15:00:19 <jlaska> #startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting
15:00:19 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Jul 12 15:00:19 2010 UTC.  The chair is jlaska. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:19 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:00:24 <jlaska> #meetingname fedora-qa
15:00:24 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa'
15:00:30 <jlaska> #topic Gathering ...
15:00:40 * jlaska waits a few minutes for folks to arrive
15:00:56 <adamw> mor-diddly-orning
15:01:14 * jskladan tips the hat
15:01:17 * kparal joins up
15:01:24 * dafrito waves
15:01:36 * tertl3 arrives
15:01:36 * j_dulaney killes a Kligon
15:01:45 <j_dulaney> kills
15:02:06 * j_dulaney decides to sleep as soon as this is done
15:02:18 <kparal> what an attendence :)
15:02:26 <kparal> nice
15:02:31 <j_dulaney> better than last week
15:02:35 * wwoods here
15:02:43 <jlaska> howdy all
15:02:45 * vaschenb newbie is nervous :-)
15:02:55 * Southern_Gentlem 
15:03:07 <j_dulaney> vaschenb: why?
15:03:25 <kparal> he don't know what tortures to expect :)
15:03:28 <vaschenb> j_dulaney: it's my first time :-D
15:03:29 <j_dulaney> Read and learn
15:03:34 <jskladan> he's still waiting for the hazing to start :)
15:03:35 <j_dulaney> Ah
15:03:45 <adamw> alright, time to start thinning the herd!
15:03:46 <wwoods> oh boy a new guy! do we have the dump truck full of manure ready or what
15:03:48 * adamw revs up the chainsaw
15:03:52 <jlaska> wwoods: haha
15:03:53 <wwoods> I mean er uh. WELCOME
15:04:06 <adamw> oh, that's right, wwoods - manure before chainsaw. where ARE my manners
15:04:12 <jskladan> :-D
15:04:17 <kparal> lol
15:04:21 <j_dulaney> tertl3 is also new
15:04:31 * jskladan lolz
15:04:34 <tertl3> yes
15:04:38 <tertl3> I am a noob
15:04:48 <jlaska> alrighty, I think we have critical mass ... let's get started
15:04:59 <vaschenb> tertl3: welcome into virgin group :-)
15:05:14 <jlaska> #topic Previous meeting follow-up
15:05:20 <jlaska> #info jlaska to cleanup (or remove) the Critical Path Packages#Background section so that it provides _some_ value
15:05:40 <jlaska> nothing sexy, but I added some wording to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_Path_Packages#Background
15:06:06 <adamw> that looks a lot better.
15:06:14 <jlaska> Unless there is rioting in the streets, let's get this off my list :)
15:06:44 <dafrito> no riots here ;)
15:06:44 <jlaska> dafrito and adamw are the wiki-experts ... suggestions always encouraged
15:06:52 <jlaska> alrighty ... thanks
15:07:09 <jlaska> this next one really has several threads tracking it ...
15:07:11 <jlaska> #info j_dulaney to draft a combined proventesters / joinproventesters wiki page for list review
15:07:28 <jlaska> we have a few drafts ... shall we save the updates on this for the proventester update
15:07:36 <adamw> sure, that'd make sense to me
15:07:41 <j_dulaney> Indee
15:07:41 <jlaska> alrighty ...
15:07:43 <j_dulaney> indeed
15:08:00 <jlaska> last one ...
15:08:08 <jlaska> #info wwoods to evaluate nss-softokn dependency problem for proper 'depcheck' coverage
15:08:16 <jlaska> and from what I can tell, this was done already
15:08:17 <jlaska> #link http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-July/138478.html
15:08:33 <wwoods> right - we still want to write up a test case for this, when we start writing depcheck test cases
15:09:01 <jlaska> roger, I think you've got that captured already in trac too
15:09:04 <wwoods> but I think that description of the problem will be sufficient to allow that, and theoreticallly depcheck should catch that, if it runs mash
15:09:08 <wwoods> (which it will)
15:09:14 <adamw> cool
15:09:41 <jlaska> alrighty ... that's all I had on my list from last week
15:09:43 <jlaska> anything I missed?
15:10:25 <jlaska> okay ... diving into the agenda
15:10:29 <jlaska> 2 brief updates ...
15:10:34 <jlaska> #topic Pre-Alpha Rawhide Acceptance Test Plan #1
15:10:54 <jlaska> < insert thunder and lightning >
15:11:10 * j_dulaney ducks and covers
15:11:19 <jlaska> it has started ... we hit our first of 3 Fedora 14 pre-alpha acceptance test milestones last Thursday
15:11:55 <jlaska> these are still very much experimental test runs ... intended primarily to run through the rawhide acceptance test plan
15:12:28 <jlaska> updated anaconda+pykickstart were built last week, and install images were built by rel-eng over the weekend
15:12:50 <jlaska> Testing is underway ... and I'll send a test summary to the list in the next day or so
15:12:59 <j_dulaney> available in the nightly builds?
15:13:17 <jlaska> no ... nightly installable rawhide images are not provided
15:13:35 <jlaska> this milestone is intended to help scrub custom-built rawhide install images before F-14 Alpha ... to help shake out early bugs
15:14:03 <jlaska> #info jlaska to send test summary to test@l.fp.org once complete
15:14:05 <jlaska> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_14_Pre-Alpha_Rawhide_Acceptance_Test_1
15:14:08 <adamw> the nightly composes are running, though. and i think they're rawhide.
15:14:44 <jlaska> yes indeed, those are just package repos.  So as always, you can update to rawhide using the documented procedures
15:14:57 <jlaska> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Rawhide#Installing_Rawhide
15:15:06 <jlaska> Okay, next up ...
15:15:12 <jlaska> #topic Fedora 14 Install Matrix Review
15:15:32 <adamw> er, what? i mean the nightly live images.
15:15:32 <jlaska> Hurry (rhe) has been putting the finishing touches on the much improved install test matrix
15:15:39 <adamw> oh well.
15:15:41 <jlaska> adamw: ah I see, yes you are right :)
15:15:54 <jlaska> adamw: too much nightly content to keep track of
15:16:11 <adamw> fwiw, i don't particular recommend rawhide right now, for GNOME anyway. it's so broken i'm in XFCE.
15:16:21 <adamw> just as a note =)
15:16:24 <jlaska> #info Hurry has an updated F14 install test plan out for review at - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_14_Install_Test_Plan
15:16:29 <jlaska> adamw: good to note, thanks
15:16:42 * j_dulaney couldn't get it to boot last time he tested it
15:16:45 <jlaska> #info Hurry has an updated F14 install test matrix out for review as well - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_14_Install_Results_Template
15:16:46 <adamw> i've been following the trac tickets, looks like nice stuff
15:17:03 <jlaska> yeah, should be some nice improvements
15:17:20 <jlaska> easier to see which tests/results impact the different use cases (cd, dvd, boot.iso etc...)
15:18:01 <jlaska> Hurry welcomes feedback on those 2 wiki documents.  Unless anything drastic, we'll be using those to track install testing for F-14
15:18:40 <jlaska> okay ... next topic ...
15:18:50 <jlaska> #topic Proventester Update
15:19:01 <jlaska> quite a bit of wiki love over the last week
15:19:14 <jlaska> who wants to take this one?
15:20:07 <dafrito> there ended up being three drafts, and I think we settled on adamw's
15:20:21 <adamw> drafts:
15:20:39 <adamw> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_proventesters <--- adamw
15:20:58 <adamw> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Dafrito/Proven_tester <--- dafrito
15:21:15 <adamw> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jdulaney/Proven_Tester <--- j_dulaney
15:21:53 <j_dulaney> I believe adamw's to be the best
15:22:10 <adamw> dulaney's came first, then dafrito's, then mine. so far, dafrito and I say we prefer mine, mike c says he likes it too, no-one else has said much. =)
15:22:33 <adamw> I also like how none of us can agree on the page name =)
15:22:43 <j_dulaney> LOL
15:22:46 <jlaska> does this replace [[QA/JoinProvenTesters]] and [[Proven_tester]]?
15:22:47 <dafrito> hehe
15:22:54 <j_dulaney> jlaska: indeed
15:23:14 <j_dulaney> adamw's seems to be the clearest of the lot to me.
15:23:35 <j_dulaney> My version is a kluge combining what was really two drafts.
15:23:39 <jlaska> yeah, I like adding back the sections for specific types of feedback ... but like I said in email, that might be specific to the odd way my brain works :)
15:24:16 <jlaska> so, should we consider this topic _voted_ on then?
15:24:25 <j_dulaney> jlaska: I concur
15:24:33 <j_dulaney> however you spell it
15:24:37 <adamw> if so i'll go ahead and move mine into the live namespace, and edit one of the pages to be a redirect to it
15:24:40 <adamw> j_dulaney: got it in one
15:25:00 <dafrito> yeah, my version was off-topic, I'd go with adam's
15:25:08 <jlaska> +1
15:25:31 <j_dulaney> I'll go ahead and axe mine
15:25:42 <jlaska> btw ... good work all around folks, nice to see this process flow with proposed drafts
15:26:19 <dafrito> Did we want to rename the page to proventesters as well?
15:26:36 <adamw> nah, i'll keep the Proven_tester name
15:26:37 <jlaska> let's see how many different page names we can come up with :)
15:26:41 <adamw> it's best to avoid page renames whenever possible
15:26:53 <adamw> mediawiki gets lost after one level of redirects
15:27:09 <kparal> really? doh
15:27:21 <adamw> i'll put this draft into the Proven_tester name and edit JoinProvenTesters to be a redirect to it
15:27:32 <adamw> kparal: yeah. try creating a page, then rename it twice, then go to the URL of the first name
15:27:36 <j_dulaney> adamw: I'd say go ahead
15:27:58 <jlaska> the websites team has a script they run periodically to remove all those double/triple redirects
15:28:07 <jlaska> but still, it can get confusing
15:29:22 <jlaska> #info team agreed to make [[User:Adamwill/Draft_proventesters]] the official [[Proven_tester]] page
15:29:39 <jlaska> Alright, I'm not aware of anything else we need to be tracking for Proventesters
15:29:56 <jlaska> perhaps the proventester mentor requests?
15:30:27 <j_dulaney> I was going to ask, how do y'all thik it's going since activation?
15:30:37 <adamw> well, it's hard to tell
15:30:40 <adamw> that's one thing i wanted to mention
15:30:46 <jlaska> that brings up a good follow-up topic
15:30:48 <adamw> it'd be nice to be able to track proven tester feedback
15:30:57 <adamw> after all, we all know how easy metrics are! (sorry, injoke for the bugzappers crowd)
15:31:24 <jlaska> lmacken: has some scripts he used to generate metrics ... we could investigate using those scripts for a weekly test summary?
15:31:40 <jlaska> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-June/137413.html
15:31:49 <adamw> i think there's already a report on bodhi feedback sent to -devel periodically; i've been meaning to email the author to ask if it can be adjusted to report only on feedback from proventesters, and only for critpath packages
15:32:22 <j_dulaney> There seems to be a lot of 0 karma
15:33:19 <jlaska> I'm seeing 11 untested F13 critpath updates - https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/critpath?release=F13&untested=True
15:33:28 <j_dulaney> In several cases, it seems that the 0 karma was given for packages that are core to Fedora, but people are unfamiliar with them
15:34:12 <jlaska> Shall we keep this on the list for a future meeting?
15:34:22 <j_dulaney> It seems that folks aren't looking at what a package does
15:34:35 * j_dulaney is guilty of that
15:34:54 <jlaska> adamw: do you have a link to one of those sample reports?  Perhaps someone is interested in following-up on that topic?
15:35:21 <adamw> i can see a couple of packages in that report which are somewhat trickyt
15:35:26 <wwoods> might be good to ask the package maintainers for some info about how to do basic package verification/acceptance
15:35:35 <wwoods> *somebody*'s gotta have a clue
15:35:39 <adamw> for koji and mash, clearly we need someone in releng to be active as a proventester
15:35:40 <jlaska> e.g. mash, koji
15:35:51 <adamw> iscsi-utils is very hardware-specific
15:36:01 <j_dulaney> Indeed
15:36:03 <adamw> as is wacom
15:36:09 <wwoods> adamw: not really - you can have both iscsi endpoints be all-software, as I understand it
15:36:13 <wwoods> wacom, yes
15:36:19 <adamw> wwoods: okay, knowing-what-the-hell-you're-doing specific =)
15:36:29 <j_dulaney> what is wacom?
15:36:36 <wwoods> one could argue that all package testing has that specific requirement.
15:36:36 <adamw> j_dulaney: tablets
15:36:40 <j_dulaney> Ah
15:36:42 <adamw> j_dulaney: (the ones artists use)
15:36:45 <jlaska> so do we have 2 topics here ...
15:36:45 <wwoods> wacom tablets are far less rare
15:36:46 <j_dulaney> I'm a moron then
15:36:48 <j_dulaney> I have one
15:36:49 <wwoods> you can get one for like $40
15:36:53 <jlaska> 1) generating proventester metrics
15:37:00 <adamw> wwoods: sure, you know what I mean - knowing-what-the-hell-you're-doing-with-something-somewhat-obscure
15:37:02 <j_dulaney> I didn't think about using it for testing
15:37:10 <jlaska> 2) providing some package-specific wiki test guidelines
15:37:11 <jlaska> ?
15:37:24 <adamw> j_dulaney: okay, then problem solved - plug it in, check you can scribble on it at every boot, and +1 the wacom updates
15:37:40 <j_dulaney> adamw: roger
15:38:29 <adamw> jlaska: i can't find the karma reports i'm thinking of, any more :/
15:38:36 <adamw> jlaska: i'm fairly sure it wasn't just an opium dream though...
15:38:39 <jlaska> adamw: did you see the lmackenreport I linked to above?
15:38:50 <adamw> yeah, that's not what i was thinking of, though close
15:38:52 <jlaska> okay
15:38:58 <adamw> i guess it's not too important, obviously luke's the guy to ask
15:39:15 * adamw strictly follows his rule to never touch a drop of opium till after 2pm
15:39:33 <jlaska> okay ... anyone want to take this up with Luke, see how perhaps we can generate proventester reports on a recurring basis?
15:39:39 <adamw> i will
15:39:57 <jlaska> everyone take 1 step back ... except adamw!
15:40:00 <jlaska> hehe
15:40:13 <jlaska> thanks adamw
15:40:28 <adamw> one other from the list; openldap is there because it can be involved in login, i think?
15:40:32 <jlaska> #action adamw to talk with lmacken about generating recurring email reports on proventester
15:40:39 <adamw> so we kinda need someone with an LDAP auth system to +1 those updates
15:41:04 <j_dulaney> I wish there was a list somewhere of what the critpath updats do
15:41:06 <jlaska> I think sudo requires it
15:41:19 <adamw> jlaska: oh, hmm...didn't know that
15:41:34 <adamw> j_dulaney: how do you mean, exactly? what the update changed?
15:41:37 <jlaska> okay, so anything else we want to track on this topic for next week?
15:42:01 <adamw> hum
15:42:06 <adamw> i think the mentoring process is going fine so far
15:42:08 <j_dulaney> adamw: What the library does, so we know if we can test it or not
15:42:32 <adamw> j_dulaney: ah, so just what jlaska mentioned above
15:42:59 <adamw> j_dulaney: a couple of things you can do - look at the RPM description (rpm -q packagename) and also what requires the package (use repoquery for that)
15:43:08 <adamw> that often gives you a good idea of what it's for
15:43:13 <jlaska> # repoquery -q --whatrequires $foo
15:43:32 <wwoods> ITYM rpm -qi packagename
15:44:20 <j_dulaney> @ping
15:44:20 <j_dulaney> @ping
15:44:21 <fedbot> pong
15:44:21 <j_dulaney> @ping
15:44:22 <fedbot> pong
15:44:23 <fedbot> pong
15:44:33 <jlaska> that was odd
15:45:05 <j_dulaney> Ugh
15:45:08 <j_dulaney> @ping
15:45:08 <fedbot> j_dulaney: You've given me 3 commands within the last minute; I'm now ignoring you for 5 minutes.
15:45:22 <jlaska> alright, I'd like to leave at least 15 minutes for the last topic
15:45:22 <wwoods> j_dulaney: please don't do that in the channel, esp. in the middle of a meeting
15:45:37 <wwoods> j_dulaney: consider privmsgs for talking to the bot
15:45:40 <jlaska> anything else to track for next week?
15:45:45 <j_dulaney> I apoligize, my connection went wacky
15:46:29 <jlaska> alrighty ... we'll follow-up on the metrics topic next week then
15:46:30 <jlaska> thanks folks
15:46:34 <jlaska> next up ...
15:46:35 <adamw> wwoods: rpm -qi gives you the package description. repoquery --whatrequires tells you what requires it (well, you also have to do it for everything it provides).
15:47:18 <wwoods> (adamw: right you said "look at the RPM description (rpm -q packagename)" - rpm -q isn't gonna give you the description.)
15:47:22 <jlaska> #topic AutoQA Package Update Acceptance Test Plan
15:47:50 <jlaska> wwoods: apologies, I was hoping to leave you more time to discuss today
15:48:01 <adamw> wwoods: oh yes, thanks :)
15:48:23 <wwoods> jlaska: s'ok
15:48:50 <wwoods> so right - we've got this excellent acceptance plan for package updates
15:48:54 <wwoods> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Package_Update_Acceptance_Test_Plan
15:49:05 <wwoods> and we've been working on automating as much of it as possible
15:49:23 <kparal> (preferably everything)
15:49:28 <wwoods> kparal: indeed!
15:49:49 <wwoods> one of the key things adhering to this plan *should* accomplish
15:49:57 <wwoods> is preventing us ever having broken deps in the repos (yay)
15:50:09 <kparal> big yay!
15:50:29 <wwoods> among other various important things that will be helpful for packager/tester sanity.
15:50:54 <wwoods> so. we've had this plan kicking around a long time, I've been messing with the depcheck test for months, etc.
15:51:04 <wwoods> and now we've finally got autotest/autoqa running in the Fedora infrstructure
15:51:21 <wwoods> AND the Fedora 14 release cycle is starting up soon
15:51:42 <wwoods> so I feel like now's a good time to try to get as much done on the PUATP as possible.
15:51:51 <wwoods> I broke things up into a few milestones:
15:51:58 <wwoods> https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/milestone/Package%20Update%20Acceptance%20Test%20Plan
15:52:05 <wwoods> https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/milestone/Package%20Update%20Acceptance%20Test%20Plan%20-%20package%20sanity%20tests
15:52:11 <wwoods> https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/milestone/Package%20Update%20Acceptance%20Test%20Plan%20-%20depcheck
15:52:14 <wwoods> blerg, long URLS
15:52:28 <wwoods> but you can just check out the roadmap - https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/roadmap
15:52:37 * kparal has installed %20->space converter into his eyes
15:53:19 * adamw needs some o' those
15:53:39 * j_dulaney notes he could get involved here.
15:53:52 <wwoods> kparal: you pointed out that we had a goal-setting meeting a while back and decided that resultdb was basically the Top Of The List for stuff we wanted to get done
15:54:07 <wwoods> which is still true for the larger roadmap, I think
15:54:26 <kparal> yea, I remember it somewhat like that :)
15:54:47 <wwoods> right - that's definitely an incredibly important part of the AutoQA roadmap
15:55:00 <wwoods> but I think that can go on in parallel with automating PUATP
15:55:18 <wwoods> and there are a lot of people interested in seeing PUATP automated as soon as possible
15:55:25 <kparal> I think the important part is not having everyone work on 5 different tasks. but we can shift priorities if needed, that's no problem
15:55:34 <wwoods> kparal: agreed
15:55:37 <jlaska> +1
15:55:47 <j_dulaney> indeed
15:55:53 <wwoods> so I'm suggesting that - as much as is possible - we should shift work to PUATP-related tasks for a while
15:56:05 <kparal> alright, so depcheck testing is the #1 now?
15:56:10 <adamw> j_dulaney: for a start, subscribe to autoqa-devel list
15:56:21 <adamw> j_dulaney: https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/autoqa-devel
15:56:23 <j_dulaney> adamw: roger
15:56:34 <wwoods> I keep getting approached by board members / desktop team members / etc asking about depcheck and friends
15:56:37 <wwoods> I know FESCo is interested
15:56:48 <wwoods> and we've put a good deal of work into PUATP already
15:57:15 <wwoods> and I'd love to have it functional - it'll make us look real good if it works the way we want it to
15:57:17 <kparal> wwoods: ok, so I believe there's enough work even for me, right? :)
15:57:18 <wwoods> heh
15:57:29 <wwoods> kparal: yeah I think there's plenty to go around!
15:57:30 <wwoods> heh
15:57:34 <kparal> should we all work on it?
15:58:06 <wwoods> In as far as you can find tasks/tickets to take, definitely
15:58:14 <kparal> alright then
15:58:36 <wwoods> I'd like to get it moved far enough forward that we have at least a couple of the mandatory PUATP tests running for new updates
15:59:14 <wwoods> I'm not suggesting NO WORKING ON ANYTHING UNTIL THIS IS COMPLETE
15:59:38 <wwoods> that's obviously sill
15:59:39 <wwoods> err, silly
15:59:50 * kparal is fine with taking it as the main point of focus
15:59:54 * j_dulaney will slave to get it done
15:59:55 <wwoods> but let's seriously all try to take bits and pieces and get this thinger done
16:00:00 <jlaska> wwoods: you mentioned a sprint idea in your autoqa-devel mail, are the type of remaining tasks things that might lend well to a day of hacking on this stuff?
16:00:28 <j_dulaney> that would be cool
16:00:28 <jskladan> ok, from my point of view - i'd like to see the "common base class for tests" in master (at least smth like that) at least before we start with the "multiple hook tests"
16:00:34 * kparal will need some help with getting started on depcheck, maybe sprint could help
16:00:46 <wwoods> jlaska: yeah I think so! the package sanity tests, for instance - those tickets could use a day's worth of work
16:01:07 <wwoods> jskladan: absolutely agreed - I'm going to review that patch right after the meeting
16:01:07 <jskladan> other than that, i don't see any obstacle on the road (yet :) )
16:01:12 <wwoods> and the same for kparal's label patch
16:01:23 <wwoods> because we need that for ticket #156 in the package sanity tests
16:01:28 <wwoods> and for proper virt stuff
16:02:21 <kparal> I think its agreed, we will start working on depcheck and its requirements
16:02:27 <wwoods> now we're kind of over time for the meeting, but we can divide up a few obvious tickets right now
16:02:35 <jskladan> well, sadly i need to go home after the meeting, but feel free to potentialy bug me via email and i'll respond during my night time, or we can check the code via telephone tomorrow or smth like that, if you should find it too confusing/not ok/whatever
16:03:08 <wwoods> or - yeah, I don't want to keep the Brno guys (it's beer-o-clock there!)
16:03:19 * j_dulaney wants something to start on
16:03:25 <wwoods> so if we're agreed that depcheck / PUATP is the thing to do
16:03:25 * jskladan wwoods reads minds! :)
16:03:49 <wwoods> either feel free to take tickets in trac
16:04:01 <wwoods> or let's discuss who should/can take tickets on autoqa-devel
16:04:10 <wwoods> j_dulaney: definitely recommend subscribing to that list
16:04:21 <j_dulaney> wwoods: already have
16:04:22 <wwoods> https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/autoqa-devel
16:04:23 <kparal> wwoods: I'll try to explore it a little (probably ask you some stuff) and then start working on some of its tickets
16:04:25 <wwoods> excellent
16:04:36 <wwoods> yeah I'm happy to answer questions or provide assistance on any of it
16:05:01 <wwoods> if anyone wants to take the HelloWorld test, that's probably a pretty easy ticket for anyone with a bit of python skill
16:05:29 <kparal> maybe a good start for vaschenb ;)
16:05:42 <wwoods> kparal: I was thinking that too, actually
16:05:54 <wwoods> that's: https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/195
16:06:43 <vaschenb> huh :-)
16:06:47 <wwoods> also: if there's tickets that seem invalid / unneeded for finishing PUATP, either move them around or bring it up on the list or in #fedora-qa
16:06:58 <jlaska> wwoods: what's the finish line for us ... closing out all three of the milestones you linked above?
16:07:21 <wwoods> yeah - I'd like to see all three of those milestones complete before, let's say, F14 Beta
16:08:00 <wwoods> That's October 15, according to http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-14/f-14-quality-tasks.html
16:08:23 <wwoods> Actually, I think we could probably shoot for F14 Alpha
16:08:34 <wwoods> (September 7)
16:08:49 <vaschenb> kparal: ok, tomorrow I'll do what you want, now I've to go destroy my body...
16:08:56 <jlaska> perhaps even just the depcheck milestone by F14-Alpha
16:09:09 <wwoods> once we hit Alpha we're going to want to put more work into release testing / installer automation
16:09:13 <jlaska> and the remainder by F14-Beta (bonus points of course for wrapping this up early too)
16:09:24 <wwoods> but ideally this should all be up and running when F-14 is released
16:09:40 <wwoods> so F14 can be one of the smoothest releases we've ever had
16:09:47 <wwoods> and then we all get well-earned QA Victory Beers
16:09:59 <jlaska> heh, I like those
16:10:00 <wwoods> jlaska: that sounds like a reasonable schedule
16:10:17 <wwoods> anyone object / further discussion on timelines?
16:10:21 * vaschenb is out, idling here for complete log of meeting...
16:10:47 <jlaska> vaschenb: cya
16:11:03 <kparal> vaschenb: log will be available on wiki pages and in ML
16:11:26 * wwoods takes that as "no objections", updates milestone due dates
16:11:42 <jlaska> wwoods: thanks!
16:11:52 <jlaska> I better go steal all the easy tickets first! (just kidding)
16:12:06 * j_dulaney wants the easy stuff
16:12:20 <j_dulaney> The idea being I start off easy
16:12:26 <wwoods> kparal: I might bug you for rpmfluff info and/or help writing depcheck test cases (ticket #202)
16:12:44 <kparal> wwoods: yes, sure
16:12:52 <wwoods> the pst tickets need review - some of them are finished/obsolete, like #139: "pst: Find a way how to test packages coming to updates-testing"
16:12:57 <wwoods> that's the post-bodhi-update hook, yay
16:13:15 <kparal> wwoods: we were actually thinking to ask vaschenb to use rpmfluff to create a few broken packages for us. but we will see
16:13:19 <wwoods> can we schedule a pst ticket sprint day sometime this week? wednesday maybe?
16:13:26 <wwoods> kparal: ooh, also a good idea
16:13:44 <wwoods> or maybe j_dulaney? rpmfluff is a fun little tool
16:13:48 <wwoods> is rpmfluff C or python? I forget
16:13:54 <kparal> wwoods: I would wait with the pst stuff
16:13:58 <kparal> wwoods: rpmfluff is python
16:13:58 <j_dulaney> I'd like to look into it
16:14:40 <wwoods> kparal: fair 'nuff
16:14:48 <kparal> wwoods: pst stuff can wait until we have depcheck working. pst stuff wasn't really worked on recently, because psplicha had some other work. but we will surely come back to it
16:15:08 <wwoods> okay, let's revisit pst status in next week's meeting
16:15:34 <wwoods> first priorities are: multi-hook testing, label / base test class patches
16:15:52 <wwoods> and the depcheck test
16:16:03 * Viking-Ice joins in Better late then never ;)
16:16:24 <wwoods> someone should review output of rpmlint / rpmguard on the -results list
16:16:48 <wwoods> err. I mean. do we have a policy about which rpmlint/rpmguard test results we actually want to consider errors/failures
16:17:02 <wwoods> or should someone review the current output we've been getting and write such a policy?
16:17:09 <adamw> writing one would be good
16:17:14 <wwoods> we probably need to run that past the packaging folks
16:17:14 <adamw> i don't believe there is such a policy
16:17:27 <kparal> I would do one thing after another :)
16:17:30 <wwoods> adamw: ah - well the PUATP will require one
16:17:39 <jskladan> will, i do not want to be mean or something, but looks like we're heading back to the "all at once" again :))
16:17:51 <wwoods> jskladan: heh, maybe you're right
16:18:07 <jlaska> if the output from those tests is more than just informational, yeah, we'd need to work that path.  But perhaps that's a future task?
16:18:22 <adamw> wwoods: there's https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
16:18:35 <adamw> wwoods: that's about the most 'official' thing that currently exists, afaik
16:18:39 <wwoods> so yeah, depcheck only this week, we can do a status checkin on pst and rpm{lint,guard} policy next week sometime
16:18:59 <jlaska> wwoods: the priority you outlined earlier seems pretty focused to me: multi-hook testing, label/base test class patches and depcheck
16:19:17 <jskladan> jlaska: +1
16:19:25 <wwoods> jlaska: right, just want to be sure we're accounting for all the PUATP pieces in the medium-term
16:19:30 <jlaska> that's 2 milestones ... and then working those 2 patches into master, right?
16:19:35 <wwoods> yup!
16:19:37 <jlaska> wwoods: ah, true true
16:20:11 <jlaska> okay, I'll include a link to each of those milestones in the minutes
16:20:21 <wwoods> and the other PUATP pieces.. we just reviewed them and kparal and jskladan have gently reminded me that they can wait 'til later
16:20:24 <wwoods> heh
16:20:33 * j_dulaney apologizes for bad connection
16:20:56 <jlaska> anything others can do to help with those 2 patchsets out for review?
16:21:14 <j_dulaney> wwoods: I don't know if you got my request to email me info on rpmfluff?
16:21:30 <wwoods> jlaska: not sure. documenting changes / new capabilities perhaps?
16:21:42 <wwoods> we'll probably need to update the wiki pages on writing new tests, for instance
16:21:49 <j_dulaney> wwoods: and that I'd like in on that?
16:21:51 <jlaska> wwoods: okay ... I'll jump on kparal's label thread tomorrow
16:22:15 <jlaska> j_dulaney: google is your friend ... https://fedorahosted.org/rpmfluff/
16:22:50 <wwoods> j_dulaney: didn't see that, but I'll definitely try to keep you in the loop
16:23:10 <j_dulaney> thanks jlaska, wwoods
16:23:17 <jlaska> any other thoughts/concerns before open floor?
16:23:32 <kparal> not from kparal
16:24:33 <j_dulaney> Chan 'eil idir as j_dulaney.
16:25:13 <jlaska> okay, thanks gang.  wwoods I'll try to capture this in the minutes, but kick me if I miss anything
16:25:18 <wwoods> jlaska: with gusto
16:25:25 <jlaska> not too much gusto :)
16:25:37 * wwoods brought the extra-heavy boots
16:25:37 <jlaska> #topic Open discussion - <your topic here>
16:25:54 <jlaska> wwoods: hah ... not the steal tipped kodiac work boot
16:26:00 * j_dulaney has nothing
16:26:10 <jlaska> okay gang, we've run over today ... that's my fault for not leaving enough time
16:26:12 <Viking-Ice> I asked for one thing to add to the list
16:27:03 <Viking-Ice> upstream bugzillas vs our bugzilla should reporters be directed to upstream bugzilla tracks system and what not
16:27:22 <Viking-Ice> Where does QA stand on this issue
16:27:29 <adamw> i don't think we have time to discuss that properly now.
16:27:30 <tertl3> hi
16:27:39 <tertl3> this is a long meeting
16:27:39 <Viking-Ice> adamw: why not
16:27:48 <wwoods> tertl3: they're not usually this long, heh
16:27:50 <jlaska> tertl3: not usually this long, thanks for sticking around :)
16:28:08 <tertl3> not problem, I was playing TF2
16:28:14 <Viking-Ice> we need to settle this once and for all
16:28:14 <tertl3> i play it in a windpw though
16:28:15 <adamw> Viking-Ice: we're already 30 minutes over time =)
16:28:20 * j_dulaney is about to pass out
16:28:33 <tertl3> j_dulaney, dont drink the Nyquil!
16:28:42 <wwoods> Viking-Ice: I'd say that's more a bugzappers question but my gut feeling is that plain ol' bug-reporting users should be reporting stuff to RHBZ
16:28:42 <j_dulaney> LOL
16:28:54 <tertl3> j_dulaney, i'm just kidding
16:29:12 <Viking-Ice> wwoods: this affects all QA mostly reporters thou and perhaps triagers
16:29:16 <tertl3> i like the tylenol cold and cough
16:29:23 * jskladan needs to go, bb gang!
16:29:23 <wwoods> but that our talented and well-trained bugzapper ninja squadrons should feel free to copy/move bugs upstream as they see fit
16:29:27 <jlaska> jskladan: take care
16:29:39 <j_dulaney> peace
16:29:53 <adamw> wwoods: practically speaking that ain't going to solve the problem, as bugzappers coverage hovers solidly around the 2% of components mark...
16:29:55 <Viking-Ice> wwoods: is it not the maintainers responsibility do play that role not the triagers one
16:30:03 <tertl3> I havent booted into fedora in a few days
16:30:14 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: I'm not sure I understand what the "issue" is
16:30:31 <jlaska> there are clear instructions on when to file upstream, vs when to file in Fedora?
16:30:44 <Viking-Ice> jlaska;: reporters being directed to upstream bugzillas
16:30:53 <j_dulaney> jlaska: I've not seen such
16:30:55 <jlaska> they are or aren't being reported to upstream?
16:31:09 <kparal> I personally report to upstream whenever possible, whenever I'm sure it's not Fedora specific
16:31:25 <Viking-Ice> maintainers close bug file this stuff upstreasm
16:31:27 <Viking-Ice> upstream
16:31:41 <jlaska> is that good, bad?
16:31:45 <jlaska> what's your stance/recommendation?
16:31:46 <Viking-Ice> when in fact they should act as the bridge between components the maintain and upstreasm
16:31:52 <Viking-Ice> upstreasm
16:31:52 <jlaska> ah
16:31:57 <Viking-Ice> frack
16:32:00 <Viking-Ice> upstream!
16:32:18 <Viking-Ice> my stance is simple all bugs should be reported to our bugzilla
16:32:30 <wwoods> wait is this about that thread on the devel list? are maintainers closing bugs in rhbz and saying "file this upstream instead" or something?
16:32:41 <Viking-Ice> and maintainers should act as the bridge between upstream bugzilla and our bugzilla for their component
16:33:10 <wwoods> Viking-Ice: yeah historically that's the policy, and anything that needs upstream attention either a) the upstream is alert and pays attention to our bugzilla, or b) the maintainer or some diligent tester pushes things upstream when needed
16:33:15 <Viking-Ice> wwoods: reoccurring thread happens every release sometimes often in the release cycle
16:33:36 <wwoods> general policy is still "fedora reports go to rhbz"
16:33:49 <wwoods> don't think we've changed anything about that
16:34:05 <j_dulaney> Ugh, can't type fast enough in current state.
16:34:37 <Viking-Ice> wwood: Well some maintainers ignore or simple close bugs wontfix file upstream
16:35:16 <j_dulaney> File problem with maintainers?
16:35:18 <Viking-Ice> waste of everybody's time reporters triagers and maintainers mean if this is going to be the procedure then simply remove the components from our bugzilla
16:35:19 <wwoods> so this is about that mail thread.
16:35:37 <wwoods> that thread gets a big tl;dr frmo me
16:35:49 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: I think that's a bit extremist
16:35:51 <Viking-Ice> wwoods: yup it's "why the WONTFIX?" this time
16:36:04 <Viking-Ice> jlaska: not really
16:36:06 <jlaska> alright, so we're not going to reach any conclusions on this topic in the meeting
16:36:21 <j_dulaney> indeed
16:36:25 <wwoods> worth thinking about, maybe revisit in other meetings
16:36:35 <jlaska> unless others want to weigh in, let's take this up at a future meeting, or on list
16:37:15 <j_dulaney> listsounds good, too drawn out for meeting
16:38:07 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: alright, if we have something that needs review of finalizing for next week ... I'll add it to the list
16:38:23 <jlaska> otherwise ... we can continue the debate/discussion on the list
16:38:26 <Viking-Ice> we need to settle this or atleast provide QA stance on the topic
16:38:40 <Viking-Ice> put it on next meetings agenda
16:38:50 <Viking-Ice> gather feedback from the list this week
16:39:07 <jlaska> I'm missing the exigency, but am open to learning
16:39:29 <jlaska> okay folks ... thanks for your time today
16:39:38 <jlaska> as always, I'll send minutes to the list/wiki
16:39:42 <jlaska> #endmeeting