From Fedora Project Wiki

< QA‎ | Meetings


  • adamw (107)
  • j_dulaney (37)
  • tflink (32)
  • nirik (29)
  • kparal (25)
  • red_alert (16)
  • mjg59 (8)
  • brunowolff (6)
  • Cerlyn (5)
  • zodbot (4)
  • kk4ewt (3)
  • jskladan (2)
  • t8m (2)
  • mmaslano (1)
  • pschindl (1)


Fedora 16 release planning

  • Final had been signed off the previous week
  • livecd-tools updates needed testing for F14, F15 and F16
  • F14 preupgrade still needed a fix for bug #737731
  • Common bugs page needed updating for final

Proven tester process

  • FESCo had come up with a tentative plan to abandon the proven tester concept
  • Group was not strongly opposed but had some concerns:
    • a small number of updates where proven tester status made a difference is not the same as zero updates
    • if negative karma was handled better, there may have been more cases where pt status might have made a difference
    • presence of better test plans for critpath packages may also make a difference
  • However, group agreed that the reason for the proposal - updates getting stuck without necessary karma - was valid and should be addressed
  • Agreed that those with an opinion on the issue should contribute it to the devel list thread

Fedora 17 pre-planning: anaconda GUI rewrite

  • Anaconda team has a complete rewrite of the GUI pending and tentatively planned to land in F17
  • adamw will try to co-ordinate with anaconda team to ensure testing can be done as early and often as possible
  • tflink proposed two ideas to ensure test images would always be available
    • try to keep a stable tree of the non-anaconda-related packages available so issues in the general rawhide package set would not affect install testing
    • write some kind of installer image generation tool to make it very easy to spin new installer images with updated anaconda code
  • tflink also proposed coming up with a system of web access to some VMs made available for dedicated F17 install testing
  • Software acceleration support for GNOME Shell, btrfs migration, and /usr move identified as more areas in need of testing if they actually land in F17

Action Items

  • adamw to co-ordinate with anaconda team on f17 re-write test planning
  • tflink to evaluate his remote-VM idea some more and report back on how much work it'll be to implement, and available resources


adamw #startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting 16:01
zodbot Meeting started Mon Nov 7 16:01:25 2011 UTC. The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at 16:01
zodbot Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:01
adamw #meetingname fedora-qa 16:01
zodbot The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa' 16:01
* jskladan tips his hat 16:01
adamw #chair j_dulaney 16:01
zodbot Current chairs: adamw j_dulaney 16:01
adamw morning folks, who's around? 16:01
adamw #topic roll call 16:02
* tflink is present 16:02
* Cerlyn is here 16:02
* brunowolff is 16:02
* pschindl is here 16:02
* kparal is not here 16:02
* j_dulaney is here 16:02
jskladan kparal: still away? :) 16:02
* kparal is partying with hot chicks in Carribean 16:02
kparal or whatever is the spelling 16:02
j_dulaney It would seem that brunowolff just _is_ 16:02
adamw bruno, indisputably, is. 16:03
tflink kparal: and you're still on IRC? /me wonders about you 16:03
kparal oh yes, fedora qa meetings are my weakness 16:03
* j_dulaney wondered about kparal already 16:03
* adamw feels bad for the hot chicks 16:04
adamw #topic Fedora 16 release planning 16:05
* kparal converting all hot chicks to using Fedora 16:05
adamw alright, this is just a kinda general f16 topic 16:05
adamw make sure we tie up any loose ends 16:05
adamw thanks again to everyone for their great work on validation, of course 16:05
adamw we do have the livecd-tools updates to get out for f14, f15 and f16: 16:06
adamw i also need to get with hughsie about fixing f14's preupgrade 16:06
adamw and we have common bugs to do 16:07
adamw can anyone think of anything else? 16:07
* j_dulaney will test the livecd-tools for F15 16:07
tflink commonbugs? 16:07
kparal already mentioned 16:08
tflink huh, I missed it 16:08
tflink oh well 16:08
adamw you're fired! 16:08
kparal :D 16:09
adamw man, you're starting early this week 16:09
brunowolff I was on the phone at work. 16:09
tflink adamw: I see the weekly firings are going to continue past F16 going gold 16:09
Cerlyn But with all the layoffs, who is going to test Fedora? 16:09
adamw weekly? you're _lucky_ if it's only weekly. 16:10
adamw Cerlyn: you are! 16:10
kparal adamw, of course 16:10
kparal no sleep at all 16:10
adamw hehe 16:10
tflink adamw: well, there was a 2 week span where I didn't get fired 16:10
j_dulaney adamw: I'm sure I can get rbergeron or jsmith to have you fired 16:10
adamw man, i must've been slacking 16:10
adamw anyhoo 16:10
adamw the commonbugs list is pretty long: 16:11
adamw so if people can pitch in and help clear it that'd be great 16:11
adamw other than that i guess we're good on this topic, yay - finally f16 is more or less behind us 16:11
adamw oh, missed one thing - the retrospective 16:12
adamw the retrospective is at : just as a reminder, it's where you can put thoughts about the f16 cycle, stuff that went well and stuff that didn't go so well, ideas for how to do things better next time 16:12
adamw some time soon i'll go through and pull out action items from it and turn them into trac tickets, and summarize it for the list 16:13
adamw so if you have any thoughts about how to make life less stressful next time, add them on there! 16:13
adamw alrighty, moving on... 16:14
adamw #topic proven tester process 16:14
adamw so this one is interesting. at their meeting last week, fesco more or less decided they want to abandon the proven testers process 16:15
adamw you can see the meeting log at 16:15
adamw mjg notified devel list, too: 16:16
adamw they did not actually directly notify QA in any way, but never mind. 16:16
* nirik would like to interject. ;) 16:16
adamw interject away! 16:16
nirik we didn't decide anything. ;) 16:16
red_alert that first link goes to a QA meeting log, not to fesco :) 16:16
adamw sigh, my link skills suck 16:17
adamw one more try 16:17
nirik we wanted to wait a week for feedback from all groups... including qa. ;) 16:17
adamw 16:17
nirik The thought was that proventesters were not that helpfull, and we should continue critpath and all just with no proventesters... s/proventester/logged in karma submitter/ 16:17
adamw nirik: ah, okay. of course, it helps to get feedback from qa if you actually tell qa. =) 16:17
kparal it means proventester group would be cancelled with no replacement, do I read that correctly? 16:17
nirik sorry... we've all been busy. ;( 16:18
nirik kparal: well, replaced by 'anyone with a fas account' I guess... 16:18
kparal that means no replacement, same process as for all the other packages 16:18
adamw kparal: as nirik says, we'd essentially keep the current process except proventesters wouldn't exist and we'd just accept karma from any logged-in user as if it were pt karma as far as the current scoring goes 16:18
adamw kparal: critpath would still need higher total karma to be approved - 2 vs 1 16:19
kparal do we accept karma from anonymous users for non-critpath? 16:19
kparal I mean no FAS 16:19
nirik The thought was that proventesters haven't really made that much difference, so it seems like overhead to have to manage it and try and get people to become them. 16:19
nirik kparal: nope. anon still doesn't count. 16:19
kparal ok 16:19
adamw kparal: no, we don't use the numeric karma from anon users for any package (critpath or non-critpath) 16:19
Cerlyn Is there any proof one way or another that proventesters actually test things in a proven way that justifies trying to train people? 16:20
adamw nirik: my only worry is as posted to the list: two looks like a very small number but it is not zero, and this is a game where the difference between two and zero could be a substantial one 16:20
nirik so, I don't think this is something we need to do instantly... if everyone would like more time to look at stats and mull it over thats cool with me. ;) 16:20
red_alert proventesters are not specially trained :) 16:20
j_dulaney Cerlyn: I try to do so 16:20
kparal Cerlyn: they confirmed they read the guidelines. which might be more than ordinary testers 16:20
nirik Cerlyn: the devel list post from mjg59 had some stats... 16:20
kparal #link 16:21
adamw there's also a (rather informal) process whereby people who submit updates and get dumb feedback from proventesters can come and complain to us about it, and the pt gets educated. that's happened a few times. 16:21
nirik true. 16:22
adamw nirik: i also think there have been cases where we _could have used_ proventester karma to prevent some updates going out 16:22
nirik although we could also educate 'normal' testers. ;) 16:22
adamw but didn't, because negative karma is currently handled poorly 16:22
nirik yeah, could be... 16:22
j_dulaney adamw: negatice karma could certainly be improved 16:23
j_dulaney Even if we keep proventestor 16:23
j_dulaney +s 16:23
adamw nirik: there've been a couple of cases where updates have gone out in cases like '+1 proventester, +1 regular user, +1 regular user, -1 proventester, SUBMITTED TO STABLE!, -1 proven tester, -1 proven tester, -1 regular user, PUSHED TO STABLE!' 16:23
adamw j_dulaney: yeah, to a degree they're separate issues, but if we had better handling of negative karma it may have changed the pt stats. 16:24
red_alert crit path packages actually should have a thorough test guide which proventesters can follow - right now they are just normal testers that *try* to take things a bit more serious but often lack the detail knowledge nethertheless 16:24
adamw there was a proposal, for e.g., to disallow any update with negative karma from a proven tester from going through 16:24
adamw red_alert: yeah, we've been working on the test guide side of things for a while, but it's one of the victims of limited resources 16:24
j_dulaney adamw: That would be a good way to handle things 16:25
adamw going back to negative karma - and there's also the possibility of blocking any update which is submitted after passing the criteria but, before being pushed, drops to failing the criteria 16:25
j_dulaney Indeed 16:25
adamw so i think it might be worth considering ways of improving the handling of negative karma before deciding to dump the pt concept. especially since it's something that would be hard to get back 16:25
adamw if we ever cancel it we need to be damn sure it's okay to cancel it, because if we cancel proventesters then six months later put it back in, people might feel like they were being jerked around. 16:26
nirik yeah, not sure how much can be done in the current 1.x bodhi framework, but perhaps. 16:26
tflink I think that we're missing part of the why this was proposed, though 16:26
red_alert the process as its done right now doesn't work (i.e. is no improvement to not having pts) but having pts with a better process would surely add to the overall quality 16:26
nirik sure, I don't think we want to be hasty... 16:26
tflink ie maintainers getting frustrated with their packages stuck in testing due to lack of proventester action 16:27
nirik even though proventesters is trival to join, it's a hoop... so many people just don't bother. 16:27
adamw tflink: yeah, it's important to consider that 16:27
Cerlyn tflink: I think its more a lack of karma for packages in general, although I haven't seen the stats 16:27
nirik well, it's mostly the critpath ones... 16:28
adamw Cerlyn: nah, the proposals to 'revise' the proventester process always come from people who are frustrated that their updates take a long time to clear it 16:28
nirik because non critpath maintainers can push after a while. 16:28
j_dulaney tflink: I know that during the latter half of the release process, I tend to focus more on the new release and less on testing updates 16:28
tflink so if we object to getting rid of the proventester process, do we have any solutions to the root of their complaints? 16:29
j_dulaney For instance, right now I don't have a box with F15 16:29
j_dulaney Although I'll be reinstalling it here shortly on my test box 16:29
tflink I'm guessing here, but I assume that there wouldn't be so much of a push if the delays weren't there 16:29
adamw tflink: fair point 16:29
nirik well, to some extent, the 'allowing to push after 2 weeks with no - karma' would help 16:29
adamw fesco was considering that for a while, and our position was basically 'we'll get back to you after f16', aside from the pt meetings nirik's been running 16:30
j_dulaney Which I haven't been able to make due to class at that time 16:30
nirik (which haven't really been all that well attended. ;) We did get a few things moving, but not much... 16:30
brunowolff We could still keep the proven tester group for a while even if we relax the karma requirements. 16:30
tflink nirik: the timing wasn't the greatest with the crazy that F16 release brought 16:31
nirik true. 16:31
nirik brunowolff: yep. 16:31
adamw so i guess we don't have an entirely concrete response to the proposal - we have concerns but recognize the reasons people don't like the process 16:32
brunowolff Maybe down the road we will count proven tester votes more strongly, but still enough enough normal karma to OK an update. 16:32
adamw oh, one other thought on the stats 16:32
nirik perhaps everyone could air their concerns on the devel list thread... 16:32
nirik and we can see where we end up next week? 16:33
adamw i assume the stats made the assumption that the proventester feedback on any update would still have been present but treated it no different from regular feedback 16:33
adamw so, that's not necessarily a safe assumption: proventesters may feel a stronger 'responsibility to test', and if you cancel the process, they might stop doing so 16:33
nirik yeah, although you would have to ask mjg59 for sure. 16:33
adamw but that's hard to gauge. 16:33
adamw nirik: sounds good 16:33
nirik yeah, very hard to quantify 16:33
j_dulaney I know that until about Beta of a release, I make it part of my daily ritual to pull from updates testing and put everything through its paces 16:35
j_dulaney I know not how many others do that. 16:35
adamw i think there were some stats on total pt feedback from luke recently too 16:35
* j_dulaney does not have everything that is in critpath installed, however 16:35
red_alert I would propose to have a QA/proventester meeting during FUDCon Blacksburg and try to come up with a beter pt-process there 16:35
adamw it would certainly be a nice thing to do at a fudcon if enough interested parties were there, for sure 16:35
j_dulaney red_alert: Not a bad idea 16:35
adamw if people would wait that long 16:35
nirik yeah, it's a while from now... but possibly 16:36
red_alert getting rid of the pt-process doesn't sound very time-sensitive, though 16:36
mjg59 It's not. But satisfying the concerns of maintainers is important. 16:36
mjg59 The risk isn't so much individual packages. If people feel that the critpath process is unreasonable then the risk is that there's a backlash against the entire testing process. 16:37
red_alert maybe deactivate the process in the meantime, then? 16:37
adamw mjg59: as noted, the two week delay might sate the baying hordes for now =) 16:37
Cerlyn Is there a need for this to be voted upon at the fesco meeting following this one? 16:37
adamw mjg59: er, the two-week timeout thing for critpath 16:37
mjg59 adamw: The two week delay is an admission of absolute failure 16:37
mjg59 The process needs to work without that 16:38
adamw i didn't say otherwise, i said it might avoid a major backlash, which is a different question. 16:38
red_alert add the two week delay admission until we had the chance to fix the process, then? because right now it seems to be total failure until fixed :) 16:38
adamw i don't really want to re-open the whole debate about whether it's a good thing in this meeting, we have other topics to 16:38
mjg59 Looking through the stats there are actually more cases of proventesters inappropriately blocking a package than there are of the pt process preventing bugs getting through 16:39
mjg59 Which isn't to slight any of the individual proventesters involved 16:39
mjg59 It just means it's questionable as to whether the requirement makes an overall positive difference to the quality of our updates 16:40
tflink mjg59: by inappropriately block, do you mean by not providing karma or providing negative karma where it wasn't warranted? 16:40
adamw yes, we already covered that at the start of the topic, 20 minutes ago 16:40
adamw are we going to get anywhere new, here, or should we move on? 16:40
mjg59 tflink: Providing negative karma due to either an unrelated issue or a misunderstanding of the package 16:40
j_dulaney adamw: I reckon moving on might be a good thing 16:41
adamw moving along then - we clearly haven't reached a complete conclusion on this topic yet, and we're not going to do it in the next five minutes 16:42
adamw as nirik suggested, please everyone with concerns, post your thoughts to the devel list thread, and fesco will consider them 16:42
adamw #agreed group has various perspectives on the proven tester issue, we will respond to the devel list thread and follow developments with fesco 16:42
adamw #topic fedora 17 pre-planning: anaconda GUI rewrite 16:43
adamw so, you know what the end of the f16 cycle means - time to start worrying about f17! 16:43
tflink yay! 16:43
* kparal expected some pause 16:43
kparal trip to hawaii, etc 16:43
kparal nevermind 16:43
adamw kparal: i thought you were there already? 16:44
red_alert finally! I've been waiting for the f17 cycle ever since the last readiness meeting's end ;D 16:44
kparal for the rest of you 16:44
adamw for anyone who doesn't know, one of the major features planned for fedora 17 is a complete re-design of the anaconda GUI - not just a cosmetic change to how it looks, but the actual workflow is to be completely changed 16:44
adamw red_alert: :) 16:45
kparal adamw: how realistic is that is will be done in f17? 16:45
kk4ewt adamw, *crossing fingers* 16:45
kparal it seems like a really big task 16:45
red_alert kparal: depends on the number of slips we accept? ;) 16:45
adamw kparal: very, they're already coding it. 16:45
adamw red_alert: correct answer ;) 16:45
kparal ok 16:45
j_dulaney My wondering is how soon we can start testing 16:46
adamw so, obviously we want to try and avoid f16-style crazy stress scenarios here, as far as possible 16:46
* j_dulaney is thinking that as soon as it starts hitting Rawhide nightlies, testing will begin for him 16:46
adamw i've thought for a while we should work directly with the anaconda team to get involved through the whole process and get testing done as early and often as possible 16:46
tflink +1 16:47
adamw i'm happy to work on that, or if anyone else would like to, feel free :) 16:47
* tflink wonders if it would be better to start with one point of contact 16:47
adamw yeah, i did say 'or' 16:48
tflink I can't imagine that it'll help if multiple people start asking them about their testing plans 16:48
red_alert don't we just need to know which specific nightlies they consider worth of testing and then report bugs, that's it? :) 16:48
tflink adamw: true, just thought that I would mention it. 16:48
tflink red_alert: maybe, depends on how we want to proceed and what the anaconda team already has planned 16:49
red_alert maybe create a special tracker bug for it, too...or go with F17Blocker already 16:49
brunowolff When I can try installing with only 512 MB of memory, I'll be looking at that. 16:49
j_dulaney Like I said, as soon as their stuff starts hitting nightlies, test it 16:49
* kparal notes we have some bugs already that can be assigned to F17Blocker. creating it now would help 16:49
adamw red_alert: it helps to know when they're planning to land changes, what's expected to work, and probably give them input into use cases they may not have considered, on the basis of the test matrix 16:50
adamw kparal: i thought i already had, but someone mentioned earlier that they weren't there, i'll do it in a bit 16:50
tflink and make sure that we're covering all the changes 16:50
tflink our current test matrix doesn't explicitly cover all the gui stuff 16:50
adamw kparal: though anyone caan do it, again - process is documented at 16:50
j_dulaney adamw: I'll be having a bunch of free time starting in a month, so I can do the connecting 16:51
adamw starting in a month is a month too late ;) 16:51
* j_dulaney can start now 16:51
j_dulaney The only real blocker of my time will be finals the first week of December 16:51
adamw i think it might be best to have someone who's definitely going to have lots of time for it, which is why i was gonna volunteer 16:52
j_dulaney True 16:53
* nirik looks for more things for adamw to do since he has lots of time. ;) 16:53
adamw nirik: i don't now ;) 16:53
nirik too late. rats. ;) 16:53
adamw #action adamw to co-ordinate with anaconda team on f17 re-write test planning 16:54
j_dulaney Especially since he's firing everyone 16:54
adamw missed your spot! 16:54
adamw j_dulaney: oh right, i didn't fire nirik yet! 16:54
red_alert I 16:54
adamw so, tflink already had a few ideas that might help with testing - want to re-air them here tflink? 16:54
red_alert I'll monitor adamw's sleeping hours and tell nirik when I spot that he's got time available...i.e. as soon as he sleeps over 4h/night ;) 16:55
tflink adamw: I can or we can wait to see what the anaconda team has planned 16:55
red_alert adamw: ah, please make sure to get their thoughts on having some anaconda/QA hackfest during fudcon...might be important for my sponsorship request ;) 16:56
tflink the first was to make sure that we always have install isos available for testing 16:56
adamw red_alert: ooh, yup. 16:56
j_dulaney tflink: Pull in rel-eng for that? 16:57
tflink which has two parts, keeping a somewhat up-to-date rawhide tree that is stable so that we can test anaconda without worrying about the rest of rawhide 16:57
tflink and the second, which is making it easier to build test isos with custom package sets for testing 16:58
kk4ewt adamw, so you want hackfest space a Fudcon What days 16:58
* j_dulaney wonders if we could just test new Anaconda with F16 sicne we know that's stable? 16:59
tflink j_dulaney: that might be another option 16:59
adamw kk4ewt: we'll deal with that later 16:59
kk4ewt :) 17:00
red_alert using the new anaconda with F16 will make upgrade testing rather invalid, though 17:00
j_dulaney tflink: Scientific method 17:00
j_dulaney Change only one variable 17:00
tflink the other different idea is going to be more of a question - would the availability of hardware/VMs affect the amount of testing done on new anaconda? 17:00
j_dulaney And this is a huge variable to change 17:00
tflink yeah, agreed on that one. upgrade testing could be separate 17:01
tflink but I'm not sure about all the implications of trying to test F17 anaconda w/ F16 17:01
adamw tflink: might elaborate on your second idea a bit. only quickly. =) 17:01
j_dulaney tflink: if I can get my hands on a larger hardrive for the new laptop, I'll have hardware to test on (and do VM testing, too 17:01
tflink my idea was to offer test VMs to people who want to test. Testers would be able to access the GUI installer through a VNC-ish interface 17:02
adamw question is, do we have anyone who's dying to help test but has no access to test hardware or a VM? 17:03
adamw or is that...not the case? 17:03
* j_dulaney does not really have hardware right now 17:03
kparal I believe that use case may be pretty valid 17:03
tflink adamw: a better way to put it would be: would access to more VMs increase the amount of testing that people would do? 17:04
j_dulaney I've got a laptop capable of it, but I don't have a HD and can't afford one 17:04
t8m We are supposed to have FESCo meeting here. Will the Fedora QA meeting end soon? 17:04
mmaslano adamw: could you end your meeting please? 17:04
adamw mmaslano: yeah, sorry, been trying :( 17:04
adamw let's end this and move over to #fedora-meeting-1 to conclude 17:05
tflink k 17:05
adamw why does this happen, btw? didn't we used to have 2 hours between the meetings? 17:05
brunowolff As sort of a joint issue, is FESCO going to comment on their election guidelines since j_dulaney is a nominee who doesn't meet the letter of the policy? 17:05
j_dulaney So I should stick around? 17:05
adamw #agreed meeting to conclude in #fedora-meeting-1 17:05
t8m adamw, we have the start of the meeting UTC based 17:05
adamw #endmeeting 17:05
adamw #startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting - Part Deux 17:06
zodbot Meeting started Mon Nov 7 17:06:20 2011 UTC. The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at 17:06
zodbot Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:06
adamw #topic F17 pre-planning: anaconda UI rewrite 17:06
adamw #meetingname fedora-qa 17:06
zodbot The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa' 17:06
adamw okay, continue! 17:06
adamw j_dulaney: so in your case - can you use VM for testing, or is that impractical too? 17:07
j_dulaney I can indeed 17:07
j_dulaney Use a VM 17:07
adamw okay 17:08
brunowolff Do you guys know if Live installs are going to change with this? 17:08
adamw so access to a VM via a web interface wouldn't help you much, i guess 17:08
kparal some people might have too old CPU for KVM. if you don't have hw virt support, it almost doesn't work 17:08
adamw brunowolff: yes, live install uses the same UI as regular install. 17:08
adamw kparal: yeah, that's a consideration 17:08
j_dulaney adamw: I think that would work 17:09
adamw kparal: what we're trying to weigh is whether it's worth tflink's time to set up this thing 17:09
kparal i understand 17:09
kparal what about some survey first? 17:09
* j_dulaney has no hard drive in his VM capable box 17:09
tflink kparal: yeah, the plan was to ask test@ if that would increase testing 17:10
tflink but I thought we were going to wait to see what the anaconda devs had planned first 17:10
adamw okay 17:11
robatino it could allow faster testing - my machine only has 1 CPU, and even if it didn't it would probably thrash if i tried to do more than one 17:11
adamw so the idea's there and seems like people are interested 17:11
adamw so we should probably take a look at how much work it's going to be, and what resources we'd have available on the back end 17:11
robatino plus it would avoid the downloading step 17:11
adamw if we could make this work nicely it'd actually have uses beyond QA, really - could be good publicity 17:11
tflink robatino: that's a good point, I hadn't thought about that 17:11
adamw ubuntu has this kind of faked up html5 thing on their site somewhere which lets you play around with a desktop a bit without downloading ubuntu 17:12
adamw we could go one better =) 17:12
tflink adamw: yeah, it could be used as a "look at Fedora X, try it through the interwebs" 17:12
adamw 17:13
kparal adamw: actually that's not that good, they have better one inside their software center - you can try almost any application remotely 17:13
kparal using nx 17:13
adamw kparal: that's a slightly different case, though. 17:13
kparal definitely 17:13
red_alert nirik has some test systems for package maintainers up and running, maybe it'd be easy for him to set up a couple more for QA folks? 17:14
adamw anyhow, yeah, let's say we see possibilities =) tflink can you look into it a bit more and report back? 17:14
tflink yeah, can do 17:14
tflink s/can/will 17:14
adamw okay 17:14
* kparal notes fesco is just talking about "fixing critpath process" 17:14
adamw #action tflink to evaluate his remote-VM idea some more and report back on how much work it'll be to implement, and available resources 17:15
adamw tflink: obviously sounds like you'd want to talk to infra 17:15
tflink yeah, HW would be a limiting factor 17:15
adamw okay, so before we move on, anyone aware of any other f17 stuff we should plan for? 17:15
adamw i've got notes-to-self to look into the btrfs migration and whether this crazy /usr change is actually likely to happen 17:16
tflink those are the two that came to mind for me 17:16
j_dulaney I don't see btrfs happening 17:16
j_dulaney Still no fsch 17:16
j_dulaney c/fsch/fsck 17:16
* j_dulaney can't type sometimes 17:16
adamw well, they have a few months to get it. 17:17
red_alert 2D gnome shell will need much QA love too 17:17
* tflink is looking forward to that 17:17
red_alert but with all you folks using mostly VMs to test, that should be taken care of :) 17:18
adamw yeah, apparently we can start testing that now 17:18
adamw i was gonna set up a rawhide vm today, because you know, shiny is shiny. =) 17:18
j_dulaney Upstream in btrfs there is a lot of pressure for an fsck 17:19
* nirik couldn't get it to work here, but I might have missed something. 17:19
adamw #info we're tracking btrfs migration, /usr move and 2D shell support as significant features that would be in need of testing 17:20
adamw alright 17:20
adamw #topic autoqa update 17:20
adamw do we have much on the autoqa front or still just getting back in gear? 17:20
tflink getting back into gear, mostly 17:20
* j_dulaney has nothing 17:20
tflink trying to get new features done so that we can start testing them 17:21
adamw okay 17:21
kparal adamw: do you think we are superhumans like you? we just got back to autoqa today! 17:21
* kparal has no news to share 17:21
* kparal expects being fired 17:21
* j_dulaney is surprised he hasn't been, yet 17:22
adamw fired! fired! you're all fired! 17:22
* adamw chomps on cigar 17:22
adamw #info autoqa is getting back into gear after f16, so no news yet 17:22
* j_dulaney likes big cigars... 17:23
adamw alright, so i think that's all 17:23
adamw #topic open floor 17:23
adamw any other business? did i miss anything? is anyone dead of boredom yet? 17:23
j_dulaney Do we want to start thinking about Blacksburg hackfests? 17:23
j_dulaney Or make that an item for next week? 17:23
adamw seems like a next-week kinda thing 17:24
adamw since we're 25 mins over time 17:24
adamw i'll try and remember to put it on next week's agenda, if i forget can you let me know? 17:25
j_dulaney Indeed 17:25
adamw okay 17:27
adamw let's finish this thing! 17:27
adamw 3... 17:28
adamw 2... 17:28
adamw 1... 17:28
adamw FATALITY! 17:28
adamw #endmeeting 17:28

Generated by 2.8 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!