From Fedora Project Wiki

< QA‎ | Meetings

Attendees

  • adamw (269)
  • tflink (78)
  • kparal (71)
  • j_dulaney (57)
  • bcl (30)
  • twu (27)
  • wwoods (21)
  • brunowolff (15)
  • pschindl (11)
  • zodbot (6)
  • rbergeron (4)
  • mkrizek (4)
  • jskladan (3)
  • Cerlyn (3)
  • maxamillion (3)
  • satellit_laptop (1)
  • mmaslano (1)
  • rmarko (1)
  • Viking-Ice (1)
  • limburgher (1)
  • nirik (1)
  • Southern_Gentlem (1)

Agenda

  • Previous meeting follow-up
  • Fedora 17 Beta status / blocker review
  • 'Project' status
  • Test Day report
  • Upcoming QA events
  • AutoQA update
  • Open floor

Previous meeting follow-up

  • adamw to bug j_dulaney to bug Sugar test day folks: this was done, and the event happened successfully

Fedora 17 Beta status / blocker review

  • RC1 is out and needs all Beta tests completed

Blocker review

  • AGREED: rhbug:804514 is a blocker per the criterion about a 'basic video' install option being present and the one about installs that are done according to the other criteria booting to a functional desktop
  • AGREED: rhbug:806749 is accepted as a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options"
  • AGREED: rhbug:806708 is a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options", needs more info
  • AGREED: we need to know if rhbug:806931 affects non virt-install cases to determine blocker status - punt until next meeting
  • AGREED: rhbug:805166 is not a blocker per anaconda team's statement that using root= in this way is not supported or expected to work
  • AGREED: rhbug:806962 is a blocker per criterion "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media", in the case of DVD or boot.iso written to USB with l-i-t-d
  • AGREED: rhbug:806867 is a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade installation from a clean, fully updated default installation (from any official install medium) of the previous stable Fedora release, either via preupgrade or by booting to the installer manually. The upgraded system must meet all release criteria"
  • AGREED: rhbug:806931 is accepted as a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to use all kickstart delivery methods"
  • AGREED: rhbug:806784 is a blocker per criterion "The installer must be able to create and install to software, hardware or BIOS RAID-0, RAID-1 or RAID-5 partitions for anything except /boot"
  • AGREED: rhbug:806466 is rejected as blocker but accepted as NTH (not serious enough to break any criteria)
  • AGREED: rhbug:806664 is accepted as NTH while we're at it (both make ootb network behaviour somewhat icky)
  • AGREED: rhbug:804522 is a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to create and install to software, hardware or BIOS RAID-0, RAID-1 or RAID-5 partitions for anything except /boot"

'Project' status

  • See the on-list discussion
  • Discussion was tabled till the following week due to lack of time

Test Day report

Upcoming QA events

AutoQA update

  • No news!

Open floor

Action items

  • kparal to propose revised criteria to cover split installs (installer sourced from one repo, packages from internet repos)
  • wwoods to ensure anaconda docs are updated to reflect what repo= is supposed to be capable of


IRC Log

adamw #startmeeting Fedora QA meeting 15:00
zodbot Meeting started Mon Mar 26 15:00:06 2012 UTC. The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00
zodbot Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 15:00
adamw #meetingname fedora-qa 15:00
zodbot The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa' 15:00
adamw #topic roll call 15:00
* pschindl is here 15:00
* j_dulaney cranks the bagpipes 15:00
* Cerlyn is here 15:00
* jskladan here 15:00
adamw morning everyone, it's happy fun meeting time in happy fun qa land where the happy fun beta blockers make us all fun and happy 15:00
* twu twu is here 15:00
* kparal is all fun and happy 15:00
adamw wait, these aren't aspirin. 15:00
j_dulaney adamw: Are you on something? 15:00
* tflink is here 15:01
* mkrizek is here 15:01
Cerlyn beta blockers can be avoided by eating more beta carotene 15:01
jskladan adamw: My Little Blocker Friendship, you say... 15:02
* nirik is lurking 15:02
* maxamillion is here 15:02
adamw #chair tflink kparal 15:02
zodbot Current chairs: adamw kparal tflink 15:02
* brunowolff is here for 1/2 hour, then work meeting 15:03
adamw wow, full house, huh 15:03
adamw okey dokey, let's get rolling 15:03
adamw #topic previous meeting follow-up 15:03
adamw #info "adamw to bug j_dulaney to bug Sugar test day folks" - I did that, the page got lots of nice test cases, and much fun was had by all. 15:04
adamw aaaaaand that's all i got for previous meeting follow up. anything I missed? 15:04
adamw guess not 15:05
adamw #topic Fedora 17 Beta status / blocker review 15:05
adamw so, we got RC1 done Friday and now we need to get all the testing done 15:05
adamw #info Beta RC1 was built Friday afternoon and now needs testing 15:06
* maxamillion is downloading now 15:06
twu yeah, we have done some tests in the day working 15:06
adamw yup, i see that 15:07
twu but still have some bugs 15:07
adamw looks like quite a few bugs have been filed, so we should probably check those for blockers 15:07
brunowolff I was able to do an install from a live image to a laptop. It went fine. (Though I had to tweak anaconda as the machine only has 512 MiB of memory.) 15:07
j_dulaney I thought that limit was supposed to be removed 15:08
j_dulaney It seems rather artificial 15:08
brunowolff I think they are waiting for testing to see what the new limit should be. 15:08
brunowolff It would be nice to lower it for final. 15:08
adamw we need to test it 15:09
adamw i think right after noloader landed, anaconda team did some tests and found they couldn't install with 512MB 15:09
adamw but now it sounds like that's changed... 15:09
brunowolff I didn't test a normal install, just the live install and that may make a difference. 15:10
j_dulaney adamw: I never had trouble installing with 512MB 15:10
rmarko same here 15:11
adamw in F15 and F16 it was definitely unsafe. 15:11
j_dulaney BTW, for the record, I am now running F17 as my primary OS 15:11
adamw anyhoo 15:11
adamw i'm just running through the bugs that have been reported so far and nominating some as blockers, then we can do some blocker review... 15:11
twu now gnome3 can work fine on kvm :) 15:11
maxamillion twu: +1 15:12
adamw yeah, that's nice. 15:12
* twu have a question 15:12
j_dulaney twu: It could for the past couple of months 15:12
j_dulaney Since early in Alpha phase 15:12
tflink j_dulaney: spice has had some issues as of late 15:12
twu j_dulaney: yeah, it is 15:13
* satellit_laptop fine on Virtualbox also 15:13
j_dulaney tflink: I haven't seen any 15:13
* j_dulaney will test post-meeting 15:13
twu how can we see the changes made in anaconda just before we start testing 15:14
adamw nearly there... 15:14
adamw j_dulaney: until last week shell on KVM would crash regularly. 15:15
adamw twu: how do you mean? 15:15
adamw twu: something other than looking at the anaconda changelog? 15:15
twu adamw: yes 15:15
j_dulaney Do a diff? 15:16
j_dulaney It's all Python 15:16
j_dulaney adamw: Ah, I'd forgotten about that 15:16
adamw look at the git log? 15:17
pschindl for example: it would be nice, if we know about changes in installer parameters (like repo=... -> inst.repo) 15:17
twu adamw: does it have something like "release note"? 15:17
* twu agree with pschindl 15:18
pschindl they haven't changed their wiki. It is hard to test, when everything is different then in the previous version 15:18
adamw whew, okay. sorry about that 15:19
tflink pschindl: yeah, dracut is like that too 15:19
adamw afaik, no, not really. all you get is the rpm changelog, git log, maybe the Bodhi update page. 15:19
tflink bad tflink for not fixing it since that's been off since at least F16 15:19
* adamw gets the list of proposed blockers 15:19
adamw okay, let's do our impromptu blocker review 15:20
mkrizek last update of release notes was back in 2002 :) http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=anaconda.git;a=blob;f=docs/anaconda-release-notes.txt;h=167411cb19791a6712bf48b76541ebf0d2eab710;hb=HEAD 15:20
adamw looks like it could do with a bit of an update :P 15:21
adamw for the record, i'm using http://ur1.ca/8t8f7 as the proposed blocker list, as the wikified one won't have caught up with my changes 15:21
adamw #topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804514 15:22
tflink adamw: it only gets updated ~ every hour 15:22
adamw yes. 15:22
kparal we can fix that, but I don't know who manages it 15:22
adamw jlaska, as far as anyone does. i think. 15:22
kparal zodbot is able to receive notifications in the matter of minutes 15:22
tflink kparal: the wiki page or anaconda release notes? 15:22
kparal wiki page 15:22
adamw anyhow 15:22
tflink kparal: that would be jlaska 15:23
adamw this one sounds like Shell tries to run after a vesa install, and fails. 15:23
adamw has anyone else tried that? 15:23
kparal not me 15:23
adamw so for me this is a blocker 15:24
adamw criteria: alpha "The boot menu for all installation images should include an entry which causes both installation and the installed system to use a generic, highly compatible video driver (such as 'vesa'). This mechanism should work correctly, launching the installer and attempting to use the generic driver" combined with "Following on from the previous criterion, after firstboot is completed and on subsequent boots, a system installed according to any 15:24
adamw of the above criteria (or the appropriate Beta or Final criteria, when applying this criterion to those releases) must boot to a working graphical environment without unintended user intervention. This includes correctly accessing any encrypted partitions when the correct passphrase is supplied" 15:24
adamw zoiks. 15:24
adamw it'd be nice to have confirmation from one other tester though at least 15:24
tflink I can give it a try 15:25
adamw any votes on blockerinessA? 15:26
twu when I leave the office, my 32 bit's still running, sorry for that :) 15:26
tflink if it is what it sounds like, +1 blocker 15:26
brunowolff Assuming this happens reliably, I am +1 blocker. 15:26
mkrizek seems like a blocker to me too 15:26
kparal +1 blocker 15:26
* brunowolff is off to another meeting 15:26
j_dulaney +1 block 15:27
twu +1 block 15:27
j_dulaney er 15:27
Cerlyn I installed with xdriver=vesa , but I don't recall seeing a menu choice to force it 15:27
adamw propose #agreed #804514 is a blocker per the criteria about a 'basic video' install option being present and the one about installs that are done according to the other criteria booting to a functional desktop 15:27
adamw Cerlyn: it's under 'advanced options' or something. 15:27
kparal ack 15:27
j_dulaney ack 15:28
tflink ack 15:28
pschindl ack 15:28
adamw #agreed #804514 is a blocker per the criterion about a 'basic video' install option being present and the one about installs that are done according to the other criteria booting to a functional desktop 15:28
adamw #topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806749 15:29
adamw this also seems like a straightforward blocker, and has a confirmation in the matrix (failures listed from hongqing and cra) 15:29
tflink yeah, +1 blocker 15:30
adamw looks to prevent NFS install and hence break alpha "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options " 15:30
kparal interesting, I tried that right now 15:30
kparal I didn't encounter that 15:30
j_dulaney +1 blocker 15:30
kparal I'm missing more information from hongqing. which compose? which arch? 15:30
bcl kparal: I asked him to rerun with rd.debug and serial so all the details can be captured. 15:31
adamw kparal: the matrix says x86_64, but don't know if he used DVD or netinst. 15:32
kparal I used i386 netinst 15:32
tflink adamw: for a NFS install, does it matter? 15:32
kparal anyway, blocker +1 15:32
bcl +1 15:32
adamw tflink: if kparal couldn't reproduce, possibly? :) 15:32
tflink or is this just an NFS repo failure instead of nfsiso 15:32
adamw this is nfs repo failure, but there's a bug for nfsiso failing too. 15:33
bcl I think it is related to the symlink wwoods addded. 15:33
bcl not an nfs problem. 15:33
adamw propose #agreed 86749 is accepted as a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options". note kparal reports a successful nfs install so we should compare notes 15:33
twu I encounter this bug on i386 15:33
adamw ah, so three fails... 15:34
adamw kparal: you're weird. 15:34
adamw :P 15:34
kparal I did not report successful install. I just didn't see *this* bug :) 15:34
twu I tested the i386 DVD 15:34
adamw kparal: ah 15:34
adamw propose #agreed 86749 is accepted as a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options". note kparal reports not seeing this bug, so we should compare notes 15:35
kparal ack 15:35
j_dulaney ack 15:35
twu ack 15:35
tflink ack 15:35
adamw #agreed 86749 is accepted as a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options". note kparal reports not seeing this bug, so we should compare notes 15:35
adamw you all fail. 15:35
adamw #undo 15:35
zodbot Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Agreed object at 0x2cdbd610> 15:35
adamw #agreed 806749 is accepted as a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options". note kparal reports not seeing this bug, so we should compare notes 15:35
adamw that's why we do proposed, y'all. =) 15:35
adamw #topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806708 15:36
tflink adamw: you're the one who typo'd 15:36
adamw aaand here's the nfsiso failure. 15:36
adamw it was an intentional typo just to see if you'd notice. honest! 15:36
kparal wasn't that supposed to be fixed in anaconda 17.14? 15:36
adamw a very similar one was supposed to be fixed, yeah 15:37
adamw but cra seems pretty clear he's on beta rc1 15:37
adamw https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804813 was the previous bug 15:37
tflink as written, +1 blocker 15:37
adamw the effect is the same (nfsiso borked) but it's clearly not the same bug 15:37
pschindl +1 blocker 15:38
adamw sounds like we could do with others testing this and confirming, and adding the info needed if it fails 15:38
j_dulaney +1 blocker 15:38
twu I hate this bug, so +1 blocker :) 15:38
bcl the repo=nfs* bugs are different than this one. 15:39
adamw that means extra fun times for you! 15:39
adamw propose #agreed #806708 is a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options", needs more info 15:40
bcl in those cases I think it loses the network when it turns on NM. In this case he's modifying the repo entry. 15:40
pschindl ack 15:40
bcl so don't lump them all with this one. 15:40
adamw we're not proposing any dupage. 15:40
tflink ack 15:41
twu ack 15:41
adamw #agreed #806708 is a blocker per alpha criterion "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options", needs more info 15:41
adamw #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806931 15:41
adamw grr 15:41
adamw #undo 15:41
zodbot Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x21cee810> 15:41
adamw #topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806931 15:42
adamw so this is the one you two are discussing in #anaconda right now, right? 15:42
kparal yes 15:42
adamw i'd be more comfortable taking this as a blocker if you could reproduce without using virt-install... 15:42
kparal good idea 15:42
kparal I hate manual tinkering with initrd, but I'll do that 15:43
tflink I'd be interested in seeing if the impregnated initrd test case fails 15:43
adamw the criterion wasn't really written with the scenario of using an external tool that does various other things as well as pass a kickstart in mind 15:43
tflink since that would be the same mechanism 15:43
adamw tflink: we have a test case for that one, right? 15:43
tflink yep 15:43
adamw so yeah, do that. 15:43
adamw other votes? 15:43
bcl -1 15:43
tflink punt til' we know whether it's anaconda or virt-install 15:43
adamw bcl: -1 on what grounds? do you have sufficient info now to determine it's not a blocker 15:44
adamw ? 15:44
kparal I'd also wait a while until we know more 15:45
kparal I'm working on it right now 15:45
bcl I don't think we should block on virt-install not working. 15:45
adamw bcl: well, i said it would be good to see if this also affects non-virt-install use of initrd injection 15:45
adamw but -1 is a vote to reject it as a blocker immediately, without finding that out 15:46
bcl I don't mean that we won't try to sort it out and fix it, just that it not working shouldn't (IMHO) block Beta. 15:46
bcl note that I'm not a policy wonk. So my vote may be worthless :) 15:47
* kparal proposes delay until next meeting 15:48
adamw okay, well we have more votes to delay than to reject, just wanted to check if you knew something we didn;t 15:48
bcl nope 15:49
adamw propose #agreed we need to know if 806931 affects non virt-install cases to determine blocker status - punt until next meeting 15:49
kparal ack 15:49
tflink ack 15:50
twu ack 15:50
adamw #agreed we need to know if 806931 affects non virt-install cases to determine blocker status - punt until next meeting 15:50
adamw #topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805166 15:50
adamw this one's been hanging around as proposed since tc stage, actually. we never had a clear up/down vote on blocker status/ 15:51
kparal comment #10 summarizes it 15:51
adamw so the aim here is to source the installer as well as packages via nfs, right 15:51
kparal source just the installer 15:52
adamw oh, right. 15:52
kparal the packages should be taken from default online directories 15:52
kparal that's the use case 15:52
adamw so you want to get the installer from nfs but packages from internet...right. 15:52
kparal yep 15:52
bcl I tried this last week, it is a network problem FWIW 15:52
kparal bcl: what do you mean by network problem? 15:52
bcl it downloads squashfs, switches root and when it turns on NM it stops working. 15:54
adamw and this is a new issue because previously just doing a PXE boot would pull in the installer as it was part of the anaconda initramfs. 15:54
adamw so we don't have criteria for this.\ 15:54
* jskladan needs to go afk for 10 minutes 15:54
kparal our criteria concern package repo availability, because we never needed to deal with installer fetching from a remote place 15:55
adamw given all of that, i guess i'd vote we should add criteria to the same release level as we have PXE boot, and accept as a blocker. 15:55
j_dulaney +1 15:55
kparal adamw: which level is that? 15:55
kparal we have to make the criteria more searchable (e.g. add PXE keywords and such) 15:56
kparal anyway, +1 15:56
bcl running squashfs over NFS really isn't a good idea, even if it does sorta work. 15:57
twu +1 15:57
kparal if it's documented that it doesn't work, I have no problem with it. but there's no documentation whatsoever 15:57
tflink +1 15:57
kparal regarding root= option 15:58
bcl kparal: well then there's the answer :) 15:58
adamw yeesh. sorry guys, my laptop just blackscreened. 15:58
* adamw catches up 15:58
kparal I don't understand why it should work with repo= option and shouldn't work with root= option 15:58
adamw bcl: doesn't that leave us with an effective regression in capabilities between loader and noloader though? 15:59
kparal repo= just adds a definition of online repos, nothing more 15:59
adamw how are you supposed to do a PXE install but use internet package sources? 15:59
bcl adamw: nfs is way more fragile than http which pulls it all down and then runs it. 16:00
* Viking-Ice joins in late 16:00
bcl I don't know if we've ever supported running stage2 from nfs. 16:00
twu just add "repo=http://....." to the boot arguments? 16:00
* adamw notes we don't seem to have pxe criteria anyhow. sigh 16:00
kparal twu: right, http works. that's the current workaround 16:01
twu I feel like the pxe just refer to the kernel boot stage 16:02
j_dulaney Hmm 16:02
kparal this is not just about pxe. the same applies for VM boot from kernel pair 16:02
adamw so we can either require this to work via NFS, or say that if you want to direct boot anaconda via nfs you have to provide repo=http for it to pull the squashfs from... 16:03
adamw mmf. feels like we kinda need someone to step back and do an overview of what we actually expect to work here, then re-evaluate? 16:04
kparal repo= is a superset of root=. nfs works with repo=, but doesn't work with root=. seems really weird to me saying nfs is not supported for root=. 16:04
bcl how do you boot initrd via nfs? you can't, you have to pxe or local boot it. 16:04
adamw kparal: yeah, that did seem odd. 16:04
* rbergeron peeks in between meetings, ugh 16:04
adamw rbergeron: if i were you i'd peek right back out again 16:04
j_dulaney Ugly in here 16:04
* kparal votes for a blocker, until anaconda publicly documents what should work and what should not 16:05
wwoods kparal: you're wrong about repo 16:05
kparal currently it seems to me this should work 16:05
rbergeron adamw: OOK, a squirrel 16:05
kparal wwoods: welcome 16:05
rbergeron err, look, /me sighs at less funny with bad keyboard 16:06
wwoods stage2= and method= are deprecated in favor of "repo=" 16:06
j_dulaney Squirrel? 16:06
rbergeron j_dulaney: it's running around with my ADD meds. 16:06
wwoods "repo=" gives the location of an *installable tree* - i.e. package repo + .treeinfo file + install.img etc 16:06
kparal and root image 16:06
wwoods kparal: that's 'install.img', yes 16:06
kparal ok 16:07
kparal it's called squashfs.img in my tree 16:07
adamw propose #agreed defer #805166 and ask anaconda team to clearly document supported methods for remote retrieval of installer in the noloader era, then update criteria to reflect this 16:07
wwoods "root=live:nfs:..." is not something we've supported in any release 16:07
tflink ack 16:07
j_dulaney ack 16:07
kparal ack 16:07
twu ack 16:07
pschindl ack 16:07
wwoods (in theory it *should* work but there seems to be some problem with the ifcfg/dhcp lease handover) 16:07
wwoods it's already documented. it's repo= 16:08
kparal wwoods: what if I don't have the whole installable tree mirrored? 16:09
kparal just boot images 16:09
wwoods that's still repo= 16:09
adamw so basically it's not considered supported to try and pass root=(someremotesource)? repo= should always be used 16:09
kparal but I want to fetch installer from LAN 16:09
wwoods correct 16:09
j_dulaney In that case 16:09
j_dulaney Maybe -1 blcoker 16:09
adamw okay, that seems clear enough. in that case, -1 blocker. 16:09
wwoods kparal: that's fine. repo={http,https,nfs,ftp} 16:09
adamw so you can pass repo= for a location which does in fact contain packages, but does contain the installer 16:10
kparal wwoods: my use case is installer from LAN and packages from Internet 16:10
adamw and anaconda should deal correctly with that? 16:10
wwoods as long as there's a .treeinfo file that points to the [stage2] mainimage it should work 16:10
adamw sigh. 16:10
adamw does NOT in fact contain packages 16:10
wwoods yes. 16:10
adamw it'll let you use remote repos. okay. 16:10
kparal wwoods: please document all of this. I'm sure it doesn't work in all cases you mentioned 16:10
kparal wwoods: here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Options 16:11
wwoods fine, then that's a bug 16:11
wwoods but the existing documentation is the expected behavior 16:11
adamw "repo= 16:11
adamw This option tells anaconda where to find the packages for installation. This option must point to a valid yum repository. " 16:11
kparal "This option must point to a valid yum repository" 16:11
kparal adamw: you're faster 16:11
kparal so Packages/ must be present 16:11
adamw (even though later on it contradicts itself and allows you to use ISOs.) 16:11
wwoods https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Options#method 16:12
* j_dulaney should note that he does have a package 16:12
adamw wwoods: it rather looks like the repo= section should be revised to be more accurate for noloader, and we should also get the installation guide updated. 16:13
wwoods basically, method= and stage2= used to be how you did this. now you just do repo=. we'll update the docs accordingly. 16:13
wwoods s/noloader/reality/ - noloader has not changed any of this 16:13
adamw wwoods: well, as kparal explains it, before noloader, just pxe boot would pull in the installer, because it was part of the initramfs. 16:13
adamw or was that an earlier change than noloader? 16:14
wwoods in f15 and f16, yes. in every release prior, no 16:14
adamw point. 16:14
kparal I'm 100% sure that missing yum repository in the repo= location aborts installation. I reported bug about it. I can dig it up 16:14
kparal so that would be blocker instead 16:14
wwoods kparal: if that's the case I'll make sure we have some alternate method to boot with just images 16:14
twu wwoods: thanks, and does the 'askmethod' not using any more in the future? 16:14
adamw we'd still need to revise the criteria, if we actually wanted to consider this kind of split install blocking. 16:15
adamw all the criteria have ever said is that remote package sources have to work. 16:15
wwoods twu: 'askmethod' is gone - choose your method/repo argument at the boot prompt 16:15
kparal wwoods: ok, I supposed that's what root= is for 16:15
adamw so, anyhow, this is getting messy 16:15
wwoods anyway, yes, docs will get revised 16:15
adamw propose #agreed 805166 is not a blocker per anaconda team's statement that using root= in this way is not supported or expected to work 16:15
j_dulaney ack 16:15
twu wwoods: thanks! 16:16
adamw propose #action wwoods to ensure anaconda docs are updated to reflect what repo= is supposed to be capable of 16:16
* kparal links 790348 16:16
tflink ack 16:16
kparal ack 16:16
twu ack 16:16
adamw propose #action kparal to propose revised criteria to cover split installs (installer sourced from one repo, packages from internet repos) 16:16
adamw and also we probably need a pxe criterion. heh. 16:16
tflink adamw: ack on the docs action 16:17
j_dulaney ack 16:17
kparal ack, but blocked on:wwoods action 16:17
* twu agree :) 16:17
adamw cool. 16:18
adamw #action kparal to propose revised criteria to cover split installs (installer sourced from one repo, packages from internet repos) 16:18
adamw #action wwoods to ensure anaconda docs are updated to reflect what repo= is supposed to be capable of 16:18
adamw #agreed 805166 is not a blocker per anaconda team's statement that using root= in this way is not supported or expected to work 16:18
adamw whew. 16:18
j_dulaney http://www.math.vt.edu/people/jbwillia/computer.gif 16:18
j_dulaney After that 16:18
adamw heh. 16:19
twu ha ha 16:19
adamw well, great, now i had to switch computers the proposed blocker list is in a different order. siiiigh 16:19
adamw #topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806962 16:19
adamw so, l-i-t-d dvd.iso doesn't work 16:20
adamw tflink: right? 16:20
tflink I'm +1 on this for consistency's sake - IIRC, we tell people to use l-i-t-d instead of dd for bootable USB install media 16:21
tflink adamw: not as far as I can tell 16:21
* tflink use --format and --reset-mbr 16:21
tflink used 16:21
bcl yeah. 16:21
adamw criteria-wise, this is a conditional breakage of "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media" (alpha) for the case 'DVD image written to USB with l-i-t-d" 16:22
j_dulaney Is this a l-i-t-d bug, or a F17 bug? 16:22
adamw i actually should probably propose explicit criteria revisions to cover USB writing of media, but it's so common these days I'm certainly +1 16:22
adamw probably the former, right bcl? 16:23
tflink j_dulaney: I think that something changed w/ noloader such that l-i-t-d doesn't work any more 16:23
bcl adamw: yes 16:23
j_dulaney Ah 16:23
tflink so a little bit of column A, little bit of column B 16:23
tflink but the fix will be in livecd-tools 16:23
tflink I think, anyways 16:23
bcl tflink: repo seems to override root. I had to split the usb into 2 partitions for noloader. 16:24
j_dulaney Well, then, wouldn't that be -1 blocker, then? 16:24
bcl tflink: I'm leaning towards anaconda-dracut right now. 16:24
j_dulaney Since the fix is livecd-tools? 16:24
adamw j_dulaney: no, but it would mean the blocker didn't block image spins. 16:24
j_dulaney Ah 16:24
adamw j_dulaney: that's how we've usually handled these before. 16:24
adamw we take the bug as a blocker, but when it's in say livecd-tools or preupgrade, that's understood to mean that the tool has to be fixed by release time, not that we delay the image composes. 16:24
tflink j_dulaney: I can create the usb on F17 if that would make you feel better :) 16:25
j_dulaney LOL 16:25
tflink bcl: I certainly trust your judgement more than mine on where the issue is 16:25
* j_dulaney unwads his panties 16:25
bcl thanks ;) 16:25
bcl I'm +1, I think it demonstrates a bug with root and repo interaction. 16:26
adamw j_dulaney: i think i even put a reference to this kind of situation in the sop 16:26
adamw +1 blocker 16:26
bcl in anaconda-dracut. 16:26
j_dulaney Righteo 16:26
j_dulaney +1 blocker 16:26
j_dulaney adamw: Who reads the SOP :) 16:26
adamw j_dulaney: yeah, docs are for wusses :) 16:27
adamw propose #agreed 806962 is a blocker per criterion "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media", in the case of DVD or boot.iso written to USB with l-i-t-d. note it's one of the blockers where we require the tool to be updated by release time rather than delaying the composes 16:28
tflink ack 16:28
tflink scratch that - nack 16:28
adamw patch? 16:28
j_dulaney Real Furry Creatures from Alpha Centaurii don't use docs at all! 16:28
tflink the bug isn't in l-i-t-d 16:28
tflink its in anaconda-dracut which would block image compose 16:28
adamw oh, right. bcl, agree? 16:29
bcl yes 16:29
adamw patch: 16:29
adamw #agreed 806962 is a blocker per criterion "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media", in the case of DVD or boot.iso written to USB with l-i-t-d 16:29
adamw simples! 16:29
tflink ack 16:29
adamw whew, i think i finally bored everyone to sleep. 16:30
adamw oh, and i missed the propose from that one, so it's in effect. whee. 16:30
tflink adamw: now you know how I feel during the blocker review meetings :) 16:30
adamw #topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806867 16:31
adamw tflink: hey, i was doing them when you were just a pup ;) 16:31
j_dulaney LOL 16:31
tflink point taken 16:31
adamw this seems like a straightforward preupgrade fail, hence blocker per the beta preupgrade criterion 16:31
adamw +1 16:31
tflink isn' 16:31
brunowolff +1 blocker 16:31
adamw tflink: i think i was in charge of the infamous one which went on for seven hours, with a lunch break./ 16:32
tflink t this a dupe? 16:32
adamw tflink: possibly, i didn't look for dupes. of what, though? it's different from the preupgrade bug we had pre-RC. 16:32
adamw that was the root= issue. 16:32
j_dulaney +1 16:32
bcl looks like preupgrade needs to be updated for noloader 16:32
pschindl +1 blocker, I have met this when I was using inst.repo=hd:.. option too 16:32
adamw at least, i think it's different. 16:32
mkrizek +1 16:32
tflink adamw: I thought the one that seems to have been closed was about handling usrmove 16:33
tflink come to think of it, that might have been upgrading w/ anaconda 16:33
tflink +1 blocker, though 16:33
adamw yeah, the pre-rc one hit the 'no or empty root= parameter' kernel panic 16:33
adamw post-rc we get a dracut error, so clearly, different. 16:33
tflink adamw: I don't think I've had the pleasure of a 7 hour review yet and hopefully it'll stay that way 16:34
adamw heh 16:34
j_dulaney I'll skip such 16:34
adamw you can never leave 16:34
j_dulaney I have class in a while 16:35
adamw propose #agreed 806931 is a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade installation from a clean, fully updated default installation (from any official install medium) of the previous stable Fedora release, either via preupgrade or by booting to the installer manually. The upgraded system must meet all release criteria" 16:35
j_dulaney ack 16:35
pschindl ack 16:35
tflink ack 16:35
brunowolff ack 16:35
adamw #agreed 806931 is a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade installation from a clean, fully updated default installation (from any official install medium) of the previous stable Fedora release, either via preupgrade or by booting to the installer manually. The upgraded system must meet all release criteria" 16:35
adamw okay, circling back briefly: 16:35
adamw #topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806931 (redux) 16:35
adamw this is the virt-install one again 16:35
kparal see comment 5 16:35
adamw kparal just confirmed it happens with no virt-install involved, just per the initramfs-injection test case 16:35
adamw so in that case i'm +1 blocker as we still have that "The installer must be able to use all kickstart delivery methods" beta criterion. 16:36
tflink +1 blocker 16:36
kparal +1 blocker 16:36
j_dulaney +1 blocker 16:36
adamw propose #agreed 806931 is accepted as a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to use all kickstart delivery methods" 16:37
tflink ack 16:37
pschindl ack 16:37
adamw #agreed 806931 is accepted as a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to use all kickstart delivery methods" 16:37
adamw #topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806784 16:37
bcl kparal: thanks. 16:37
kparal bcl: doing my best 16:38
adamw as described this is a blocker, though it'd be good to have confirmation (BIOS RAID can be temperamental) 16:38
j_dulaney +1 blocker, looks pretty clear 16:38
tflink as described +1 blocker 16:38
adamw i can confirm this locally when i have a chance (I have bios raid test config) 16:38
tflink would be nice to have more HW info, though 16:38
tflink in case this is like the NVRAID bug from F16 16:39
tflink or any of the intel raid bugs 16:39
adamw yeah, exactly 16:39
adamw pdc is triggering vague bells somewhere 16:39
tflink pdc? 16:39
adamw ahh, promise. 16:39
tflink oh, the device 16:39
adamw in the kickstart. yeah. 16:40
tflink isn't that technically HW RAID, then? 16:40
adamw mine is an intel controller, so pretty different. 16:40
adamw no 16:40
tflink then how is your setup HW RAID? Isn't it the same thing? 16:40
adamw it's just a particular brand of dumb motherboard bios raid 16:40
adamw i have both 16:41
adamw HW RAID controllers look to anaconda exactly like a SATA drive or something 16:41
* tflink is not completely convinced 16:41
adamw the kernel doesn't even know there's RAID involved, really. all it sees is a disk. 16:41
tflink but this doesn't need to be solved here 16:41
adamw so it shows up as /dev/sdX 16:41
tflink just like bios raid, no? 16:41
adamw no. 16:41
adamw BIOS RAID needs an OS driver. 16:41
tflink so does my fancy LSI RAID card 16:42
adamw anyhow 16:42
adamw this is definitely bios raid, not hardware raid. i'm right, just trust me. =) 16:42
tflink like I said, doesn't need to be figured out now 16:42
adamw even if it was hardware raid it'd be a blocker, so kinda academic. 16:42
tflink I'm not agreeing with your diagnosis, just tabling the discussion 16:42
tflink yep, exactly 16:42
brunowolff I think we should mark this +1 blocker and then reconsider if it turns out to be dependent on specific hardware. 16:42
adamw propose #agreed 806784 is a blocker per criterion "The installer must be able to create and install to software, hardware or BIOS RAID-0, RAID-1 or RAID-5 partitions for anything except /boot" 16:43
brunowolff ack 16:43
tflink ack 16:43
adamw even the criterion is the same =) 16:43
j_dulaney ack 16:43
adamw #agreed 806784 is a blocker per criterion "The installer must be able to create and install to software, hardware or BIOS RAID-0, RAID-1 or RAID-5 partitions for anything except /boot" 16:43
adamw #topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806466 16:43
adamw we're nearly done, btw. 16:43
tflink good, isn't fesco going to kick us out in a few minutes? 16:44
adamw i thought they go in like 1-2 hours, not now 16:44
tflink I thought that there was a meeting 2 hours after us 16:44
adamw oh,. no. you're right 16:44
adamw speed up! 16:44
adamw so anaconda writes an ifcfg file, but it says ONBOOT=no so the network doesn't come up after boot. 16:45
kparal history repeats itself 16:45
limburgher adaw: 15 minutes, though that's up for discussion. 16:45
adamw this combines with #806664 to be slightly icky, really. 16:45
tflink not sure this is blocker, regardless of how nice it might be to fix it 16:46
adamw but still, we're in about the same state we were with tc2, ironically, where you have to do 'dhclient' to get the network up. and we considered that nth. 16:46
adamw fixing either bug would make things better. 16:46
adamw i guess to be consistent we should probably take both as nth. 16:46
tflink yeah, I'd be OK with NTH 16:46
j_dulaney Nice to have, maybe, blocker, no 16:46
adamw okay, sounds like a consensus 16:46
adamw in the interests of time i'm gonna stop doing proposed 16:46
bcl hmm, I swear ifup eth0 working for me with a RC2 minimal install... 16:46
brunowolff NTH sounds reasonable 16:47
adamw #agreed 806466 is rejected as blocker but accepted as NTH (not serious enough to break any criteria) 16:47
adamw bcl: see, i thought so too, then i re-tested it, and it failed. 16:47
adamw bcl: try it again 16:47
adamw haha. the bugs are anagrams. 16:47
adamw #agreed 806664 is accepted as NTH while we're at it (both make ootb network behaviour somewhat icky) 16:47
adamw #topic Beta blocker review - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804522 16:48
adamw this is a software RAID test case failure, hence seems solidly blockerish. 16:48
kparal adamw: how many more on the list? 16:48
adamw criterion "The installer must be able to create and install to software, hardware or BIOS RAID-0, RAID-1 or RAID-5 partitions for anything except /boot " 16:48
tflink +1 16:48
adamw i think this is the last. 16:48
kparal +1 16:49
pschindl +1 16:49
adamw we do have a couple more agenda items, though probably everyone's lost the will to live by now. 16:49
adamw #agreed 804522 is a blocker per beta criterion "The installer must be able to create and install to software, hardware or BIOS RAID-0, RAID-1 or RAID-5 partitions for anything except /boot" 16:49
j_dulaney +1 blocker 16:49
adamw okay, i think that's all the proposed. we don't have time to review the accepted 16:49
adamw lots for anaconda team to be getting on with :/ 16:49
adamw i'll go through and secretaryize post-meeting. 16:49
brunowolff +1 blocker on 804522 16:49
adamw I propose we delay the 'project' status discussion to next week, we don't have time for it 16:50
adamw anyone object? 16:50
j_dulaney Nope 16:50
brunowolff That can wait. 16:50
tflink agreed 16:50
adamw #agreed agenda item "'Project' status" is tabled until next week due to lack of time and rapidly decreasing will to live 16:50
adamw #topic Test Day report 16:51
adamw so we had Sugar test day on 03-22 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2012-03-22_Sugar_Desktop 16:51
adamw on the minus side only satellit_ and cerlyn showed up, on the plus side they did an incredible amount of work 16:51
adamw looks like a successful event by the 'results' yardstick 16:51
j_dulaney adamw: I tested, too, but didn't put up my results 16:52
* j_dulaney needs to do so 16:52
adamw #info Sugar test day had low turnout - only satellit_ and cerlyn - but they achieved an impressive amount of testing 16:52
adamw #info j_dulaney also tested but has not yet filed results 16:52
adamw j_dulaney: thanks! 16:52
adamw oh, i see one result from Frederick Grose also. 16:52
adamw #topic upcoming QA events 16:53
j_dulaney I've got to bug out 16:53
adamw we have a couple of test days coming up this week - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2012-03-27_Kdump , https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2012-03-29_Gnome_Shell_Software_Rendering 16:53
j_dulaney Time for class 16:53
adamw kdump test day needs its matrix extending but otherwise looks okay 16:53
adamw oh, they also copy/pasted 'live image' from the sugar test day and that needs fixing, heh 16:53
adamw shell test day has a note saying they'll get the test cases in by wed 16:54
adamw so those look like they're in hand, but we should get to publicity 16:54
adamw the go/no-go is set for wednesday, so lots of crazy blocker fixing and RC2 spinning needs to be done between now and then 16:54
adamw release readiness is thursday 16:54
tflink looks to be a wonderfully fun week! 16:55
adamw #info kdump and software rendering test days set for tuesday and thursday, both need some more prep but look to be broadly in hand 16:55
adamw #info go/no-go is wednesday (schedule) and release readiness is thursday 16:55
adamw okay, we have four minutes for a quick autoqa update 16:55
adamw #topic autoqa update 16:55
adamw tflink, kparal - go! 16:55
* mmaslano reminds FESCo meeting starts in 5 minutes 16:55
kparal for the sake of time 16:56
kparal no updates 16:56
tflink same here 16:56
adamw mmaslano: that's why i'm typing so frantically. =) 16:56
adamw kparal: what are we going to do with the other 3.5 minutes?! 16:56
kparal I can repeat it 16:56
* adamw lays down a beat 16:56
adamw no updates no updates. n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-no-n-n-n-n updates-dates-dates. 16:56
kparal no. updates. 16:56
adamw #info the AutoQA news is, there is no news (for time reasons) 16:57
adamw #topic open floor 16:57
adamw and we have a whole 2.5 minutes for open floor 16:57
adamw any substantial discussions we can do in 2.5 minutes? anyone? bueller? 16:57
* Southern_Gentlem shoots the meeting and puts it out of its misery 16:58
adamw Southern_Gentlem: on behalf of everyone: thanks 16:58
* adamw sets fuse for 1 minute 16:58
* tflink sheds a tear for the poor QA meeting 16:59
brunowolff I was hoping for a beef miracle of no slip this release. That's going to be tough now. 16:59
adamw thanks for showing up and mostly surviving without permanent brain damage, folks 16:59
adamw brunowolff: never say die! 16:59
adamw brunowolff: also, blame wwoods. 16:59
tflink brunowolff: they don't call it a miracle for nothing :) 16:59
adamw #endmeeting 16:59

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

Retrieved from "https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=QA/Meetings/20120326&oldid=282174"