From Fedora Project Wiki

< QA‎ | Meetings


  • Adam Williamson (adamw)
  • Will Woods (wwoods)
  • François Cami (fcami)
  • John Poelstra (poelcat)
  • James Laska (jlaska)
  • Jesse Keating (f13)

Previous meeting follow-up

  1. [adamw] - BugStatusWorkFlow - to file a ticket to get bodhi fixed
  1. [adamw] - BugStatusWorkFlow - ask bugzilla guys to add a link from the bugzilla fields description page to the wiki page, for fedora
    • No updates just yet, will keep on the list for next week.
  1. [jlaska] - Send informal test day feedback survey to fedora-test-list and test day participants
    • drafted thanks to Chris Ward, plan to send this week
  1. [poelcat] - Propose updated F12 schedule with blocker bug dates
    • Checkin next week for a F12 schedule review
  1. [wwoods] - write a few more upgrade cases (encrypted root upgrade)
    • No updates, keep on the list for next week

Autoqa update

No updates this week. Will indicated efforts have been tied up with blocker-chasing, but this is still on the list.

F-11-GA Preparation

Nothing major to discuss, just reminding folks about the 1 week slip to the F-11 GA.

Adamw noted the blocker bug component report was incorrect and included F11IntelKMS as a F11Blocker bug. The report was updated.

F-11 Common Bugs

Bring out your bugs! Discussion around documenting known and open Fedora 11 issues in Common_F11_bugs.

Jlaska noted that the QA schedule gives more time to complete outstanding storage testing, but also provides time to document pain points for the release. The understanding is that we have the [F11 common bugs] page to fill this need but it's quite bare and in need info around some of the more popular pain points for the release, including:

  1. Known rough installation issues
  2. Outstanding X and KMS issues (intel, nouveau, radeon)
  3. Outstanding Alsa/pulse sound issues
  4. your issue here

Adamw noted he has experience doing similar activities and would be happy to coordinate developing the page for F11.

The Current list of bugs with fedora_requires_release_note = ? (note, this likely includes old bugs that don't apply).

Jlaska has privately been using fedora_requires_release_note? to tag bugs in need of documentation. Adamw indicated there needs to be a clear demarcation between release notes and common issues. Ideally there should be a separate flag for requiring a common_issue note rather than a release_note. Adamw proposed the distinction between release notes and common issues is simple: release notes is for features, common issues is for bugs.

  • release notes is for things that are different in the new release *intentionally*, we changed them because we wanted to
  • common issues is for things that are basically broken - i.e. the changed or odd behavior is not what we want

Wwoods discussed several preupgrade issues that should be fixed for the final release, and asked for the best avenue to document these issues.

Adamw pointed to the useful Fedora 10 Common bugs - Adam offered to clean up the Fedora 11 Common bugs page and offer a "template" for use with later additions to the page. Adam also suggested keeping the Common Bugs page as a living document. The wiki should be updated as issues are fixed, with links to bodhi errata if applicable. While this may be difficult to enforce, handling the majority of Common Bugs this way should prove for a pleasant user experience.

Several in the meeting took action items to help flesh out content for the common bugs page. Plan to check in next meeting.

Open discussion

xorg-x11-drv-ati concerns

Fcami expressed concerns that while xorg-x11-drv-ati is good now, it's not optimal on some configurations. AMD dropped fglrx support for R400 and older, so we might see fedora does not work anymore for me threads from people who used to rely on fglrx to get their systems working (mostly the case for IGPs).

Adamw noted other distros that have already released have begun to see this.

Consensus was that nothing could be done immediately, but fcami asked if things could be made more clear for users to file bugs (i.e. dmesg with drm.debug=1 and Xorg.0.log logs). Adamw directed folks to BugsAndFeatureRequests.

Fcami planned to check in with the fedora docs team to see about adding this link to the release notes for future releases.

Upcoming QA events

Next Meeting

  • 2009-05-27 16:00 UTC

Action items

Carry over from previous week:

  1. [adamw] - BugStatusWorkFlow - ask bugzilla guys to add a link from the bugzilla fields description page to the wiki page, for fedora
  2. [jlaska] - Send informal test day feedback survey to fedora-test-list and test day participants
  3. [poelcat] - Check-in on F12 schedule updates
  4. [wwoods] - write a few more upgrade cases (encrypted root upgrade)

New items:

  1. [adamw] - clean up the Common_F11_bugs page to prime contributions from others
  2. [adamw] - ping fedora docs team for possible collaboration around common bug edits or translation
  3. [jlaska] - contribute installer issues to Common_F11_bugs
  4. [fcami+adamw] - contribute X and KMS issues to Common_F11_bugs
  5. [adamw] - contribute alsa/pulseaudio issues to Common_F11_bugs

IRC Transcript

jlaska | QA meeting gathering shortly ... May 20 11:58
--- | jlaska has changed the topic to: Fedora QA Meeting | starting May 20 12:00
jlaska | Show of hands ... who do we have around for todays QA meeting? May 20 12:01
adamw | yo May 20 12:02
* | wwoods shows hams May 20 12:02
jlaska | Hey gents May 20 12:02
jlaska | I invited fcami around for part of the meeting as well, but we'll get to that later May 20 12:03
* | fcami waves May 20 12:03
poelcat | hi May 20 12:03
jlaska | poelcat: greetings May 20 12:04
adamw | no vikings? May 20 12:04
jlaska | Viking-Ice: ping? May 20 12:04
jlaska | let's get started with last weeks list, hopefully Viking-Ice is able to join shortly May 20 12:05
* | Southern_Gentlem is here but not here May 20 12:05
jlaska | heh May 20 12:05
--- | jlaska has changed the topic to: Fedora QA Meeting | Previous meeting QA/Meetings/20090513#Previous_meeting_follow-up May 20 12:05
--- | jlaska has changed the topic to: Fedora QA Meeting | Previous meeting QA/Meetings/20090513#Action_items May 20 12:06
jlaska | okay .. better link May 20 12:06
jlaska | adamw: you had 2 items you wanted to track related to BugZapper activities May 20 12:06
jlaska | # [adamw] - to file a ticket to get bodhi fixed May 20 12:06
jlaska | # [adamw] - ask bugzilla guys to add a link from the bugzilla fields description page to the wiki page, for fedora May 20 12:06
jlaska | this is related to the Bugzilla workflow changes you've made May 20 12:07
adamw | 1 is done, 2 i keep forgetting to do :) May 20 12:07
* | lmacken will take care of #1 May 20 12:07
adamw | is the ticket for #1 May 20 12:07
jlaska | adamw: lmacken: thanks fellas May 20 12:08
jlaska | adamw: want me to keep #2 on the list for next week? May 20 12:08
adamw | sure May 20 12:08
jlaska | okay, any other updates/issues to note on the bugzilla workflow front? May 20 12:09
--- | knurd is now known as knurd_afk May 20 12:09
jlaska | (or riddles) May 20 12:09
lmacken | adamw, jlaska: #1 fixed in bodhi git May 20 12:10
jlaska | lmacken: careful, that was too fast ... I think we need more tickets for you :) May 20 12:10
jlaska | lmacken: thx! May 20 12:10
lmacken | :) May 20 12:10
adamw | yeah, clearly you don't have enough work ;) May 20 12:10
adamw | no more updates at present May 20 12:11
jlaska | okay ... next up .. May 20 12:11
jlaska | # [jlaska] - Send informal test day feedback survey to fedora-test-list and test day participants May 20 12:11
jlaska | I haven't yet sent the survey out ... but have a draft pulled together thanks to Chris Ward May 20 12:11
jlaska | I'll keep this on for next week, since I think it's about ready to send out ... May 20 12:12
jlaska | okay next up .... May 20 12:13
jlaska | # [poelcat] - Propose updated F12 schedule with blocker bug dates May 20 12:13
jlaska | poelcat: I didn't scrub enough details from the transcript on this one ... but I believe it was related to discussion around the timing of the blocker bug review meetings? May 20 12:13
* | poelcat needed a little more info as to exactly when those were desired May 20 12:13
jlaska | looking at the notes, f13 suggested moving the blocker bug review dates up a week for F12 May 20 12:14
jlaska | "blocker review should be one week prior to RC, so that we get a realistic blocker list and a week to focus efforts on them. " May 20 12:14
jlaska | not sure if that's enough to go on? May 20 12:14
poelcat | i'll add it in May 20 12:15
poelcat | then we can review in the context of everything else May 20 12:15
jlaska | okay ... yeah good point, I think a few schedule change suggestions have been tossed around May 20 12:15
* | f13 here May 20 12:16
jlaska | f13: greetings May 20 12:16
poelcat | jlaska: how about check back next week for a review of the f12 schedule? May 20 12:16
jlaska | ... May 20 12:17
jlaska | will do May 20 12:17
jlaska | okay last one ... May 20 12:17
jlaska | # [wwoods] - write a few more upgrade cases (encrypted root upgrade) May 20 12:18
jlaska | wwoods: I had this down from the previous meeting and carried if forward ... not sure if you had updates or wanted to keep this on the list May 20 12:18
wwoods | keep it on the list May 20 12:19
jlaska | okay, we'll check on that next week as well May 20 12:19
jlaska | almost like there's a release going on or something, strange May 20 12:19
--- | jlaska has changed the topic to: Fedora QA Meeting | autoqa update May 20 12:20
jlaska | wwoods: perhaps a similar situation ... any updates from your end on the autoqa front? May 20 12:20
wwoods | still on my list! May 20 12:22
wwoods | but no, I am engaged in constant blocker-chasing May 20 12:22
wwoods | so no updates on anything but that. May 20 12:23
jlaska | okay May 20 12:23
jlaska | next topic ... May 20 12:24
--- | jlaska has changed the topic to: Fedora QA Meeting | F-11 Preparation May 20 12:24
jlaska | hopefully folks have seen the news ( May 20 12:24
jlaska | f13 hosted a meeting yesterday to discuss the release status ... the outcome is a 1 week slip (noted in the mail above) May 20 12:25
jlaska | so our links haven't changed ... May 20 12:25
jlaska | * Blocker bugs (by component) - May 20 12:25
jlaska | * Schedule - May 20 12:25
jlaska | (thanks wwoods again for the easier [for me] to grok by-component blocker breakdown) May 20 12:26
jlaska | so I don't have any other discussion items around this point, but I did want use this a segway into the next topic May 20 12:26
jlaska | but before we change ... and questions/comments/concerns (or things I'm missing) around the F-11 schedule change and QA impact? May 20 12:27
adamw | that's odd May 20 12:27
jlaska | what's up? May 20 12:27
adamw | if you click on the link for the intel driver, it gives at least one bug which doesn't actually block f11blocker at all May 20 12:27
adamw | May 20 12:28
buggbot | Bug 490366: medium, low, ---, krh, ASSIGNED, DRI2/GLX on i855GM: glxgears not rendering properly when KMS is on May 20 12:28
jlaska | is it on one of the virt blockers? May 20 12:28
adamw | it only blocks f11target and f11kms, and neither of those blocks f11blocker May 20 12:28
jlaska | errg ... X blockers I mean May 20 12:28
wwoods | I think that's been dropped from the blocker list intentionally May 20 12:28
fcami | Xorg/radeon wise, if we end up having a major problem (which is not the case AFAICS), I don't think one week will change anything since airlied is away until the 31st. May 20 12:28
adamw | it seems to be showing everything that blocks f11kms as a blocker, which is not the case any more, f11kms does not block f11blocker May 20 12:29
f13 | most the remaining X issues are intel based and krh is taking charge on those May 20 12:29
jlaska | f13: indeed, I think they are all assigned to krh now May 20 12:29
jlaska | adamw: hrmm doesn't appear to May 20 12:30
jlaska | updating the report ... May 20 12:30
adamw | ah, i see, you have to put blockers-of-f11-blocker into the list manually May 20 12:31
jlaska | adamw: May 20 12:31
jlaska | adamw: yeah :( May 20 12:31
adamw | ok that's better May 20 12:31
jlaska | thanks ... updating notes May 20 12:31
jlaska | so fcami's comment brings us to the next topic .. May 20 12:32
--- | jlaska has changed the topic to: Fedora QA Meeting | F-11 Common Bugs May 20 12:32
adamw | lmacken: while you're around - might i suggest a quick comment in the code for bodhi, linking to the trac report, so if anyone feels the need to ping-pong it again in future, they will have a handy link to the rationale for the current situation? :) May 20 12:32
adamw | oops, sorry, meant to send that to another channel May 20 12:32
jlaska | adamw: no worries May 20 12:33
jlaska | so the schedule change gives QA a bit more time May 20 12:33
jlaska | we still have some outstanding storage scenarios that need testing (dmraid) ... and I'll ping the list and jgranado for help there May 20 12:34
jlaska | but I wanted to talk about spending the time to document the heck out of the known issues ... all the bugs that aren't fixed for F11 May 20 12:34
jlaska | My understanding is that we have the [F11 common bugs] page to fill this need May 20 12:35
jlaska | but it's quite bare and in need info around some of the more popular pain points for the release May 20 12:36
jlaska | 1. known rough installation scenarios May 20 12:36
jlaska | 2. Outstanding X and/or KMS issues May 20 12:36
jlaska | 3. Outstanding alsa/pulse issues May 20 12:36
jlaska | 4. <your important issue here> May 20 12:36
jlaska | May 20 12:36
adamw | jlaska and I talked about this a bit yesterday May 20 12:37
adamw | it's something i worked on quite a lot at mdv so i'm happy to try and co-ordinate developing the page for f11 May 20 12:38
jlaska | adamw: I've been setting fedora_requires_release_note? for a batch of bugs I see related to topic#1 May 20 12:38
wwoods | bug 489907 has a godawful workaround that we might need to document if we can't get a fix ASAP May 20 12:38
jlaska | but I figure you, fcami and possibly others might be in better shape to comment on #2? May 20 12:38
buggbot | Bug urgent, low, ---, krh, ASSIGNED, [KMS] Does not recover from DPMS standby with KMS enabled May 20 12:38
adamw | that raises an important point, actually: there needs to be a clear demarcation between release notes and common issues May 20 12:39
wwoods | but most of the FAQs I've been answering concern a couple bugs on upgrade that *should* be fixed for Final May 20 12:39
adamw | and ideally there should be a separate flag for requiring a common_issue note rather than a release_note May 20 12:39
wwoods | and I'm not sure where we want to document "if you upgraded before final, you might need to manually fix X, Y, Z" May 20 12:39
jlaska | adamw: I see, I may have been misusing that flag for now May 20 12:39
adamw | although it might work to dual-purpose...anyhow, yeah, the two need to be differentiated May 20 12:39
jlaska | May 20 12:40
adamw | wwoods: that's a tricky one...i'm not sure about that either May 20 12:40
jlaska | I don't see a draft release notes page yet ... I'm sure it's out there, I'm just not seeing it May 20 12:40
adamw | it is built out of the beats, i think drafts are either in a personal space or a non-wiki format May 20 12:40
adamw | but you can see the content just by reading the beat pages May 20 12:40
fcami | the problems I know of on Xorg/radeon that we can't provide fixes for are often fixed by going nomodeset+XAA, which should be documented somewhere May 20 12:41
adamw | in my mind, the distinction between release notes and common issues is simple: release notes is for features, common issues is for bugs :) May 20 12:41
adamw | fcami: yes, that's an ideal candidate for common issues May 20 12:41
jlaska | adamw: yeah I think that's a good distinction May 20 12:41
adamw | to expand - release notes is for things that are different in the new release *intentionally*, we changed them because we wanted to May 20 12:41
adamw | common issues is for things that are basically broken - i.e. the changed or odd behavior is not what we want May 20 12:42
jlaska | adamw: thanks, think I found that beat link (Docs/Beats) May 20 12:42
adamw | anything that would be a legitimate subject for a non-enhancement bug report comes under common issues, pretty much. May 20 12:42
jlaska | okay, that's sensible May 20 12:42
adamw | the f10 common bugs page is useful: May 20 12:43
jlaska | adamw: when we talked, you had mentioned using a standard format or template for adding issues? May 20 12:43
adamw | i'm getting to that right now :) May 20 12:43
jlaska | is this just a case for leading with a few good examples May 20 12:43
jlaska | gotcha ... take it away! :D May 20 12:43
adamw | it has a consistent style for each item, which is important, and it encourages a link to the report of the bug (usually in bugzilla) and documenting a workaround where it exists May 20 12:43
adamw | it has a template as a comment at the top of the page May 20 12:44
jlaska | yeah I like the <a name=""> links May 20 12:44
adamw | so i'd want to follow something similar for the f11 page May 20 12:44
adamw | it doesn't at present, so we should just copy it over and adjust existing entries to that format May 20 12:44
adamw | one thing i used to do at mdv that i'd like to add for f11 is also have information on the status of fixes for each issue May 20 12:45
jlaska | there aren't a lot of additions to the F11 page now, that shouldn't be too troublesome to scrub it first? May 20 12:45
adamw | no, should be pretty easy May 20 12:45
jlaska | adamw: re: status of fixes, how do you mean? May 20 12:45
adamw | for mdv if an issue listed on the page currently had a candidate update available (in fedora, updates-testing) it would be noted on the page May 20 12:45
adamw | and if a final official update was issued to fix an issue on the page, it would be moved to a 'resolved issues' section of the page, with a note of (and link to) the update that fixed it May 20 12:46
jlaska | ah I see May 20 12:46
adamw | that way you don't wind up with a page that lists fixed issues as if they were still problems, but you still have them documented for reference, external links work etc May 20 12:46
jlaska | I'd love seeing something like that, but would be worried about how to manage keeping it up to date May 20 12:47
fcami | I think that could be done by triagers May 20 12:47
adamw | yeah, it requires a bit of commitment. it doesn't have to be perfect, though, having it half done is still better than not done. May 20 12:47
jlaska | true true May 20 12:47
fcami | for packages that we follow specifically, we tend to know when stuff is fixed May 20 12:47
adamw | it also helps if bug reports have a link back to the 'common issues' entry for the bug, so you know there *is* one when you're looking at the bug May 20 12:47
adamw | i'm happy to take an action item to tidy up the f11 common issues page, using the stuff from the f10 page with some tweaks, and having guidelines as comments at the top of the page May 20 12:48
jlaska | so I was hoping we could identify some owners for different areas today ... but I'm open to other suggestions for kicking things off May 20 12:48
jlaska | adamw: no objections here, it sounds like you have the clearest idea of what it should look like for others to contribute to May 20 12:49
adamw | sure, owners sounds good May 20 12:49
adamw | any volunteers? =) May 20 12:49
adamw | fcami: would you like to own/co-own X issues? May 20 12:49
jlaska | I'll be happy to get started on installer stuff May 20 12:50
fcami | yes, please, I've already started the radeon known issues and workaround thing as we speak May 20 12:50
adamw | great May 20 12:50
jlaska | fcami: sweet thank you! May 20 12:50
adamw | btw, it's best to have a separate entry for each problem even if the workaround is the same, as people tend to google for or discuss *issues*, not *solutions* May 20 12:50
fcami | you're welcome, that probably means less bugs to triage and swim through post GA for mcepl airlied and I anyway :) May 20 12:50
adamw | so if there's three problems which are all worked around by disabling modesetting, they should be listed as three separate entries on the page May 20 12:51
adamw | yeah, a well maintained common issues page ultimately saves people time overall, in quite a lot of ways May 20 12:51
jlaska | yeah I'm hoping we can follow the same practice we used for the Beta ... that is follow up with testers on forum+list+irc with links to the Common bugs page May 20 12:51
fcami | cool, that's how I started the thing, out of sheer luck. May 20 12:51
adamw | great :) May 20 12:51
adamw | as far as what issues to list go - my rough rule of thumb was always "anything two or more people complain about" May 20 12:52
adamw | but obviously, use your judgment May 20 12:52
adamw | you don't want to list *every* problem you come across, as then it just becomes an unwieldy duplicate of bugzilla May 20 12:52
jlaska | what if those 2 people are friends or family, does that still count ;) May 20 12:52
adamw | basically, just think "once i've written this note, am I likely ever to point anyone else to it?" May 20 12:52
adamw | if the answer's yes, go ahead :) May 20 12:52
adamw | and if you ever have to explain the same issue twice to two different people, write a common issue note :) May 20 12:53
adamw | i'll also reach out to the documentation team on this to see if they have any issues / suggestions etc May 20 12:54
adamw | maybe they could help us translate May 20 12:54
jlaska | adamw: is it too much to ask for some input on the pulse/alsa front ... since I suspect you're in the loop there May 20 12:54
fcami | stuff asked in #fedora counts as well, I suppose May 20 12:54
jlaska | fcami: definitely May 20 12:54
fcami | I think it's the time I need to be there until one month after GA May 20 12:54
adamw | sure, i can do pulse / audio stuff May 20 12:55
fcami | jlaska: not sure if the pun was intended, but input + pulse/alsa was funny. :) May 20 12:55
jlaska | fcami: heh, unintended :) May 20 12:55
adamw | and yeah, people asking in irc, mailing lists, forums, any of that May 20 12:55
jlaska | wwoods: are there preupgrade issues that would make sense for the common bugs page? May 20 12:56
jlaska | all: any other focus areas that need some common_bugs loving? May 20 12:57
wwoods | jlaska: er.. release notes, perhaps May 20 12:57
adamw | i don't think we need to be too rigorous about splitting it into areas &c &c May 20 12:58
jlaska | yeah, I'm just trying to think about the areas I've seen the most buzz about May 20 12:58
jlaska | either in person, irc or on list May 20 12:58
wwoods | well, if we're not dividing things up that way, yeah May 20 12:58
adamw | we just need to reach out to people who do support stuff, i'll talk to people from the forums and irc May 20 12:58
wwoods | we no longer allow preupgrade on systems with /boot on RAID May 20 12:58
adamw | that would be a release note, yep, as it's an intentional change May 20 12:58
adamw | the problem with release notes is they've been frozen for translations for a while :\ i think you can add stuff late, but it just goes to the wiki version, not anywhere else May 20 12:59
* | jlaska envisions release_note/common_bug bingo May 20 12:59
adamw | you'd have to check with the docs guys about that May 20 12:59
adamw | it's not really that hard to pick, and it's not the end of the world if an issue winds up in the wrong place May 20 13:00
jlaska | right May 20 13:00
jlaska | it's at least documented at that point May 20 13:00
jlaska | okay, I think that about covers it for the common bugs topic ... any other thoughts? May 20 13:00
wwoods | the two things that affect people upgrading to recent (but not current) rawhide: May 20 13:01
wwoods | 1) SELinux bugs causing problems, fixed by relabeling (bug 500608) May 20 13:02
buggbot | Bug medium, low, ---, dwalsh, ASSIGNED, need restorecon after preupgrade anaconda finishes May 20 13:02
wwoods | 2) plymouth plugins/themes not being updated properly (think that's bug 499940) May 20 13:02
buggbot | Bug medium, low, ---, rstrode, CLOSED RAWHIDE, plymouth upgrades from F-10 doesn't work right. May 20 13:02
adamw | frankly, i'd say issues that only affect upgrading to not-final releases don't get documented in the release / known issue notes for the official release anywhere May 20 13:02
wwoods | oh, I know May 20 13:03
wwoods | maybe rawhidewatch is a good place for those May 20 13:03
adamw | i'm not sure if it's worth giving them their own page, or just swatting them as they come up... May 20 13:03
adamw | good point, rawhidewatch would be a good place May 20 13:03
jlaska | okay ... so I've got a few actions out of this one ... lemme confirm May 20 13:04
jlaska | adamw: you were going to cleanup/prep the common bug page, and reach out to docs team for possible translation help May 20 13:04
jlaska | fcami: adamw: I've got you both down for divide and conquer on X/KMS issues? May 20 13:05
adamw | yep May 20 13:05
jlaska | jlaska: will take a stab at installation issues (using results matrix and wiki) May 20 13:05
fcami | yes :) May 20 13:05
jlaska | adamw: I've got you down again for pulse/alsa May 20 13:05
jlaska | what'd I miss? May 20 13:05
adamw | alrighty! May 20 13:05
jlaska | okay ... it's time for ... <bells sound> May 20 13:06
wwoods | additional upgrade test cases May 20 13:06
wwoods | (and testing) May 20 13:06
jlaska | wwoods: thx, I've got that listed. I meant wrt to the common bugs stuff May 20 13:06
jlaska | anyone just shout if there are any other focus areas we want to check in on next week for the common bugs May 20 13:06
--- | jlaska has changed the topic to: Fedora QA Meeting | Open discussion May 20 13:06
jlaska | okay, turning things over for open mic night May 20 13:07
wwoods | ah, sorry May 20 13:07
jlaska | wwoods: no worries ... I've got those down too May 20 13:07
<-- | mcepl [] has left #fedora-meeting ( ) May 20 13:08
jlaska | any jokes, concerns, popular mailing list threads folks want to address here? May 20 13:08
adamw | should we have a qa group flag? :) May 20 13:08
jlaska | adamw: is this for bugzilla/ May 20 13:09
jlaska | ? May 20 13:09
adamw | haha, no, it's a combination of joke and popular mailing list thread :) May 20 13:09
adamw | (see the latest devel-list brouhaha) May 20 13:09
jlaska | sorry, it's a good thing I'm behind on devel-list then :) May 20 13:09
fcami | the only concern I have is that xorg-x11-drv-ati is very good now but not optimal for most folks, while amd dropped fglrx support for R400 and older, so we might see "fedora does not work anymore for me" threads from people who used to rely on fglrx to get their systems working May 20 13:09
fcami | this will be the cases mostly for IGPs May 20 13:10
adamw | yeah, that's hit the other distros who've released so far May 20 13:10
adamw | i really don't see anything we can do about it May 20 13:10
adamw | policy-wise, is it something we can address in the release notes? May 20 13:10
fcami | nothing, except get fixes early, which we are doing. AMD is very helpful, brigdman and agd5f look at problems we (airlied) can't fix directly. May 20 13:10
fcami | and I don't think shooting accross AMD's bow is something we should do since they help transitioning to the free driver May 20 13:11
adamw | sure, i wasn't proposing to take pot shots at them :) May 20 13:11
fcami | however, I think we might need to provide a way for users to file full bugs in bugzilla May 20 13:11
--- | oget_zzz is now known as oget May 20 13:11
fcami | i.e. dmesg with drm.debug=1 and Xorg.0.log logs May 20 13:12
fcami | I don't know where we could put this in the release notes. May 20 13:12
adamw | it's not release / issue note material in itself May 20 13:12
fcami | bugs without those are useless in most cases. May 20 13:12
adamw | there is an existing page which lists the required info for various types of bug report May 20 13:12
adamw | what you can do is add it there May 20 13:12
jlaska | adamw: is the on freedesktop or on ? May 20 13:13
adamw | May 20 13:13
adamw | trying to remember where May 20 13:13
adamw | BugsAndFeatureRequests May 20 13:13
* | jlaska has always wanted a more organized "How to debug ..." / "How to file a bug against <foo>" series of pages May 20 13:13
adamw | BugsAndFeatureRequests is it, it could be cleaned up a bit in various respects but mostly it's good May 20 13:14
fcami | would linking to that in the release notes (at the end of, probably) be something sensible to do ? May 20 13:14
jlaska | not a bad idea May 20 13:14
adamw | linking to it from appropriate places in release notes-type pages is good yeah May 20 13:14
fcami | ok, who handles that ? May 20 13:14
adamw | for e.g. i'm going to write a common issue note on the alsa volume issue for pulseaudio, and it'll link to how to file a good report on the issue May 20 13:14
adamw | who handles release notes? docs team May 20 13:15
adamw | #fedora-docs May 20 13:15
adamw | but as i said, unfortunately they've been frozen for a while :| release notes freezes early as they have a *lot* of translations to do May 20 13:15
jlaska | adamw: yeah that B&FR page is much improved May 20 13:16
poelcat | adamw: might be a big help to give the full bugzilla url which includes the right fedora version and component May 20 13:17
adamw | poelcat: sorry, where exactly? May 20 13:17
jlaska | poelcat: so people don't have to navigate through the bugzilla web "wizard"? May 20 13:17
* | poelcat thinks it is like pushing someone over a cliff to say here file it at May 20 13:17
fcami | you forgot "with the ankle weights attached" May 20 13:18
adamw | oh, yeah, when you know what release / component they should be filing on, always a good idea to include a link that has that info pre-filled, as a general rule. not sure exactly where you mean in this context, though. May 20 13:18
jlaska | 4000 data entry fields ... how's that confusing? May 20 13:18
wwoods | life would be pretty great if the apps themselves had a "report a problem" menu item that automatically gathered the needed info. May 20 13:19
poelcat | adamw: oh i took "how to file a good bug report" to also mean where to file it May 20 13:19
wwoods | I shoulda wrote that up as a GSoC project. May 20 13:19
adamw | poelcat: well, the "bugs and feature requests" page can't link to you reporting for a particular release, as it's a general page which covers all releases May 20 13:20
adamw | but it could have links for some components it lists, i guess May 20 13:20
poelcat | adamw: okay, maybe my suggestion doesn't fit :) May 20 13:20
adamw | most issues listed on the 'common issues' page (since that's the topic we're discussing) shouldn't lead to the filing of new bug reports, since they should be documenting bug reports that already exist :) May 20 13:21
jlaska | any other items folks want to discuss today? May 20 13:22
* | jlaska starts the countdown May 20 13:22
fcami | hmmm May 20 13:22
fcami | I think we may need to ask people to hold onto F10 if they need fglrx May 20 13:23
fcami | (in response to <adamw> policy-wise, is it something we can address in the release notes? ) May 20 13:23
nirik | fcami: and not upgrade to 2.6.29.x either. May 20 13:23
fcami | that, too May 20 13:23
fcami | however, this seems like providing "easy" solution for the use of a kernel and Xorg proprietary driver May 20 13:23
fcami | not sure if we want to do that. May 20 13:23
adamw | fcami: ok, i'd suggest you ask the doc team if it's an issue that it's appropriate to address in the release notes, see what they think May 20 13:23
fcami | will do. May 20 13:24
fcami | jlaska: I'm done, thank you. :) May 20 13:24
jlaska | fcami: no worries, all good issues! :) May 20 13:25
jlaska | okay folks, thanks for your time ... see you all same time next week (16:00 UTC) May 20 13:25
--- | jlaska has changed the topic to: Channel is used by various Fedora groups and committees for their regular meetings | Note that meetings often get logged | For questions about using Fedora please ask in #fedora | See for meeting schedule May 20 13:25
jlaska | I'll have meeting notes out to the list shortly May 20 13:27

Generated by 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!