QA/Meetings/20090325

From FedoraProject

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Attendees

  • Will Woods (wwoods)
  • Adam Williamson (adamw)
  • James Laska (jlaska)
  • Jóhann Guðmundsson (viking_ice)
  • Josh Boyer (jwb)
  • Jesse Keating (f13)
  • Matej Cepl (mcepl)

Previous meeting follow-up

  • [jlaska+adamw] mediawiki semantic update (packaging and hosting)
    • REVIEWED - 490001 - Review Request: mediawiki-semantic - The semantic extension to mediawiki
    • NEEDS REVIEW - 490171 - Review Request: mediawiki-semantic-forms - An extension to MediaWiki that adds support for web-based forms
    • Packages installed in a test instance, next steps involve:
      • understanding the framework and wiki linkage
      • request live data dump from infrastructure for testing
      • developing some howto docs/guides
      • request infrastructure hosting
  • [adamw] schedule radeon test day
    • in discussion with developer to select a day. Developer proposed 2 wks from now, but adamw suggested next week since we're booked
  • [adamw] review OPEN installer bugs and escalate appropriate issues to F11Beta blocker list
    • iarly from the triage team did go through and review a lot of the issues, so i think it got done reasonably well.
  • [jlaska] email fedora-test-list@ with call for testing of rawhide installs
    • Email sent ... a good selection of installer testing contributed by community. Wish I had bugzilla numbers, but not handy at this time :(

F-11-Beta - who/what/when/where/why?

  • AdamW confirmed with JesseKeating that the F11Beta bug triage efforts were effective

F11Beta blocking bugs

  • Much of the last week was spent

Building the Beta Known issues

  • Main issues so far include:
    1. Previous disk partition layout problems
    2. Upgrade testing issues
    3. Kickstart installs fragile
  • AdamW noted that we might not be communicating the known issues effectively since a lot of Alpha testers didn't know about the rpm issue
    • Make each known issue a unique section header in the wiki
    • Should anaconda display release notes again (or pull down release notes from an html page)?
    • Perhaps a desktop menu link for release notes (see fedora-release-notes package)
    • Does firefox include the release notes link? (see fedora-release-notes package)
    • Result - QA team must internally reference the Beta release notes known issues in all IRC and email communication.

The Beta RC Process

  • Jlaska asked to discuss the Beta RC build, test and release process
    • What information does JesseKeating need to release the bits to the mirrors - confirmation of the anaconda-devel beta readiness criteria
    • When do we have to get that feedback in? - Meet Friday around noon in #fedora-qa to provide test feedback
  • AdamW asked if it's possible to open up RC testing to a wider audience?
    • we tried in the past, but it flooded the download site and no one could test
    • Would be good to engage people, perhaps time better spent engaging during Rawhide cycle for testing Rawhide
  • Jlaska suggested we gather in #fedora-qa on Friday afternoon to discuss RC test feedback
    • JesseKeating recommended we invite the anaconda-devel team

Open discussion

Development Schedule Proposal

Wwoods introduced a new Fedora release schedule concept - lengthen the development/test cycle beyond 6 months

Upcoming QA events

Action items

  • [f13+wwoods] - autoqa status update
  • [adamw] - schedule radeon test day
  • [jlaska] - copy F11 beta test results wiki changes into the wiki template (several test case additions)
  • [wwoods] - to add some upgrade test cases to the beta results page (and template)
  • [jlaska] - add Beta known issues for previous disk contents, kickstart issues, KVM NAT networking problems (use static ip)
  • [wwoods] - document any upgrade issues in the Beta release notes
  • [jlaska] - setup meeting to review RC test results for Friday afternoon to include release engineering (JesseKeating) and anaconda-devel and any RC testers.

Next QA meeting

The next meeting will be held on 2009-04-01 16:00 UTC

IRC Transcript

jlaska | let's get our QA on! Mar 25 13:02
--- | wwoods has changed the topic to: Fedora QA Meeting | init Mar 25 13:02
wwoods | wee ha Mar 25 13:02
jlaska | heyo Mar 25 13:03
adamw | ohhh yeah Mar 25 13:03
wwoods | f13: ping Mar 25 13:03
jlaska | queue the music Mar 25 13:03
wwoods | anyone else who's around for the meeting, say HOOOO Mar 25 13:03
* | viking_ice hoooo Mar 25 13:03
jlaska | I'll be taking notes again today ... previous minutes available at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20090318 Mar 25 13:03
wwoods | first up: review last week Mar 25 13:04
--- | wwoods has changed the topic to: Fedora QA Meeting | review Mar 25 13:04
wwoods | Beta slipped. Yep. Mar 25 13:05
wwoods | jlaska / adamw: anything to report on the mediawiki semantic stuff? Mar 25 13:05
jlaska | sure .. one down Mar 25 13:06
jlaska | 490001 - Review Request: mediawiki-semantic - The semantic extension to mediawiki Mar 25 13:06
jlaska | that is complete Mar 25 13:06
jlaska | 490171 - Review Request: mediawiki-semantic-forms - An extension to MediaWiki that adds support for web-based forms Mar 25 13:06
wwoods | nice. Mar 25 13:06
jlaska | that is still in review. Per suggestion from j-rod, I'm going to see if anyone in #fedora-devel would like to trade package reviews Mar 25 13:06
<-- | cassmodiah has quit (Remote closed the connection) Mar 25 13:07
jlaska | I have those packages installed in a private guest and ready for some poking ... but have not had cycles yet to play too much Mar 25 13:07
adamw | yep, he sent me the test instance but i haven't had time to play with it too much either Mar 25 13:07
wwoods | yeah, the Beta looms large and this keeps us from doing much else Mar 25 13:07
wwoods | f13 and I were shooting for having autoqa running verifytree daily by the 24th (yesterday) Mar 25 13:07
adamw | i might have time to experiment in the next few days, though, now i'm clear of the rhce course. Mar 25 13:07
wwoods | but no luck there Mar 25 13:07
jlaska | once those packages are reviewed, I suspect we'll need to get a feel for what this framework is like ... get some basic howto docs together Mar 25 13:08
jlaska | then start a pilot" Mar 25 13:08
wwoods | good enough. let us know how that goes. I have a package awaiting review for DebuginfoFS, so post-beta we might be able to swap Mar 25 13:08
jlaska | roger that! Mar 25 13:09
wwoods | [adamw] schedule radeon test day - Not on the schedule yet, is it? Mar 25 13:09
adamw | wwoods: no, but i got replies from the devs today and we're trying to figure out a day now Mar 25 13:09
adamw | dave suggested about two weeks down the road but i noticed we have two test days scheduled that week already, so i've proposed one week from today Mar 25 13:10
jlaska | adamw: there's a few tuesday's open if you need to "make room" Mar 25 13:10
adamw | i'd actually prefer a wednesday to a tuesday, because tuesday's supposed to be triage days, and i want to be around for that Mar 25 13:10
adamw | anyway, we'll see what dave says Mar 25 13:10
jlaska | ah okay ... great Mar 25 13:10
wwoods | adamw: cool! I'll look forward to the normal announcement(s), on f-t-l etc. Mar 25 13:10
adamw | yep. nothing else to report on that front, just 'in progress' :) Mar 25 13:11
wwoods | yeah, that's a totally acceptable status Mar 25 13:11
wwoods | [adamw] review OPEN installer bugs and escalate appropriate issues to F11Beta blocker list Mar 25 13:11
wwoods | we'll talk more about F11Beta in a bit - is that ongoing or do you think we've got most of the known issues on the list? Mar 25 13:11
adamw | that was requested by f13 with a short timeframe Mar 25 13:12
adamw | and was delegated by myself to the triage team :) Mar 25 13:12
wwoods | right on Mar 25 13:12
adamw | afaik it basically had a horizon of 'the end of the next day' Mar 25 13:12
adamw | iarly from the triage team did go through and review a lot of the issues, so i think it got done reasonably well. Mar 25 13:13
adamw | if f13 was here we could ask how it looked from his end, but i guess not :\ Mar 25 13:13
jlaska | yeah I concur, I have a lot of confidence in the current F11Beta list Mar 25 13:13
wwoods | cool. we did slip, and we're still testing and finding issues, but most of the stuff I've seen has been already on the list Mar 25 13:13
wwoods | so that seems to have worked out very well. Mar 25 13:13
jwb | f13 was trying to get an RC5 done Mar 25 13:13
adamw | so, vote of thanks to the triage team for that one. Mar 25 13:13
jwb | he also tested ppc32 and got failure Mar 25 13:14
jwb | that's all i know Mar 25 13:14
wwoods | let's see. I'm pretty sure XFCE images got built, as planned Mar 25 13:14
jlaska | they did Mar 25 13:14
wwoods | and the beta release notes are at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Beta_release_notes Mar 25 13:14
wwoods | so all's right with the world. Mar 25 13:15
<-- | nphilipp has quit ("Leaving") Mar 25 13:15
wwoods | remaining actions Mar 25 13:15
wwoods | ACTION: (post-beta) f13 + wwoods to finally get verifytree running as part of autoqa Mar 25 13:15
wwoods | that's mostly just a note so I can't forget about it Mar 25 13:16
wwoods | okay, let's talk Beta Mar 25 13:16
viking_ice | well just remember to fill in Known Issues section of the beta release notes if there are any known issues.. . Mar 25 13:16
--- | wwoods has changed the topic to: Fedora QA Meeting | Beta install test results (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_11_Beta_Install_Test_Results) Mar 25 13:16
jlaska | viking_ice: thank you yes ... let's queue that point up for open discussion Mar 25 13:16
wwoods | so one administrative thing - if you make changes to the test plan that should be carried over for future test runs Mar 25 13:17
jlaska | agreed, I've made several changes ... and will propogate them later Mar 25 13:18
wwoods | e.g. graying out non-applicable tests (thanks jlaska!) Mar 25 13:18
wwoods | please make those changes on the template as well Mar 25 13:18
jlaska | wwoods: okay, I'll action that for me Mar 25 13:18
wwoods | nah, I've already done it Mar 25 13:18
jlaska | I added a few new tests cases as well Mar 25 13:19
wwoods | okay, *that* still needs doing Mar 25 13:19
wwoods | we also have no upgrade test cases at all Mar 25 13:19
jlaska | and plan to simplify the storage tests post-beta Mar 25 13:19
wwoods | ACTION: wwoods to add some upgrade test cases to the beta results page (and template) Mar 25 13:19
wwoods | ACTION: jlaska to update template with test cases that were added to the beta results page Mar 25 13:20
wwoods | so yeah I've mostly been testing upgrades, which found a lot of bugs but doesn't turn any boxes green/red Mar 25 13:20
wwoods | what fun is that? Mar 25 13:20
viking_ice | working stuff is boring.. . Mar 25 13:21
wwoods | oh it's not working Mar 25 13:21
viking_ice | ah interesting Mar 25 13:21
wwoods | but it's also not on the checklist Mar 25 13:21
jlaska | wwoods: sounds like you and clumens hada few patches going yesterday, that's good Mar 25 13:21
wwoods | yeah as soon as the meeting is over I'll be testing some of those changes Mar 25 13:21
<-- | fab__ has quit ("Leaving") Mar 25 13:22
wwoods | looks like jlaska and f13 are our main testers here. is there anything you want to report? Mar 25 13:22
wwoods | anything that needs retesting or more help? Mar 25 13:23
jlaska | no, we've been monitoring the beta list ... most of the issues remaining that meet the anaconda beta criteria are in MODIFIED Mar 25 13:23
jlaska | we have 2 more minor fixes planned for an anaconda rebuild this afternoon ... and then f13 will guide it through from there Mar 25 13:23
wwoods | (that's https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=F11Beta&hide_resolved=1 for the record) Mar 25 13:23
jlaska | thanks Mar 25 13:24
jlaska | to viking_ice's point ... is now a good time to talk about the known issues? Mar 25 13:24
wwoods | sounds good to me. Mar 25 13:24
--- | wwoods has changed the topic to: Fedora QA Meeting Mar 25 13:24
wwoods | err. Mar 25 13:24
--- | wwoods has changed the topic to: Fedora QA Meeting | Beta - known issues (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Beta_release_notes) Mar 25 13:25
wwoods | my fingers are fat today! Mar 25 13:25
jlaska | no worries ... I don't have that excuse and I still send mails to the wrong list ;) Mar 25 13:25
jlaska | with the wrong URLs :D Mar 25 13:25
* | f13 Mar 25 13:25
f13 | sorry I'm late. Mar 25 13:25
jlaska | f13: welcome ... we're going to chat about the known issues list ... do you have any udpates on compose status before? Mar 25 13:25
viking_ice | f13: lost some bugzilla points turning in late.. Mar 25 13:26
f13 | not much to add, just waiting for a build of anaconda to kick off the composes Mar 25 13:27
jlaska | okay Mar 25 13:27
jlaska | so F-11-Beta known issues ... Mar 25 13:27
adamw | from earlier, if i may - f13, did the 'have triage team evaluate anaconda bugs for the beta' action item go well from your point of view? Mar 25 13:28
* | jlaska notes ... adamw you got the mic Mar 25 13:28
<-- | lxo has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)) Mar 25 13:28
f13 | adamw: I honestly couldn't tell you. Do you have numbers on how many issues they found and brought to F11Beta ? Mar 25 13:28
adamw | ah, heh. no, i didn't, but i can probably generate some if it'd be valuable Mar 25 13:29
adamw | but at least they didn't screw anything up? :) Mar 25 13:29
f13 | that's probably more for your side of things. Mar 25 13:29
* | adamw looks for the positive Mar 25 13:29
f13 | I don't think anything got screwed up no Mar 25 13:29
adamw | yep, i reported earlier, just wanted to check that it went OK from your side too Mar 25 13:29
adamw | ok, back to jlaska, sorry :) Mar 25 13:30
jlaska | adamw: np! th Mar 25 13:30
jlaska | x Mar 25 13:30
jlaska | there are a few high-level themes I'd like to include in the F-11-Beta known issues list Mar 25 13:30
jlaska | * Previous disk partition layout problems Mar 25 13:31
jlaska | * Upgrade testing issues (wwoods has the goods here) Mar 25 13:31
jlaska | * Kickstart == fragile Mar 25 13:31
jlaska | wwoods: f13: viking_ice: this is old hat for you guys ... what's the best mechanism for including WARNINGS around these points Mar 25 13:32
f13 | They would go into the release notes page for the Beta release Mar 25 13:32
jlaska | just a quick blurb in the release notes (with bugzilla links)? Or should this be on the F11 Common Bugs page? Mar 25 13:32
adamw | something i'd contribute here: the format is not so important as consistency in referencing the information Mar 25 13:33
jlaska | adamw: can you explain further? Mar 25 13:33
adamw | i.e. everywhere we talk about the f11 beta in a 'hey, try this out!' kinda way - announcements, the main wiki page, whatever - should link to wherever this info is found Mar 25 13:33
f13 | stickster_afk: is probably one of the better persons to ask this Mar 25 13:33
wwoods | I wouldn't use the Common Bugs page for things we expect to be fixed by final Mar 25 13:33
jlaska | wwoods: gotcha, thx Mar 25 13:33
viking_ice | nope me neither Mar 25 13:33
wwoods | for intentional behavior changes, sure Mar 25 13:33
adamw | i noticed with the upgrading-alpha-to-rawhide rpm checksum gotcha that a lot of people seemed to be surprised by the existence of the alpha release notes Mar 25 13:33
jlaska | looks like stickster_afk may have prep'd the release notes page for us ... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Beta_release_notes#Anaconda_installer_issues Mar 25 13:34
adamw | which implies that we're not doing a good enough job of advertising their existence Mar 25 13:34
viking_ice | hum perhaps we should link to it @ beta the download page Mar 25 13:34
viking_ice | know issues that is Mar 25 13:34
viking_ice | direct link Mar 25 13:34
f13 | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Beta_release_notes Mar 25 13:35
f13 | oh somebody beat me too it Mar 25 13:35
adamw | viking_ice: it is linked right at the top of the alpha download page... Mar 25 13:35
wwoods | we used to have the release notes inside the installer, back in F7 Mar 25 13:35
jlaska | adamw: good point Mar 25 13:35
wwoods | and F8 Mar 25 13:35
f13 | wwoods: and still nobody read them (: Mar 25 13:35
viking_ice | adamw: not direct link to know issues Mar 25 13:35
wwoods | indeed Mar 25 13:35
adamw | viking_ice: that's a point Mar 25 13:35
viking_ice | think we have better luck getting people to read know issue instead the whole alpha release notes Mar 25 13:36
adamw | we could improve things so the get-prerelease page has a link directly to the known issues section, and a bit of text that says 'YOU SHOULD READ THIS' Mar 25 13:36
wwoods | we could make the user's CD-RW drive burn it directly into their eyelids and they still wouldn't read it Mar 25 13:36
wwoods | or rather - not *everyone* would read it Mar 25 13:36
adamw | wwoods: yep, there's always some people who won't, but it's best to try as hard as you can to get as many as possible :) Mar 25 13:36
wwoods | but certainly we should make them as obvious as possible Mar 25 13:36
jlaska | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Alpha_release_notes#Known_Issues Mar 25 13:36
viking_ice | yup Mar 25 13:36
jlaska | I could see how a glance at the above link would miss it Mar 25 13:36
adamw | anyhow, my opinion on the question of where to put 'em is - known issues section in the release notes page is fine Mar 25 13:37
jlaska | do we want to make each known issue a section heading? Mar 25 13:37
wwoods | this is a job for the <marquee> tag!! Mar 25 13:37
jlaska | or is that not really solving the problem Mar 25 13:37
jlaska | wwoods: heh :) Mar 25 13:37
wwoods | yes, section heading per known issue is a good idea Mar 25 13:37
adamw | jlaska: that is very useful for referring to specific issues in a mailing list or forum post, but it doesn't really affect this discussion. it's a good thing to do, though. Mar 25 13:37
wwoods | that's the typical layout of the commonbugs page and it really helps to have summaries of the known issues right at the top of the page Mar 25 13:37
adamw | release notes in the installer is a good idea too, to go back to that one. Mar 25 13:38
viking_ice | nope Mar 25 13:38
jlaska | adamw: if we can get that to not require rebuilding anaconda ... I think that was the problem Mar 25 13:38
jlaska | and translation? Mar 25 13:38
viking_ice | adamw: filed an rfe or bug against it and anaconda maintainers shoot it down asap Mar 25 13:38
wwoods | yeah. it turned out to be a massive heap of pain Mar 25 13:38
<-- | giallu has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)) Mar 25 13:39
adamw | jlaska: ah. what mandriva did about that is the installer actually has an html renderer in it (webkit) and it just loads the wiki page Mar 25 13:39
adamw | doesn't help if the network's not working, but... Mar 25 13:39
jlaska | adamw: not a bad idea Mar 25 13:39
wwoods | yeah, anaconda used to be able to do that kind of thing Mar 25 13:39
wwoods | it's not a good idea Mar 25 13:39
wwoods | better to have the release notes at the place where you get the image Mar 25 13:39
adamw | wwoods: oh yeah we want that too, i'm just working on the principle that having them every bloody where is the best option =) but if it's too complex to add to the installer that's fine. Mar 25 13:40
viking_ice | or on your desktop file:///usr/share/doc/<release notes> Mar 25 13:40
viking_ice | mean link Mar 25 13:40
adamw | they should be in the default firefox bookmarks too - are they? Mar 25 13:40
f13 | yes Mar 25 13:40
adamw | great Mar 25 13:40
viking_ice | yup Mar 25 13:40
wwoods | it's too complex for the amount of benefit that it provides. there already is a link to the release notes in the default bookmark set. Mar 25 13:40
wwoods | which doesn't help you for installer images Mar 25 13:40
wwoods | err. installer *issues* Mar 25 13:40
adamw | ok, i think that covers it then Mar 25 13:40
wwoods | so yeah, we have them available before and after install Mar 25 13:41
viking_ice | hum do we ship the release notes with the release ? Mar 25 13:41
wwoods | they just need to be more obvious Mar 25 13:41
adamw | known issues in the release page, each issue's a heading, link to the page every damn where we talk about the beta, consider a direct link to the known issues section from the download page Mar 25 13:41
jlaska | sounds like a plan :) Mar 25 13:41
viking_ice | or do we just store that info online? Mar 25 13:41
jlaska | I'll take an ACTION to document the previous disk contents and kickstart issues Mar 25 13:42
jlaska | wwoods: do you think you can summarize any upgrade issues you find? Mar 25 13:42
wwoods | viking_ice: see the fedora-release-notes package Mar 25 13:42
f13 | viking_ice: fedora-release-notes package Mar 25 13:42
viking_ice | ah ok Mar 25 13:42
jlaska | wwoods: f13: that includes the firefox bookmarks and .desktop documenation links? Mar 25 13:43
jlaska | s/links/xml files/ Mar 25 13:43
wwoods | jlaska: yeah, believe so Mar 25 13:43
f13 | no, the bookmarks are in a different package, since there can only be one bookmarks package Mar 25 13:43
jlaska | ah cool Mar 25 13:43
wwoods | the bookmark points to the online version AFAIK Mar 25 13:43
wwoods | but System -> Help Mar 25 13:44
wwoods | has a big "Fedora Release Notes" Mar 25 13:44
wwoods | for people without internets Mar 25 13:44
jlaska | nice ... so it might also help if we reference these locations out the wazoo as well in our IRC and email communications Mar 25 13:44
--- | runa_b is now known as Guest39121 Mar 25 13:44
jlaska | instil a bit of RTFM perhaps? Mar 25 13:44
viking_ice | lol Mar 25 13:45
adamw | it also helps to always refer to the page when you're actually telling someone about a given issue Mar 25 13:45
jlaska | exactly Mar 25 13:45
adamw | so if someone brings up a known issue on the mailing list, don't just tell 'em the answer - link to the appropriate section in the release notes Mar 25 13:45
wwoods | yeah I'm kind of a jerk about that post-release. "As the release notes so helpfully mention... XXXX" Mar 25 13:46
jlaska | so that they link it to their friends, who links it to their friends, and so on Mar 25 13:46
jlaska | and so on .. Mar 25 13:46
jlaska | :) Mar 25 13:46
wwoods | "But I'm sure you already read the release notes, so you already know this." Mar 25 13:46
adamw | wwoods: =) exactly Mar 25 13:46
viking_ice | should we have a link to it on the channel topic in the fedora channel ? Mar 25 13:46
wwoods | but yeah. the docs team works hard on that Mar 25 13:46
jlaska | hehe, we need a stock response for known issues :) Mar 25 13:46
wwoods | and they do everything possible to make it really easy for us to contribute useful info Mar 25 13:46
wwoods | we should be rolling the release notes up and hitting people in the nose with 'em Mar 25 13:47
wwoods | so, yes, I'll add anything I find that relates to upgrades Mar 25 13:47
jlaska | sweet, thx Mar 25 13:48
wwoods | I won't document anything about yum upgrades between F10 and Beta, though. That way lies madness. Mar 25 13:48
jlaska | should we point to the Alpha known issues (to get the rpm issue up front)? Mar 25 13:48
viking_ice | merge Mar 25 13:48
adamw | my rule of thumb is it's worth writing down anything more than two people run into Mar 25 13:48
jlaska | ^---> I guess that the F10 upgrdae path wwoods ? Mar 25 13:48
adamw | just because at that point it becomes less effort to write it down nicely one time and then link to that every other time... Mar 25 13:49
viking_ice | if we have alpa issue still on beta then those issue should also be mentioned there I think Mar 25 13:49
wwoods | Alpha, yes. the RPM issue is already in the Beta release notes Mar 25 13:49
jlaska | cool, looks like we are covered Mar 25 13:50
wwoods | anything else to discuss with respect to beta? Mar 25 13:50
jlaska | can we talk about a a high-level gameplan for once the latest RC images are built? Mar 25 13:51
f13 | sure! Mar 25 13:51
wwoods | please do! Mar 25 13:51
* | wwoods afk 1min Mar 25 13:51
f13 | ideally we'd clear the test results page and start over from scratch using the RC images Mar 25 13:51
f13 | rc images and rawhide url for the http/ftp/nfs tests Mar 25 13:52
<-- | jeevan_ullas has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) Mar 25 13:52
<-- | fedora-angel has quit ("Leaving") Mar 25 13:52
jlaska | f13: those images will be available on alt.fp.org for download (slow link) Mar 25 13:52
jlaska | ? Mar 25 13:52
f13 | yes Mar 25 13:52
viking_ice | very slow link hum do we have any updates on auto tools/testing stuff ? Mar 25 13:53
jlaska | viking_ice: we've moved the status dcheck to next week for that Mar 25 13:53
jlaska | viking_ice: providing test feedback to the anaconda-devel group has occupied most of the cycles this week Mar 25 13:53
f13 | its much faster if you've pre-rsynced previous rcs Mar 25 13:53
f13 | then rsync will just touch up the differences fairly quickly Mar 25 13:54
jlaska | f13: what feedback to you need for the green light on unlocking the mirrors/torrents etc..? Mar 25 13:54
jlaska | should we target specific tests first? Mar 25 13:54
f13 | yeah, target the criteria you gave anaconda team first Mar 25 13:55
f13 | and I think we should just discuss later tomorrow go / no-go based on testing Mar 25 13:55
jlaska | beta/worst case, when do you anticipate images will be available for review? Mar 25 13:56
jlaska | s/beta/best/ Mar 25 13:56
<-- | sdziallas has quit ("Ex-Chat") Mar 25 13:59
<-- | mbacovsk has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) Mar 25 13:59
<-- | Guest39121 has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) Mar 25 13:59
jlaska | f13: did we lose you? Mar 25 14:00
wwoods | we can continue the discussion without an exact time Mar 25 14:00
<-- | bpepple has quit ("Ex-Chat") Mar 25 14:01
f13 | sorry, was on another terminal. Mar 25 14:01
f13 | images should be available on alt. about 2 hours after the anaconda build finishes Mar 25 14:01
jlaska | np ... just wanted to get a better feel for timing on images, and then the time available in the schedule for validating those images Mar 25 14:01
jlaska | f13: what's the latest we can provide feedback on testing those images? Mar 25 14:02
jlaska | tomorrow end of day? Mar 25 14:02
f13 | yeah Mar 25 14:02
f13 | although, if we wanted to, I could delay until about this time Friday Mar 25 14:02
jlaska | if we can do things in parallel ... I'd definitely ask for some extra time Mar 25 14:03
jlaska | so we'll meet up on IRC friday afternoon for some test feedback on the RC images ... sound good? Mar 25 14:04
f13 | sure Mar 25 14:05
jlaska | viking_ice: not sure about download speed, but if you're able to absorb the images in time ... that would be most helpful Mar 25 14:05
f13 | I'll have the bits pre-staged and just waiting for a bit flip Mar 25 14:05
f13 | we'll also need to do some cursory passovers of the live images Mar 25 14:05
jlaska | right on ... I'll be queuing those up for virt isntalls Mar 25 14:06
viking_ice | jlaska: ok Mar 25 14:06
jlaska | f13: as a side note, the rawhide live images adamw and I built this morning for tomorrows test day will provide some good test feedback Mar 25 14:06
adamw | jlaska: so will you be able to stick some images on an externally accessible server and send a mail to -test-list with the location, so external people can have a shot at the test image if they're quick? Mar 25 14:06
jlaska | different bits of course, but feedback is feedback Mar 25 14:06
<-- | kulll_ has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) Mar 25 14:06
wwoods | adamw: not worth the effort Mar 25 14:07
wwoods | by the time anyone got to them they'd be useless Mar 25 14:07
adamw | wwoods: roger Mar 25 14:07
wwoods | and they'd slow *us* down in the process Mar 25 14:07
wwoods | It could go to #fedora-qa - that limits the size of the audience nicely Mar 25 14:07
wwoods | but I'm pretty sure we tried telling the mailing list before Mar 25 14:08
wwoods | not sure it helped Mar 25 14:08
f13 | it hurt more than anything Mar 25 14:08
f13 | too many people hit the server, the server was too busy for me to upload newer images to it at all Mar 25 14:08
wwoods | we tried putting up torrents too Mar 25 14:09
wwoods | but I don' Mar 25 14:09
wwoods | err Mar 25 14:09
wwoods | I don't remember that being real helpful Mar 25 14:09
<-- | ankit has quit ("Off for the day !!!") Mar 25 14:09
jlaska | I _think_ the feedback we need at this point is definitely from folks that have been plugged into the process Mar 25 14:09
jlaska | meaning, I certainly would find it challanging to manage qualifying the RC bits and engaging new testers assistance Mar 25 14:09
jlaska | but if there's a better way to do it ... definitely open Mar 25 14:10
adamw | sounds fine - as i mentioned in that internal kickaround session we had before i left, i'm not really that fussed about getting community testing of pre-pre-release images like this Mar 25 14:10
wwoods | and we still want to get assistance filling in test results etc. *after* the thing is released Mar 25 14:10
wwoods | so it's not like we're rejecting community assistance Mar 25 14:11
jlaska | adamw: I think your idea of focusing on Rawhide as a product would really help here Mar 25 14:11
wwoods | there's just no way to effectively engage anyone who's not already involved Mar 25 14:11
wwoods | in the next ~24 hrs Mar 25 14:11
jlaska | agreed Mar 25 14:12
<-- | che has quit (Remote closed the connection) Mar 25 14:12
adamw | ok, so post-beta the install test results wiki page will still be active for people to report their results from installing the beta? Mar 25 14:12
wwoods | absolutely Mar 25 14:12
adamw | ok great Mar 25 14:12
wwoods | we still need to verify those things. gives us a head start on testing for the preview/final release Mar 25 14:13
jlaska | sorry to keep the discussion going long ... but thanks for helping me understand a bit more about who does what during the RC phase Mar 25 14:13
wwoods | guh there was something we just totally failed to test at all after beta last cycle. something stupidly obvious like.. i386 CD? Mar 25 14:13
wwoods | because nobody bothered to fill in that blank *after* it was released Mar 25 14:14
wwoods | and we didn't have time *before* the releases Mar 25 14:14
jlaska | f13: found a good CD swapping bug down that path Mar 25 14:14
jlaska | wwoods: you okay with informally meeting Friday afternoon in #fedora-qa to see how our matrix looks and give a thumbs up/down ? Mar 25 14:14
wwoods | sure Mar 25 14:14
f13 | lets be sure to invite other folks to that Mar 25 14:15
f13 | denise wanted to be involved Mar 25 14:15
jlaska | great point Mar 25 14:15
<-- | lfoppiano_ has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)) Mar 25 14:15
wwoods | so I have one last high-level thing before we're done with this meeting Mar 25 14:15
wwoods | oh yeah, denise should totally be invited. Mar 25 14:15
jlaska | I'll go ahead and send out an invite Mar 25 14:16
wwoods | anyone else who's sufficiently close to the process? clumens et. al.? Mar 25 14:16
wwoods | jlaska: okay, I'll leave that to you Mar 25 14:17
jlaska | yeah, I'll let denise determine who else should be in Mar 25 14:17
wwoods | anything else for Beta / RC readiness? Mar 25 14:17
jlaska | nothing from me, thanks wwoods Mar 25 14:18
wwoods | okay then, my One Last Thing Mar 25 14:18
--- | wwoods has changed the topic to: Fedora QA Meeting | Schedule Change? Mar 25 14:18
wwoods | I've been bouncing this idea off people Mar 25 14:18
f13 | I think I'm going to tune out again. Mar 25 14:18
f13 | I just don't have the bandwidth to think about something like that at this time. Mar 25 14:18
--- | dwmw2 is now known as dwmw2_gone Mar 25 14:19
wwoods | long story short: I'd like to change the schedule of future Fedora releases - lengthen the development/test cycle beyond 6 months, include a proper Beta period, etc. Mar 25 14:19
wwoods | f13: I know exactly what you mean. You don't need to worry about this now - there will be more serious discussions when we have time to think about it Mar 25 14:20
wwoods | by then I should have most of the details worked out. Mar 25 14:20
viking_ice | why? Mar 25 14:20
viking_ice | mean is this not the perfect balance.. Mar 25 14:20
wwoods | my current thinking is to introduce a two-month beta period after the normal 6-month development cycle --> rawhide branch Mar 25 14:21
adamw | my take is just as I said in the discussion last time: as f13 put it the reason we have stable releases at all is to have 'checkpoints' for major changes like the rpm checksum issue, hence our release schedule should match the checkpoints. Mar 25 14:21
wwoods | the major problem is that we have something like 4 weeks between "features complete" and final release Mar 25 14:21
adamw | fedora is a bit of a unique case here, because our stable releases aren't really stable. i just saw a git snapshot of networkmanager land in the official updates for fedora 9. that wouldn't happen in most projects. so we have to keep a clear idea of what we actually want our 'releases' to achieve. that's my main thought on the issue, anyhow. Mar 25 14:22
wwoods | which is just plain isn't enough time to test what we need to test. Mar 25 14:22
viking_ice | adamw: you mean updates testing right Mar 25 14:22
adamw | viking_ice: oh, yeah, sorry. but it'll BE an update. :) Mar 25 14:22
viking_ice | perhaps Mar 25 14:22
wwoods | well, that's *also* a special case, since the NM package maintainer is the upstream author Mar 25 14:22
adamw | viking_ice: anyway, one package isn't the point: point is fedora has a very liberal update policy which is roughly 'you can ship whatever the hell you feel like as an update' Mar 25 14:23
viking_ice | also known as pulling the dbus maneuver Mar 25 14:23
adamw | so you don't really treat a fedora stable release as you would other stable releases, i.e. expecting it to work the same from day to day and official updates to only fix bugs and security issues Mar 25 14:23
adamw | that's just not fedora's policy, hence we need to have a clear understanding of what our stable releases actually achieve in defining the cycle and period for releasing them. Mar 25 14:24
jlaska | wwoods: is this something we should put down as a discussion point for next week? Mar 25 14:24
wwoods | adamw: that's a related problem, but it's not the same thing Mar 25 14:24
f13 | adamw: and every time I try to address this problem, I get flamed to death by the people who think that this "problem" is what makes Fedora special and desireable Mar 25 14:24
viking_ice | well it's the maintainer the decides this and as everyone knows all maintainers dont write buggy code so they push this straight to updates Mar 25 14:24
adamw | f13: i don't necessarily think it's a problem, that's not my point Mar 25 14:24
adamw | f13: my point is just to bear it in mind when talking about the release cycle question :) Mar 25 14:25
f13 | viking_ice: yes, lets lump the mistakes of one maintainer upon every other one in Fedora. Mar 25 14:25
wwoods | jlaska: yes, this is something that should probably be discussed further at a later date, once people have time to actually think about the problem Mar 25 14:25
wwoods | because it's a very large problem space and there aren't simple solutions. Mar 25 14:26
jlaska | wwoods: is there something we could queue up for further reading ... something to ask for feedback on? Mar 25 14:26
jlaska | yeah, agreed Mar 25 14:26
viking_ice | f13: you know my take on this all updates should stay in updates-testing for an x period of time Mar 25 14:27
wwoods | kinda. I dumped my notes.. somewhere Mar 25 14:27
wwoods | and now I can't fine 'em Mar 25 14:27
wwoods | ah: http://wwoods.fedorapeople.org/schedule.html Mar 25 14:28
jlaska | wwoods: thx Mar 25 14:28
wwoods | and http://wwoods.fedorapeople.org/images/fedora-ideal-schedules.png, which needs editing Mar 25 14:28
f13 | viking_ice: your snide comments aren't really helping your case. Mar 25 14:28
wwoods | also those things say 3 months and I think 2 months might be closer to the right balance Mar 25 14:29
adamw | just to note i'm really not trying to go off-topic here, and i'm really not saying that the updates thing is a PROBLEM (I can totally see the 'that's what makes fedora special' thing, actually) - just that it affects what a fedora stable release actually is. some of the arguments about how long a release cycle should be don't necessary apply to fedora releases because of this difference. Mar 25 14:29
adamw | f13: i don't see anything snide? Mar 25 14:29
wwoods | adamw: don't confuse the release cycle and the development cycle. I'm proposing no changes to the *release* cycle Mar 25 14:29
f13 | <viking_ice> well it's the maintainer the decides this and as everyone knows all maintainers dont write buggy code so they push this straight to updates Mar 25 14:29
adamw | wwoods: ah, ok - i missed that. thanks for the clarification Mar 25 14:29
viking_ice | ah me too Mar 25 14:30
adamw | f13: oh, i thought you were talking about the comment after that :) Mar 25 14:30
wwoods | the release cycle stays exactly the same: every 6 months, on May 1 and Oct. 31 Mar 25 14:30
adamw | ok then, not so relevant - sorry. will re-read your idea and think it over for next time Mar 25 14:30
f13 | Yeah, May would be great fun, working on 4 different development streams. Mar 25 14:31
f13 | plus how many other RHEL streams going at the same time Mar 25 14:32
wwoods | f13: hrm? I think you're reading this wrong. there's still only one rawhide stream at any given time Mar 25 14:32
f13 | I see 4 active release bars, 11, 12, 13 and 14 Mar 25 14:32
wwoods | yeah, that needs editing Mar 25 14:32
wwoods | the top four pipelines represent the current development/release cycle Mar 25 14:32
mcepl | if I may drop my bit ... concerning the example of NetworkManager's upgrade ... I think the biggest problem is that we don't have defined upgrade policy for Fedora packages. For example, IMHO Fedora n-1 should be treated as RHEL ... only major breakage and security bugs. But there is no policy and everybody does what he thinks best, which tends to be kind of messy. Mar 25 14:33
wwoods | the bottom four pipelines are an example of what the cycle would look like with a 3-month beta Mar 25 14:33
f13 | mcepl: again, every time I try to push that agenda, the flames come out in force. We /do/ have some poolicy Mar 25 14:33
wwoods | they aren't actually simultaneous. these should be two separate images Mar 25 14:33
jlaska | this is certainly good discussion, but is this something we can schedule for after the meeting? Perhaps post-beta once the wwwoods gets a chance to iron out the proposal and open up for feedback? Mar 25 14:33
wwoods | obviously I need to clarify this a lot before bringing it up for discussion Mar 25 14:34
wwoods | so forget I mentioned it Mar 25 14:34
mcepl | yeah, I just wanted to emphasize that the example is not the issue of too short development/release cycle, but lack of this upgrade policy. Mar 25 14:34
wwoods | and we'll talk about it some other time Mar 25 14:34
f13 | mcepl: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_responsibilities#Package_updates Mar 25 14:34
f13 | mcepl: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Package_update_guidelines Mar 25 14:34
<-- | thomasj has quit (Nick collision from services.) Mar 25 14:34
--- | thomasj_ is now known as thomasj Mar 25 14:34
jlaska | wwoods: I've got it down for a status check in next week ... we can revisit if the Beta releases us to focus on fun things? Mar 25 14:34
wwoods | this gives me some good points to add to my proposal, though, so thanks Mar 25 14:35
<-- | k0k has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) Mar 25 14:35
wwoods | "This doesn't solve the problem of wacky updates that break things." Mar 25 14:36
wwoods | Which is technically a different problem - but they're intertwined. Mar 25 14:36
adamw | yeah, i'm sorry i brought that up, it was a misunderstanding on my part and doesn't touch on will's proposal much at all. Mar 25 14:36
wwoods | so, yes, status check next week Mar 25 14:36
adamw | so please discuss it separately if you wish to :) Mar 25 14:36
mcepl | f13: is this something approved by FESCO (or somebody) as an official policy, or just somebody wrote a page on wiki? Mar 25 14:37
wwoods | well, no, because this proposal comes from a similar place and has similar goals and uses the same tools Mar 25 14:37
f13 | mcepl: pretty sure it's FESCo approved. Mar 25 14:37
mcepl | ok Mar 25 14:37
wwoods | It would be much easier to introduce a stricter update policy if we had a beta period where we have the old loose policy for updates Mar 25 14:38
wwoods | anyway! enough pie in the sky. BETA! Mar 25 14:39
wwoods | the power of beta compels you! Mar 25 14:39
jlaska | heh Mar 25 14:39
wwoods | test it! love it! Mar 25 14:39
adamw | beeeeeetttttaaaaaaaaa Mar 25 14:39
wwoods | join me or die! Mar 25 14:39
wwoods | can you do any less?? Mar 25 14:39
jlaska | hey, quick update on upcoming QA events ... Mar 25 14:39
mcepl | (and BTW disclaimer: I don't want to say anything about particular Dan's update ... he usually knows a little bit what he is doing) Mar 25 14:39
wwoods | jlaska: go, man, go Mar 25 14:39
jlaska | * 2009-03-26 - Nouveau Test Day Mar 25 14:39
adamw | yeah, i'm sorry for the unfortunate example too - dan is awesome and i love him Mar 25 14:40
jlaska | * 2009-04-02 - Power Management Test Day Mar 25 14:40
--- | wwoods has changed the topic to: Fedora QA Meeting | upcoming events Mar 25 14:40
f13 | wwoods: I doubt you're going to convince the maintainers at large to reign in their freedom on updates Mar 25 14:40
jlaska | adamw: any upcoming Triage events you'd like to note? Mar 25 14:40
wwoods | f13: I also doubt this Mar 25 14:40
adamw | jlaska: just the regular triage day on tuesday. Mar 25 14:40
f13 | wwoods: for better or worse, the active and vocal majority prefers the every update everywhere style for Fedora Mar 25 14:40
wwoods | or, rather: I doubt I'll get their ready approval Mar 25 14:40
jlaska | adamw: got a link? Mar 25 14:40
f13 | 6 months between releases for major updates is just too long for their tastes Mar 25 14:40
adamw | jlaska: now, I do! yes! https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/Triage_days Mar 25 14:41
jlaska | thx! Mar 25 14:41
* | nirik wonders if somehow we could talk those people into running rawhide and leaving stable releases more stable... but I fear not. Mar 25 14:41
jlaska | wwoods: last thing I had to raise the topic of the meeting time for next week Mar 25 14:41
adamw | f13: fwiw, from talking to Da Community (i.e. irc and forum folks) about this they're mostly happy with it and understand it - the only thing they say is that it should be more clearly communicated in the official site and docs Mar 25 14:41
wwoods | nirik: that's *another* related idea - our push to make rawhide more stable would allow more of that Mar 25 14:42
<-- | tatica has quit (Nick collision from services.) Mar 25 14:42
--- | tatica_ is now known as tatica Mar 25 14:42
wwoods | jlaska: ohhh yeah. Mar 25 14:42
f13 | adamw: they may be fine with it, but I'm not :/ Mar 25 14:42
jlaska | I think Europe experiences the joy of DST this weekend? Mar 25 14:42
wwoods | 1700UTC Wednesday collides with some other meetings, and so we were thinking of moving it back to 1600UTC Mar 25 14:42
adamw | f13: ok, just a data point :) Mar 25 14:43
f13 | adamw: I'd much prefer our distro was more stable in it's stable releases, to be more useful to people instead of them opting for Ubuntu Mar 25 14:43
adamw | f13: basically if you go to the forums and bring up the topic the reply you get is 'yes, that's just how fedora is: if you want something with a classic conservative update policy, run centos' Mar 25 14:43
f13 | wwoods: one time deal or for eva!? Mar 25 14:43
wwoods | FOREVAH Mar 25 14:43
adamw | 1600UTC is actually fine Mar 25 14:43
jlaska | wwoods: that puts it at noon for us right? Mar 25 14:43
f13 | adamw: sadly centos isn't the option people pick. Ubuntu is Mar 25 14:43
adamw | i'm sorry to have had a part in provking the change Mar 25 14:43
jlaska | http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?month=3&day=31&year=2009&p1=0&p2=207&p3=204&p4=33 Mar 25 14:44
adamw | i totally fucked up my dst calculations - the dst change actually makes the meeting *later* for me not earlier Mar 25 14:44
adamw | so 1600 was totally ok :) Mar 25 14:44
wwoods | that other 1700UTC meeting is an ongoing thing, and the reason we moved to 1700UTC was that.. yeah, I'm dumb and didn't realize DST was going that way Mar 25 14:44
jlaska | adamw: oops, lemme add in PDT Mar 25 14:44
wwoods | so we moved the meeting *two* hours later Mar 25 14:44
jlaska | http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?month=3&day=31&year=2009&p1=0&p2=207&p3=204&p4=256 Mar 25 14:44
wwoods | ha ha whoops! Mar 25 14:44
f13 | I was pretty happy with there the meeting time is righ tnow Mar 25 14:44
adamw | wwoods: effectively yup :) Mar 25 14:44
f13 | both before and after US DST Mar 25 14:44
wwoods | so, yeah, 1600UTC would be noon/11AM US Eastern, or 9/8 US Pacific Mar 25 14:45
adamw | +1 for 1600 Mar 25 14:46
jlaska | wwoods: noon/11am ? it's just noon right? Mar 25 14:46
wwoods | so either we move it permanently to 1600UTC or we accept occasional (8-10x per year) moves to 1600 Mar 25 14:46
wwoods | jlaska: with/without DSST Mar 25 14:46
jlaska | gotcha Mar 25 14:46
f13 | 1600 is fine by me. I'll be slightly more bleary during DST, but *shrug* Mar 25 14:46
jlaska | do we want to go later in the day? Mar 25 14:47
jlaska | nm ... 16:00 works for me Mar 25 14:47
wwoods | The Other Meeting is the Fedora Release Readiness meeting - I'd really prefer that we have the QA meeting *before* that, if possible Mar 25 14:47
<-- | mdomsch has quit (Remote closed the connection) Mar 25 14:47
wwoods | and I'm not a huge fan of late afternoon meetings Mar 25 14:47
jlaska | wwoods: c'mon 5pm :) Mar 25 14:48
jlaska | confidential beverage meetings Mar 25 14:48
wwoods | ha. okay, late afternoon meetings: not so bad Mar 25 14:48
jlaska | hehe Mar 25 14:48
wwoods | but yeah, I think we're agreed that 1600UTC is OK from now on? Mar 25 14:48
wwoods | or until the next time we feel like changing it Mar 25 14:48
viking_ice | hehe Mar 25 14:48
wwoods | we change meeting times like my wife rearranges the living room Mar 25 14:49
jlaska | viking_ice: 16:00 works for you? Mar 25 14:49
f13 | like chairs on the titanic? Mar 25 14:49
viking_ice | It 's fine by me Mar 25 14:49
* | adamw always thinks the titanic's Head Chair Re-arranger got a bad rap Mar 25 14:50
wwoods | the man was a master of his craft! Mar 25 14:50
adamw | i mean, what was he supposed to do? magically start steering the ship? Mar 25 14:50
adamw | the man knew chairs. do what you know! Mar 25 14:50
wwoods | heh Mar 25 14:51
wwoods | and on that sunny note Mar 25 14:51
wwoods | Beta!! Mar 25 14:51
* | wwoods ends the meeting Mar 25 14:51
jlaska | thanks wwoods Mar 25 14:51
viking_ice | kazamm... Mar 25 14:51
wwoods | jlaska: are you going to attempt to log/summarize? Mar 25 14:51
jlaska | yeah, already logged Mar 25 14:51
jlaska | if you got the irc transcript already I can include that Mar 25 14:51
jlaska | otherwise I'll generate it now Mar 25 14:51
wwoods | feel free Mar 25 14:52
jlaska | okay, thanks folks! Mar 25 14:52
jlaska | happy testing :) Mar 25 14:52
wwoods | hey, my bare-metal rawhide install worked Mar 25 14:52
wwoods | still no idea what happened to the KVM one Mar 25 14:52
--- | couf is now known as Guest29158 Mar 25 14:52

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