spelled 'here' wrong 15:04:05 <dan408-> you can HEAR the QA meeting? 15:04:18 <Cerlyn> Clearly that's the fault of the IRC channel and not me. 15:04:33 <dan408-> do you have speech assistance turned on? 15:04:59 <spoore> oh that'd be sweet....can you assign different voices to different nicks? 15:05:43 <dan408-> i'll code that in to the next version of BitchX 15:05:57 <Southern_Gentlem> spoore, no but i am sure festival would love help to do that 15:06:25 <adamw> mine should sound like krusty the klown 15:06:32 <adamw> alrighty 15:06:46 * dan408- = apu 15:07:08 <tflink> looks like we're missing the brno folks - is today a holiday? 15:07:24 <adamw> dan408: I had you down as stan the coffin salesman from monkey island. 15:07:49 <dan408-> i had you down as marge.. 15:07:53 <adamw> tflink: i think someone said something about that on the internal list, let me see 15:07:54 <adamw> dan408: hehe 15:08:20 <tflink> adamw: the 28th is a holiday 15:08:21 <adamw> huh. they said fri 28 is a holiday 15:08:23 <adamw> yeah 15:08:25 <adamw> nothing about today 15:08:30 <adamw> maybe the network's down there? 15:08:35 <misc> nope 15:08:35 <dan408-> holiday is 1 week long! 15:08:49 <adamw> or they all finally decided to go get drunk instead of coming to the meeting? 15:08:50 <jreznik> only Friday is a free day here :) 15:09:02 <misc> adamw: or being drunk then coming to the meeting 15:09:10 <adamw> jreznik: can you go check if there's a QA team in the nearest gutter? :) 15:09:11 <jreznik> adamw: you can't get drunk here - there's still prohibition on going... 15:09:20 <dan408-> that's peculiar 15:10:41 <jreznik> hmm, seems like brno's qa guys are really drinking :) I don't see them :) 15:11:28 * maxamillion is here-ish (I swear every time I try to make this meeting something happens right in the middle .... going to try and stay focused today) 15:11:42 <adamw> grr 15:11:44 <adamw> the drives on this laptop are losing it, methinks 15:11:46 <adamw> well we'll get by as best we can without kparal and co., i guess 15:12:01 <adamw> #topic previous meeting follow-up 15:12:11 <jreznik> adamw: I pinged jskladan, seems like the only one online... 15:12:33 <adamw> "adamw to find out who's writing the release announcement and make sure it calls out the biggest Alpha bugs" - I done that, got the biggest stuff listed in the mail 15:12:45 <adamw> also thanks to bcotton who made sure it was in big red letters in lots of places 15:13:08 <adamw> #info "adamw to find out who's writing the release announcement and make sure it calls out the biggest Alpha bugs" - this was done successfully 15:13:09 <jreznik> adamw: yep, I asked him to be RED :) btw. thanks! good job 15:13:21 <adamw> " tflink to draft up a freeze entrance requirements proposal for the list and we can take the idea from there " 15:13:22 <adamw> tflink? 15:13:41 <tflink> I'm still struggling with a way to quantify freeze readiness 15:13:57 <tflink> I did do a smoketest build with post-alpha stable 15:14:24 <adamw> #info "tflink to draft up a freeze entrance requirements proposal for the list and we can take the idea from there" - tflink still working on quantifying freeze readiness 15:14:24 <dan408-> what is "post-alpha" stable these days? 15:14:25 <tflink> and I put together a list of components that could potentially cause beta to slip (according to the current release requirements) 15:14:27 <dan408-> 3.1 or 3? 15:14:35 <adamw> dan408: neither of those. 15:14:40 <dan408-> ok what 15:14:41 <tflink> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tflink/F18_alpha_smoketest1_results 15:14:44 <adamw> dan408: he means a build with all the stuff that's in stable now 15:14:46 * jskladan hides in the shadows 15:15:00 <tflink> I need to move that wiki page, though 15:15:02 <dan408-> okay i reinstalled last night, used 3 15:15:09 <tflink> it should be F18_beta 15:15:13 <dan408-> i heard something bad about 3.1 15:15:22 * dan408- double checks 15:15:36 <adamw> dan408: doesn't matter now anyhow, alpha is done. 15:15:39 <jreznik> tflink: also there's https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/946 - so we can talk about the criteria there with FESCo... they understand this ticket the same way 15:15:39 <dan408-> http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/ <-- not here.. is it on the other mirror? 15:16:11 <tflink> If anyone has suggestions on realistic ways to measure release readiness other than 'all potential release blocking features must be testable', I'd love to hear them 15:16:26 <tflink> s/release readiness/freeze entrance readiness/ 15:16:37 <dan408-> tflink: how about just basic functionality and usability.. since the design is so radically different? 15:17:08 <dan408-> and i dont mean "should be able to install and xxx" 15:17:08 <adamw> dan408: it's not an official build of any kind so it's not mirrored 15:17:15 <tflink> dan408-: that's even more nebulous than what I have already :) 15:17:20 <maxamillion> and like clock work ... $dayjob duties call ... 15:17:25 <jreznik> dan408-: you have to define "basic functionality" and I think it should be based on beta release criteria 15:17:27 <adamw> maxam: hi, bye :) 15:17:32 <maxamillion> ;) 15:17:47 <adamw> #info https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/946 is a ticket related to freeze entrance criteria topic 15:17:50 <dan408-> tflink: i can get detailed but im trying to keep it short and concise as i dress for work. 15:18:13 <adamw> shall we keep it for open floor, since we have other stuff to get through? 15:18:18 <tflink> the problem I'm having is defining "ready for freeze" without getting needlessly complicated or vague 15:18:24 <tflink> yeah, works for me 15:18:46 <dan408-> k brb 15:18:58 <adamw> tflink: now you know why all those criteria are so damn long =) 15:19:02 * tflink doesn't want to specify something that's ready for release - just something that has a chance of being released after a 2 week freeze 15:19:20 <tflink> adamw: I already knew the reason behind that :-P 15:19:22 <adamw> #info "pschindl to kill 'uncategorized package groups' criterion" - pschindl is not around today, but this got done and reported on the list 15:20:21 <adamw> #info "kparal to refine 'release-blocking package sets' criterion" - this is still going on but it looks like we're pretty close 15:20:50 <adamw> we've got a criteria topic coming up right after this so no need for discussion of any of these right now btw 15:21:06 <adamw> #info "adamw to refine alpha partitioning criterion" - I didn't get around to this yet, sorry 15:21:06 <jreznik> tflink: adamw: also for checking criteria it would be great to have some pre-TC image with latest anaconda & company... /me has to leave now, will be back in approx. 1 hour :( so lets hope for open floor still going on :) or #fedora-qa :D 15:21:18 <adamw> #action adamw to refine alpha partitioning criterion 15:21:52 <adamw> ok, anything I'm missing that we should follow up on from last week that's not in the agenda to come? 15:23:19 <adamw> #topic release criteria revision 15:23:46 <adamw> so I put this on the list mainly because we went on a long time last week and i thought there may be stuff people still wanted to bring up, about any of the existing proposals 15:24:16 <adamw> if everyone's broadly happy with the current proposals, i figured we could take a look at the current beta criteria together and see if any aside from the ones already undergoing revision might need changes 15:26:01 <adamw> welp, i guess that's what we're doing then =) 15:26:05 <tflink> jreznik_afk: that's what the beta smoketest image is for - it has the latest anaconda build (feature-wise, there was a rebuild for new glade) 15:27:11 <adamw> so it would obviously be good for Beta if we can stand confidently by the criteria we have instead of fudging as much as we did for alpha 15:28:20 <tflink> do we know what kinds of disk usage will be ready for beta (free space, etc.) 15:28:28 <adamw> so what i'm thinking there is we all take a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Beta_Release_Criteria and see if there's any of those requirements we might need to change or loosen 15:28:38 <adamw> tflink: i don't yet, but that's definitely something we need to nail down 15:29:10 <tflink> that's one of the bigger potential fudges that I see 15:29:17 <tflink> that and what's going on with upgrade 15:29:20 <adamw> well we have little in the way of partitioning for beta 15:29:28 <adamw> but that's because the alpha criterion was quite strong before 15:29:37 <tflink> but the alpha release requirements still hold for beta 15:29:44 <adamw> now we're weakening the alpha one, we'll need a new beta one, but i did want to see what the beta partitioner will look like before drafting one 15:30:03 <adamw> right, but the alpha criteria is now just 'wiping an entire existing disk must work', remember. 15:30:07 <adamw> criterion* 15:30:21 <tflink> yeah, I was going off of what is currently in the wiki and what it used to be 15:30:31 <adamw> right, that's why i need to get the alpha change done, it keeps confusing people :/ 15:30:41 <tflink> under the assumption that we aren't going to release final with just full disk autopart 15:30:47 <adamw> #action adamw to draft new partitioning criterion for Beta once we know what will be in anaconda 15:31:54 <adamw> on upgrades, yeah, that's another significant one 15:32:11 <adamw> i think what we should change there is the text "either via preupgrade or by booting to the installer manually" 15:32:28 <tflink> from what I remember hearing, preupgrade is going to die and be replaced by a single upgrade mechanism 15:32:35 <tflink> something related to the current upgrade work 15:32:36 <adamw> it should say "using the officially recommended upgrade method" 15:32:44 <adamw> imho obviously 15:33:10 <adamw> since what we should really enforce at beta is that our 'official' upgrade method should work. 15:33:12 <tflink> s/method/method(s)/ but yeah, that's more flexible 15:33:18 <adamw> yeah. 15:33:39 <adamw> jumping back a bit there's also 7. and 8. 15:33:47 <tflink> do we have any ETAs on partitioning and upgrade? 15:34:01 <adamw> i could see us fudging on 7, though we've discussed its place quite heavily so maybe not 15:34:10 <adamw> and for 8. too, if some really obscure method didn't work 15:34:14 <tflink> alpha or beta 7 and 8? 15:34:16 <adamw> beta 15:34:29 <tflink> isn't serial console install working for the most part? 15:34:32 <adamw> ETAs, i don't right now, but we should definitely find out 15:34:35 <adamw> i dunno, i haven't tested it :) 15:35:00 <tflink> IIRC, that's the only working method of install for ppc and they've been mostly able to get serial working 15:35:07 <tflink> wait, that's text based. not serial 15:35:38 <adamw> right 15:36:32 <adamw> tbh 7. is probably OK, we seem pretty firm on having that one. 8 is more fudgeable i guess. 15:36:40 <adamw> and the other one that might be a candidate is 13. 15:36:51 <tflink> yeah, I'd be OK with weakening 8 for beta 15:36:53 <adamw> since it seems we don't really care as much about rescue mode as we did. 15:37:13 <tflink> and we don't know if LVM or RAID will be supported for install in beta 15:37:25 <adamw> 13 is rescue mode, not partitioning, note. 15:37:40 <tflink> yeah, but it talks about being able to detect and use LVM/RAID 15:38:02 <tflink> what are the other options for fixing a busted install w/o rescue mode? 15:38:07 <adamw> #info adamw/tfink propose to replace specific upgrade methods in the Beta upgrade criterion with 'officially supported upgrade method(s)' 15:38:14 <adamw> tflink: live image. 15:38:32 <adamw> either a fedora one or any one of the several that exist specifically for system rescue purposes... 15:38:56 <tflink> I can see some of the logic there, but do the lives have the right packages to re-install grub? 15:39:03 <adamw> all rescue mode really has going for it is a) you definitely have it right there and b) it auto-mounts your install in the correct hierarchy. but neither of those is really critical. 15:39:10 <tflink> I suppose they would since they install grub during install 15:39:14 <adamw> yeah, they have to. 15:39:37 <tflink> it just seems a little odd to require downloading of another iso if the install breaks 15:39:49 <tflink> rather than being able to use the same iso you installed from 15:39:57 <adamw> mounting the installed system for you is pretty convenient, admittedly, especially if it uses LVM. but even there, there are tools to help. the GNOME Disks tool is pretty useful for e.g. 15:40:16 <adamw> sure, but is 'a little odd' enough for us to delay Beta release for a fourth week? these are the tough questions =) 15:40:26 <adamw> i just want to make sure the criteria are as bulletproof as possible in advance 15:41:01 <adamw> #info 'all kickstart delivery methods' criterion is agreed to be possibly overstated 15:41:03 <tflink> is rescue mode enough to delay beta for the fourth week? Maybe, maybe not. Honestly, it shouldn't be a huge issue @ beta, IMHO 15:41:11 <adamw> #action adamw to consider revisions to 'kickstart delivery method' criterion 15:41:16 <tflink> it should work already 15:42:10 <adamw> OK, well let's leave that one alone for the present 15:42:17 <adamw> looks like enough work to be going on with anyhow 15:42:48 <adamw> anyone else spotted anything in the criteria they think might be overambitious? 15:42:49 <tflink> if we're going to have a rescue mode, it should work by beta - there should be little/no need for it @ final 15:43:20 <tflink> adamw: that would be a good question for the anaconda devs and/or fesco 15:45:56 <adamw> tflink: yeah, that's a point 15:46:05 <adamw> tflink: do you feel like an action? i've had a lot this week ;) 15:46:13 <tflink> sure 15:47:17 <adamw> #action tflink to ask other interested parties (anaconda team, fesco...) to look over the beta criteria and see if there's anything they feel should be dialled down 15:47:58 <adamw> ok, i think that covers the criteria issue 15:48:20 <adamw> #topic Naming of TCs/RCs 15:48:32 <adamw> so i really meant to go through the archives and call out specific proposals for this discussion 15:48:46 <adamw> unfortunately i forgot :/ so we don't really have all the various proposals that have been made to hand 15:49:01 <adamw> still, does anyone have a particular favourite proposal for changing the naming of TCs/RCs or anything? 15:49:12 <adamw> we can always continue this next week if necessary 15:50:33 <tflink> works for me :) 15:52:26 <robatino> kparal and i had a proposal that involved making the names of all proposes lexicographically ordered and adding an "R" suffix for release candidates, i'd have to dig it up in the archives 15:52:37 <robatino> s/proposes/composes 15:52:39 <adamw> yeah, i remember that one 15:52:57 <adamw> C1, C2, C3R, C4, C5R - something like that 15:53:14 <robatino> btw, is it still possible to have tcs after rcs? if so, this would make that less confusing 15:53:24 <adamw> i like it because it's flexible and it's also obscure so should frighten people off and not make them confuse it with an official release, which is a good thing 15:53:36 <adamw> robatino: right now it is being intentionally left a grey area 15:53:45 <adamw> but that scheme would certainly allow for it in a nice way 15:54:00 <tflink> it might be good to add in a PC to make it more clear that it isn't a release 15:54:18 <adamw> pc? 15:54:19 <tflink> I can see how F18 beta C3 could be mistaken for something released 15:54:22 <tflink> pre-compose 15:54:28 <tflink> or something along those lines 15:54:52 <adamw> yeah...maybe needs more tweaking 15:55:05 <adamw> i guess there's the danger people just ignore the bit they don't understand and read 'f18 beta' 15:55:44 <nirik> how about... TC's stay the same and RC's change to "AC" "BC" (alpha compose, beta compose) 15:57:10 <adamw> so we go from Alpha TC4 to AC1? 15:57:33 <nirik> yeah 15:57:39 <robatino> as long as the announcement explicitly says "test compose" or "release candidate" doesn't that avoid the confusion? 15:57:53 <nirik> s/release/alpha/ 15:58:23 <adamw> robatino: no-one reads announcements, apparently. 15:58:35 <adamw> i don't think it's people on test list who get confused 15:58:41 <adamw> but the builds do get spread around via forums and irc to an extent 15:58:49 <adamw> it's usually people picking them up through those channels who get confused 15:59:20 <robatino> in that case, i'd think "TC" would be just as confusing 15:59:39 <adamw> well yeah, that's why the topic includes TC *and* RC naming... 15:59:55 <nirik> Fedora-18-Beta-NOT_A_RELEASE!.iso 16:00:13 <adamw> heh 16:00:25 <adamw> so i guess the lesson here is we still don't have a proposal everyone's in love with 16:00:30 <adamw> but we all at least agree on the goal 16:00:33 <adamw> sound about right? 16:00:56 <tflink> yeah 16:01:18 * nirik nods. 16:01:44 <nirik> I don't care what colour the bike shed is, just that it's a better shade of bright red to let people know what things are what. 16:01:51 <adamw> #agreed we still don't have a proposed scheme that everyone loves, but we agree the goal is to come up with a TC/RC naming scheme as unlikely as possible to confuse people about what each build is 16:01:58 <adamw> BRIGHT BLUE 16:02:08 <adamw> okey dokey 16:02:12 <adamw> #topic open floor 16:02:36 <adamw> anything for open floor? if you wanted to continue the freeze entrance discussion now would be the time 16:03:02 <tflink> does anyone have something to add about that discussion? 16:03:33 <adamw> yellow. 16:03:39 <adamw> that bikeshed should be yellow. 16:03:55 * tflink will be sending out an announcement about a devel version of the blocker tracking app once he fixes a bug or two - hopefully in the next day or so 16:04:29 <adamw> #info tflink will be announcing a new release of the blocker bug tracking app (also known as Skynet) shortly 16:04:40 <adamw> everyone stock up on tin foil hats 16:04:57 <tflink> hey, skynet isn't planned until the next release :-P 16:05:05 <Southern_Gentlem> skynet already exist in the UK 16:05:59 <tflink> sounds like nothing more to add on the freeze entrance stuff ATM 16:06:00 <adamw> sounds like that's all 16:06:02 <adamw> ayup 16:06:05 * adamw sets fuse for 1 minute 16:06:12 <adamw> i ran out of quantum fuses 16:06:46 <tflink> oh, any thoughts on starting the blocker review meetings this week? 16:06:51 * adamw stamps on fuse 16:06:52 <tflink> the list is getting _long_ 16:06:57 <adamw> yeah, that might not be a bad idea 16:07:10 <adamw> though we should try to get criteria revisions done or at least proposed ahead of the meeting 16:07:12 <adamw> anyone else? 16:07:16 <adamw> i know we all love blocker meetings 16:07:37 <tflink> they're the highlight of my week - I get lost between releases when we don't have blocker meetings 16:08:12 <tflink> we can skip over bugs that hit criteria under contention 16:08:17 <adamw> i mostly just curl into the foetal position and lie there crying 16:08:19 <adamw> wait, i do that anyway. 16:08:31 <adamw> that's a point. 16:08:38 <tflink> I doubt that we're going to hear much back from the anaconda devs or fesco on what's actually going to make it into beta by wednesday 16:08:56 <tflink> all the more reason to start that conversation now, I suppose 16:09:08 <adamw> sure 16:09:21 <adamw> one good way to start it is to accept a bunch of bugs as blockers so clumens explodes 16:09:25 <adamw> i always like watching that 16:09:41 <tflink> motivation :) 16:10:19 <adamw> well i think we bored everyone else to sleep 16:10:22 <adamw> so, blocker meeting on wednesday it is! 16:10:32 <tflink> and one way to phrase the conversation - "we're starting blocker review this week - if you have issues with the current criteria, now would be a good time to raise them" 16:11:36 * adamw re-lights fuse 16:11:46 * tflink runs away 16:11:53 <Cerlyn> I believe you mean fuze 16:12:43 <adamw> i'm pretty sure i don't? 16:12:53 <adamw> anyhow! boom 16:12:55 <adamw> #endmeeting