15:06:16 #startmeeting Bugzappers meeting 2010-06-01 15:06:16 Meeting started Tue Jun 1 15:06:16 2010 UTC. The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:06:16 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 15:06:25 #topic gathering\ 15:06:30 who's around? 15:06:39 * nokia3510 salutes 15:06:46 hi 15:06:47 * nirik is here. 15:06:55 whee. hey, everyone. 15:07:04 nokia3510: oh, i got your PM last night, feel free to hit me up in PM after the meeting 15:07:16 thanks, will do 15:07:41 okay, so... 15:07:57 * poelcat 15:08:02 #topic follow-ups: housekeeping 15:08:39 not sure if tk009 is around, but maybe poelcat can fill us in 15:08:39 poelcat: is housekeeping for f13 looking good? 15:08:51 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora13#Fedora_11_EOL_Closure 15:08:57 i sent to test list 15:09:17 yes, things are good 15:09:52 that looks good to me, fwiw 15:10:04 small note - should we change the email address of the user we use for such automated changes? 15:10:13 does fedora-triage-list@redhat.com even 'exist'? 15:10:19 adamw: yes 15:10:25 ah, okay then 15:10:46 ls 15:10:49 adamw: historically it was to discuss triage 15:10:49 =) 15:10:57 tk009: hiya 15:11:03 tk009: you have anything to add on housekeeping front? 15:11:10 everything thought it was better to stay concentrated on the test list 15:11:10 sorry no 15:11:29 poelcat: we could change the address to test list then, just for neatness, i guess. 15:11:37 tk009: no problem, poelcat says we're in good shape 15:11:48 adamw: that would be a mess since then test list would get bugzilla mail 15:11:57 poelcat: ah, i see 15:12:08 ignore me then! 15:12:27 lessee, the only other follow-up we have is mcepl - mcepl, around? 15:12:33 i agree it is kind of goofy the way it currently is, though there doesn't seem to be anything better 15:12:44 yes 15:12:47 okey 15:12:55 #topic follow-ups: triage scripts 15:13:10 mcepl: any new news on triage scripts? how's the rewrite coming? 15:14:52 I get into yet another spiral of self-destruction^H^H^H^H^H^Hrewrite .... after I experienced a religous experience after reading http://ehsanakhgari.org/blog/2010-05-31/my-experience-jetpack-sdk 15:14:57 heh heh 15:15:03 and I am now working on really large rewrite 15:15:25 hopefully it should be done fast, but the result should be .xpi module on addon.mozilla.org ;) 15:15:35 that kinda hooks up with a question I had - firefox keeps politely informing me that Jetpack is obsolete and there is some sort of New Hotness, but I don't really get the setup 15:15:54 so the idea is that you (the writer) can now use Jetpack-y techniques to build something that winds up just being a normal Mozilla extension? 15:16:13 the New Hotness doesn't contain yet all what I would officially need (it should come in 0.5), but the guy in the blogpost shows some dirty tricks how to get around it. 15:16:13 its not ready for prime time from what I read 15:16:20 yes 15:16:26 no, it certainly isn't 15:16:36 since when has THAT ever stopped us =) 15:16:57 I've made a lot of cleanup in my previous cleanup (which you haven't got yet) so things should look much better now 15:17:33 in case anyone's feeling like they jumped in on page 132 - we have Firefox scripts for aiding triage, which you can get at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/Tools . these are written to use the Jetpack Firefox extension, which - as we're discussing above - Mozilla has decided they want to sort of redo a bit. 15:17:36 adamw: https://fedorahosted.org/bugzilla-triage-scripts/ ... but really, you will probably reedit some files yourself 15:18:21 well, the current 'public' release seems to work okay, so is it alright for us to just keep using that until you're ready to drop something new on us? 15:18:48 adamw: well, I would have a bit correction on that "redo a bit" part. When I complained, there is no good conversion path between -prototype (what we use now) and -SDK, the answer I've got was: "Yes, you should forgot fast whatever you learned before" 15:19:10 ah, heh. so it has the same name but it's something really different? 15:19:12 i think there is no much worth to use this in-between step. 15:19:14 * nirik wonders how possible a chromium one would be. ;) 15:19:16 completely 15:19:37 but, immensly better ... following non-firefox standards (CommonJS) etc. 15:19:44 okay. so for those of us playing along at home, easiest to just stick with the jetpack script and jetpack prototype extension until you let us know the jetpack-SDK created extension is available. 15:19:56 yes, definitively 15:19:57 6-12 months 15:20:12 okay, thanks 15:20:35 BTW, if I understand correctly (and I haven't studied that) the result should be much more standard-following then whatever Chrome has now. 15:21:09 okay 15:21:31 but I don't understand much of chrome extensions ... if anybody wants to port my scripts to Chromium he is certainly welcome 15:21:59 noted 15:22:07 (just aside, I have just finished building out of curiousity webm-containing chromium for RHEL-6; based on http://spot.fedorapeople.org/chromium/) 15:22:24 #info mcepl is working on re-re-re-writing the triage scripts using Jetpack-SDK, which is a completely different beast from the Jetpack prototype we are using now 15:22:51 #info this would result in the scripts being available simply as a Firefox extension for download from Mozilla, and should make them easier to port to other browsers 15:23:04 well, hopefully (on the last part ;)) 15:23:08 =) 15:23:14 thanks mcepl 15:23:21 more like using non-browser libraries and stuff 15:23:29 there IS server-side Javascript 15:23:41 HOWGH 15:23:53 so, that's all we had for follow-ups... 15:24:00 next up: 15:24:02 #topic kernel triage 15:24:07 i believe nirik has a bit of an update for us 15:24:27 yeah, I poked a bit more on the wiki page and posted again to the fedora kernel list for feedback. 15:24:44 also mcepl provided some good feedback. Some of which I need to still add. 15:24:47 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KernelBugTriage 15:25:08 excellent, glad you're still plugging away on it 15:25:13 is there anything the rest of us can help with? 15:25:21 I'd like to get another round of feedback from kernel folks and then perhaps try out 10-20 bugs and see what needs adjusting. 15:25:58 any feedback on stock responses or things I missed in the wiki page would be most welcom. 15:26:02 welcome even 15:26:05 cool 15:26:12 so we should take a look at the wiki page and pass on any thoughts 15:26:26 nirik: did you get even my second round of comments? 15:26:53 I think I can dig it up from my IRC logs if needed 15:26:53 mcepl: yeah, I was away from keyboard, but I saw them. 15:26:56 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/kernel/2010-May/002465.html 15:26:57 ok 15:27:01 is my post to the kernel list. 15:27:26 I got them... need to add those/modify the wiki page based on those still. Will do that today if I can. 15:27:47 #info nirik is still working on kernel triage: he has updated the wiki page further and asked for a second round of feedback from the kernel team 15:27:53 #link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KernelBugTriage 15:28:09 #info feedback on the wiki page and any suggestions for additions would be welcomed 15:28:39 rawhide currently only has about 75 bugs, a number of which are already assigned or whatever. 15:28:54 264 for f13, so it's a bigger target. 15:29:03 still, both seem like manageable numbers 15:29:08 yeah. 15:29:31 f12 -> 812 15:29:43 so f13 is clearly much less buggy! 15:29:44 we win 15:30:12 (unless my queries are wrong. ;) 15:30:28 anyhow, any feedback welcome. 15:30:29 heh 15:30:32 okay, thanks 15:30:58 let's see, i don't think we have anytihng else; we don't need to talk about f14 till closer to branch point, i think, that's when all the housekeeping happens 15:31:08 * adamw wonders if oxf13 or notting are lurking 15:31:35 nirik: one comment, which I would like to hear feedback from adamw and other Bugzappers. 15:31:44 sure, fire away. 15:31:57 when reading https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KernelBugTriage ... the stock comments have very different tone than the Bugzappers' ones 15:32:17 I was telling it to you yesterday, but I would like to get a feedback 15:32:23 that's true 15:32:29 it would make sense to make them more consistent 15:32:30 yeah, they were left over from the orig version of the page. 15:32:43 we are much more business-like ... "singular tense, instead of pliural" ... etc. What do we think? 15:32:43 I'd be happy to make them match the other bugzappers messages. 15:33:51 my hope would be that reporters' would feel like bugzappers actually know what they are tlaking about and cooperate more willingly 15:34:01 Basically that page was written by Chris Brown...who singlehandedly was doing kernel triage for a while. 15:34:04 yeah, i think we should have kernel messages follow current bugzappers style rather than vice versa 15:34:20 that may even have been before bugzappers existed. ;) 15:34:34 anyhow, no objection to me to using the normal bugzapper style. 15:34:36 way back in the mists of time, huh :) 15:34:39 nope, none at all 15:35:24 if someone would be willing to edit the page for that, that would be great, or I can look at doing so later. 15:35:53 #agreed kernel triage stock messages should be synced with bugzappers stock messages, anyone can go ahead and do this 15:36:05 we may even be able to just combine them into one page and retire some of the kernel-specific ones... 15:36:39 that would be fine too. 15:36:50 nirik: actually, yes, the origin is in some internal RH common stock messages ... now thirty times completely rewritten 15:37:02 yeah. 15:37:15 okey dokey 15:37:23 so, i think we can go on to... 15:37:25 #topic open floor 15:37:29 that wiki page was imported from moin. ;) 15:37:51 anyone have a story to sing, a dream to share, a unicorn to set free? 15:39:15 aww, no unicorns? 15:39:17 *single tear* 15:39:50 if pointed well, that tear can do some good work! 15:39:55 oh, I have a quick query: 15:40:08 go for it 15:40:47 I see folks joining bugzappers pretty regularly... is there any sense on how many stay active? is there a good retention on folks moving forward? or do many end up not being very active? or we don't have any idea? 15:41:29 the last one, unfortunately :/ 15:41:35 once upon a time I did a research about that 15:41:37 this was something triage metrics was meant to solve, and, well, yeah 15:41:51 maybe we should give up on _that_ unicorn and set up some more basic bugzilla searches to give us a rough idea 15:41:55 mentors is the answer not metrics 15:42:22 people leave cause there is no one to help guide them 15:42:34 * mcepl notes that unicorns are much more real than bug-triage metrics system .... 15:42:41 ha 15:42:43 tk009: +1000 15:42:44 like if zapping isnt their thing we are much helping finding the right place for them 15:42:50 are not* 15:42:52 * nokia3510 tends to agree with tk009 15:43:24 I have always though of the zappers as an intro to the project 15:43:31 a place to start 15:43:59 as tk009 says is more useful to spend the time mentoring than researching what is doing everyone 15:44:02 yeah, it's easy to join and start doing something. 15:44:34 most zappers are going it solo 15:44:44 self starter kind of thing 15:44:53 yeah, it's a nice idea. we keep hitting it from various angles but never quite making it fly 15:45:14 adamw: what is the nice idea? 15:46:12 no easy solution to this one 15:46:32 mcepl: some sort of post-signup-assistance for new zappers 15:47:05 well, we shout at them consistently that #fedora-bugzappers is the place 15:47:12 * mcepl is guilty not being there enough 15:47:28 you can't be there all the time, none of us can 15:47:28 aside from actually being there, what else we should do? 15:47:53 yeah, it's tricky 15:47:58 as tk009 says, no easy solution 15:48:01 aggressive publicity ? :) 15:48:05 sombody mentioned screen casts in the emails. 15:48:16 I was the one that mentioned that 15:48:43 I have been thinking about doing a few that would show how and what we do 15:49:02 perhaps a better presence on dedicated forums ? I can talk to leigh123linux on fedora forums on that 15:49:05 yeah, and I was waiting that somebody will tell me to show somewhere ... 15:49:07 yeah, it's a nice idea, no-one's done 'em yet =) 15:49:21 nokia3510: i read the forums, but forums are a terrible terrible interface for getting collaborative work done 15:49:26 OK, -1 on that ... I won't spend any time on fora ... sorry 15:49:29 mailing list is much better from that perspective 15:49:52 i don't think we've lost anyone yet because they wanted to use the forums rather than the mailing list? willing to be proved wrong, though 15:50:16 if it happened in was not a loss 15:50:32 nokia3510: you can see how people love the forums around here =) 15:50:33 I read the forums all the time 15:50:49 adamw: sorry, I meant perhaps more pointers on this direction would be welcome, not spending time on forums 15:50:56 * nirik puts forums 3rd in his time... so I seldom get there anymore. 15:51:44 nokia3510: ah, i see. it's a bit tricky to maintain a visible 'presence' in forums though, you can only do it by posting there a lot 15:51:53 and we can't really post about bugzapping stuff in the forums 15:52:07 says the guy that is up to like 1700 posts 15:52:31 true on that last bit 15:52:56 nokia3510: I mean, if you want to be our ambassador on fora, feel free to be officially commissioned ;) 15:53:19 I'll try :) 15:53:35 tk009: sure, but I don't post about bugzapping much :) 15:53:49 you help and are visible 15:53:54 that is what matters 15:54:00 they know who adamw is 15:54:13 love him or hate him =P 15:54:23 the most important point of information is the wiki,,,, I wish there was some kind of bugzappers wiki index to browse everything related from there, and maybe there was not neccesary to send all those links to new bugzappers but one 15:54:25 as long as you respect my iron fist it's all good 15:54:44 tcpip40001: the front page is meant to act as an index more or less 15:54:53 tcpip40001: you should be able to get to every bugzapper-related page from the front paeg 15:54:53 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers 15:55:01 and isn't there are a BugZappers category? 15:55:05 i think so... 15:55:15 oh, hmm, maybe just the qa category 15:55:17 err, no ... it's QA 15:55:31 it was change a couple months back 15:55:37 changed* 15:55:38 but definitely if you think we can add more to the front page, please suggest it... 15:56:16 for example the kernel triaging page looks very important 15:56:31 hold on folks i have to go pick up a parcel 15:56:32 brb 15:56:50 but fill the main page with those links could make it cumbersome 15:56:55 tcpip40001: yeah, it should be in the same categories, etc... of course it's not done yet. 15:58:06 the wiki is constant change, always evolving. As adamw said please do speak up if you see things that could be better 15:59:33 ok,,,,, in the other hand, I want to state that F13 feels much faster and stable than F11 or F12 ,,, and the QA has raised the bar of this release thank you all for this great release 15:59:53 the kernel triage page is kind of a special case because it's an old page that doesn't actually reflect current practice and needs updating 16:00:01 that's why it hasn't been included in the bugzappers wiki structure yet 16:00:50 how about having a link to the latest bugzapper meetings log in the main page ? 16:01:17 there is a meeting link 16:01:24 not a log link, though 16:01:34 it's a nice idea - i'd just worry that it might get stale (we'd forget to do it :>) 16:01:51 * adamw is always scared of putting anything in a wiki which can go stale quickly 16:01:56 because in the end it almost always does 16:02:09 how about a thing noting that meeting logs are in meetbot.fedoraproject.org, etc. 16:02:25 that would work, ypu 16:02:33 thanks nirik, that was my point 16:02:52 of course would need some poking around to find it. 16:03:13 right, but at least you'd know where to look... 16:03:24 adamw: it would help to #meetingname bugzappers this. 16:03:42 it uses that for the filename... 16:03:44 if set 16:04:09 nirik: d'oh, that's the tagh 16:04:16 i always forget it 16:04:19 me as well 16:04:34 yeah, I have a file here for meetings that I add all that stuff to, so I can just paste it. 16:05:20 we are over time and not sure if someone is after us 16:05:23 yeah 16:05:28 thanks for the input everyone 16:05:39 let's get out of here and eat some cookies =) 16:05:52 you can do the meetingname anytime. ;) 16:06:07 i think it then starts a new log under the new name from that point on though? 16:06:24 i seem to recall when jlaska uses it for qa meetings, you get two lines under a generic name, then the rest of the meeting under the qa name 16:06:41 yeah, because it logs as the meeting goes on. 16:06:50 but once meeting is ended it should write out the name I thought. 16:06:55 oh, okay. 16:06:57 well let's try it 16:07:02 #meetingname bugzappers 16:07:02 The meeting name has been set to 'bugzappers' 16:07:04 if not it would be a bug, IMHO 16:07:08 we'll see =) 16:07:11 thanks again everyone 16:07:14 #endmeeting