16:00:06 <jlaska> #startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting
16:00:06 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Dec 13 16:00:06 2010 UTC.  The chair is jlaska. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:06 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:10 <jlaska> #meetingname fedora-qa
16:00:10 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa'
16:00:22 <jlaska> #topic Gathering life forms
16:00:37 <jlaska> Hi all ... show of hands for those joining the QA meeting today
16:00:53 <jlaska> or cilia, whichever is appropriate
16:00:55 * jskladan here
16:00:57 * mkrizek is here
16:01:05 * Alam here
16:01:06 <adamw> yo!
16:01:33 * brunowolff I am here in case someone has a question about the not VERIFIED bug queries
16:01:57 * kparal hellos everyone
16:02:00 * fenrus02 waves
16:02:05 <brunowolff> As an aside the fedora meeting page says the meeting is at 1500. I thought I missed it.
16:02:14 <jlaska> brunowolff: oh thanks ... lemme update that
16:02:22 * jlaska waits 60 seconds to start meeting
16:03:05 <jlaska> who are we missing?  Viking-Ice wwoods robatino?
16:03:32 <jlaska> alright, let's get moving
16:03:39 <jlaska> #topic Previous Meeting follow-up
16:04:09 <jlaska> I have no action items from last week
16:04:17 <jlaska> we have some ongoing topics, but those will be covered in the agenda
16:05:02 <jlaska> I continue to delay the QA retrospective recommendations work due to other conflicts
16:05:12 <jlaska> thankfully ... that's not stopping some of you from moving forward on big topics for F15
16:05:49 <jlaska> So if you're feeling down about being behind on a task ... you can join me in #behind :)
16:06:18 <jlaska> alright, moving into the agenda
16:06:19 * Viking-Ice here
16:06:23 <jlaska> howdy!
16:06:25 <jlaska> #topic Call for Test Days
16:06:31 * phuzion is here
16:06:39 <jlaska> Just re-iterating last weeks call for topics
16:06:41 <jlaska> phuzion: hello :)
16:06:46 * adamw just sent out an email with that topic to devel-announce...
16:07:05 <jlaska> #link http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2010-December/000733.html
16:07:10 <jlaska> adamw: that's great, thank you
16:07:23 <jlaska> adamw: you scheduled quite a few events last week already
16:07:34 <adamw> well, mostly just several recurrences of two or three :)
16:07:57 <jlaska> the xorg-x11-drv week ... our bread'n'butter ;)
16:08:19 <jlaska> Alam mentioned another l10n/i18n event
16:08:32 <jlaska> I'll ping jens, rhe and Alam about that for F15
16:08:48 <jlaska> iirc, jens and rhe hosted a similar (and successful) event for F14
16:08:55 <adamw> that'd be cool yep
16:09:07 <adamw> the one for f14 was great, it identified some bugs we got marked as NTH and fixed
16:09:14 <adamw> probably wouldn't have been caught otherwise
16:09:40 <jlaska> #action jlaska to ping jens+rhe and Alam for thoughts on a F15 l10n/i18n test day
16:10:03 <jlaska> The RetraceServer guys were interested in hosting something mid-march
16:10:35 <jlaska> but nothing final yet ... I've got an action item to ping them too
16:11:00 <jlaska> adamw: do you think systemd will likely land on the schedule somewhere?
16:11:12 <adamw> should do yep
16:11:40 <adamw> i'm waiting to hear from lennart and/or harald
16:11:56 <jlaska> adamw: sweet, I should have known you already reached out on that :)
16:12:03 <jlaska> Some links for those reading the logs ...
16:12:05 <jlaska> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/15/FeatureList
16:12:30 <jlaska> #link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Fedora_15_test_days
16:12:39 <jlaska> adamw: anything else to note on this topic?
16:12:45 <adamw> harald's on vacation, i'm hoping lennart will get back soon
16:12:53 <adamw> nope, i've mostly thrown in the things i had on my list
16:13:44 <jlaska> adamw: thanks for moving that process forward
16:13:50 <adamw> npnp
16:13:58 <jlaska> #topic Bodhi patch
16:14:09 * fcami__ waves
16:14:15 <jlaska> hey, there he is :)
16:14:19 <fcami__> sorry, just got back from a meeting
16:14:22 * wwoods is lurking
16:14:27 <jlaska> wwoods: hey
16:14:44 <jlaska> so fcami posted a patch to update the comment that bodhi posts into bugzilla when an update is available for testing
16:14:58 <fcami__> then I sent an updated patch to jlaska/adamw yesterday
16:15:01 <jlaska> #link http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/701
16:15:28 <fcami__> the latest patch integrates all the comments done by bugzappers during the last meeting
16:15:35 <jlaska> fcami__: for next steps ... I think that patch needs review from the bodhi-devel team, and then figure out what to apply it against?
16:15:46 <jlaska> is lmacken lurking?
16:15:49 <fcami__> yes, if you're all OK with that
16:16:05 <adamw> sure
16:16:13 <adamw> just looking at the patch...
16:16:23 <adamw> why are there two slightly different messages in different places?
16:16:27 <fcami__> sorry, I should have posted it to some mailing list
16:16:34 <jlaska> is the patch available for lmacken to review as well?
16:16:37 <fcami__> hmmm, they shouldn't be different
16:17:06 * adamw tries to fpaste it
16:17:10 <adamw> one seems to have just a bit more text
16:17:13 <fcami__> the two places are 1/ what happens when you edit a bodhi action, adding bugs 2/ when you create a bodhi action with bugs
16:17:29 <jlaska> #link http://fpaste.org/F3Pv/
16:17:30 <jlaska> ^^^ patch
16:17:31 <adamw> oh. no, actually, they are the same
16:17:36 <adamw> i just was missing where it wrapped a line :)
16:17:50 <adamw> so looks fine
16:17:54 <fcami__> oy ok :)
16:17:57 <jlaska> is there a bodhi-devel list?  How do we get this on the right radar?
16:18:10 <adamw> except i still thought it would be good to have it give a note to log in before leaving feedback
16:18:27 <fcami__> I can add that, yes
16:18:37 <fcami__> there is bodhi@fedorahosted IIRC
16:18:48 <fcami__> I'll CC lmacken
16:18:58 <jlaska> fcami__: ah yeah ... https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/bodhi
16:19:29 <jlaska> fcami__: also, is this patch against the current bodhi code base, or the bodhi-2.0 stuff?
16:19:53 <fcami__> jlaska, whatever's in master in the git repo. maybe I should dig more.
16:20:29 <jlaska> fcami__: I think lmacken can probably add some data there ... since he'll likely be the one accepting the patch (I think)
16:20:37 * jlaska sees you already started the discussion https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/bodhi/2010-December/000543.html
16:21:01 <fcami__> yes, I did that, that's the previous version
16:21:17 <jlaska> what's the next step?
16:21:19 <fcami__> nirik replied to let me know there was an infra ticket
16:21:27 <fcami__> next step is to update the patch with the log in requirement
16:22:03 <jlaska> cool, and then we should track progress on the thread you started on bodhi@lists.fedorahosted.org ?
16:22:13 <fcami__> yeah, I think so
16:22:26 <fcami__> I'll CC test@lists.fedoraproject.org
16:22:28 <fcami__> as I did last time
16:22:41 <jlaska> okay ... sounds like you've got all the ducks in a row :)
16:23:11 <jlaska> shall we check-in on this again next week?
16:23:25 <fcami__> yeah, probably so
16:23:34 <jlaska> okay
16:23:34 <fcami__> I should update the patch tonight
16:23:38 <jlaska> thanks fcami__
16:23:40 <fcami__> and then I'll try to reach lmacken directly
16:23:50 <fcami__> np jlaska
16:24:06 <fcami__> because I'd like to know if he's OK with the general idea
16:24:16 * fcami__ gives the mic back
16:24:29 <jlaska> alright ... bruno's next
16:24:41 <jlaska> #topic Improve tracking untested blocker bugs
16:24:50 <jlaska> This is a follow-up on ...
16:24:52 <jlaska> #link http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/89
16:25:22 <jlaska> brunowolff created a draft wiki page with some stock queries we can use to keep track of blocker bugs that get CLOSED but are never VERIFIED
16:25:25 <jlaska> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bruno#Mockup_for_QA_-_Tracking_bug_queries
16:26:30 <jlaska> brunowolff: that looks about what we needed.  I don't know if we have a pressing need for tracking the NTH bugs that aren't VERIFIED
16:26:40 <jlaska> so if we were looking to slim up the links ... that might be one option
16:27:16 <jlaska> adamw: any thoughts?
16:27:22 <brunowolff> The one possibly significant limitation is that only bugs directly dependent on each tracker are checked.
16:27:40 <adamw> we don't need to track the NTH bugs, but hey, it doesn't hurt either.
16:27:41 <jlaska> The general idea here I think is that we want to incorporate review of these bugs into the blocker bug SOP somehow
16:27:48 <brunowolff> If there are normal bugs depending on other normal bugs that aren't verified, that won't get caught.
16:27:51 <adamw> yeah, that limitation is unfortunate
16:28:07 <adamw> especially when we use component or team blockers, like the anaconda and kde and virt trackers
16:28:12 <jlaska> brunowolff: yeah, I'm used to that limitation ... so that doesn't bother me  too much
16:28:17 <jlaska> just as long as we call it out somewhere
16:28:55 <jlaska> so ... how would we respond to bugs on these lists?
16:29:23 <adamw> i kinda thought the aim of the tracker was to ensure that such bugs don't exist
16:29:25 <jlaska> my initial thought, is these lists would serve as extra data ... helping us decide whether some serious looking Blocker bugs never were tested
16:29:35 <adamw> so it's to be used to identify process fail more than some sort of ongoing thing
16:29:36 <jlaska> adamw: yeah, you got it
16:29:53 <jlaska> I don't know if we'll be able to knock out *all* bugs that show up on these lists
16:30:04 <adamw> although i suppose when we mark bugs as blockers early in the cycle and they just get fixed in the normal process of releasing we may skip verified
16:30:05 <jlaska> but that's a laudable goal
16:30:14 <jlaska> adamw: true true
16:30:37 <jlaska> howabout for F15 ... we periodically review the list during Blocker meetings, just like you do with NTH bugs?
16:30:44 <adamw> we could, sure
16:30:44 <jlaska> looking for any ... "Oh shoot!" moments?
16:30:51 <adamw> the only drawback with that is...longer blocker meetings
16:30:51 <adamw> :P
16:30:58 <jlaska> yeah, true true
16:30:59 <jlaska> hmm
16:31:42 <jlaska> the other option is firing the list of test@lists.fp.org each week ... calling out issues if needed?
16:31:46 <adamw> yeah
16:31:52 <adamw> so it's list spam vs. meeting time
16:31:56 <adamw> pick which you hate more
16:31:57 <jlaska> heh :)
16:32:15 <jlaska> we can move it to another meeting
16:32:18 <jlaska> this one
16:32:40 <jlaska> I feel like it's at least worth 5 minutes of a meeting to quickly scan the list
16:32:47 <jlaska> I'll be happy to do the scanning during the meetings in F15
16:32:52 <adamw> sure
16:32:53 <jlaska> if it's useless ... oh well
16:32:55 <adamw> let's see how it goes
16:32:58 <jlaska> yeah
16:33:15 <jlaska> should I integrate brunowolff's links into the blocker meeting SOP page?
16:33:47 <jlaska> otherwise ... I'll forget when we are in the thick of a release :)
16:34:06 <adamw> if we're going to do it in the blocker meeting, sure
16:34:10 <adamw> document the whole process is the goal
16:34:18 <jlaska> brunowolff: unless you have other recommendations, I can try to sanely merge your links into the blocker meeting SOP
16:34:31 <jlaska> #link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:34:54 <jlaska> #action jlaska to merge [[User:Bruno#Mockup_for_QA_-_Tracking_bug_queries]] into [[QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting]]
16:35:04 <brunowolff> That's fine. If you have any further questions for me, you can bug me by email.
16:35:14 <jlaska> brunowolff: will do, thanks for the bz help :)
16:35:24 <jlaska> #topic Fedora test case mgmt requirements
16:35:38 <jlaska> Just a quick update on #topic
16:35:39 <jlaska> #link http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/152
16:35:54 <jlaska> Hurry drafted an initial requirements page to start collecting/organizing data
16:35:59 <jlaska> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Rhe/tcms_requirements_proposal
16:36:23 <jlaska> Please do add comments/ideas/suggestions to the Talk: page
16:36:43 <jlaska> I plan to add some, hopefully constructive, feedback later this week
16:37:21 <jlaska> Alright, next topic ...
16:37:28 <jlaska> #topic CritPath test case development
16:37:33 <jlaska> #link http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/154
16:37:58 <jlaska> adamw: how's it coming along on the critpath work?
16:38:36 <jlaska> any updates/blockers/concerns/question/jokes ...
16:38:45 <adamw> nope, just waiting on me to do something
16:39:00 <adamw> till's feedback was good, i'll go ahead incorporating that
16:39:26 <jlaska> cool.  I don't know if it helped, but there's plenty of stuff we can get through the mediawiki API
16:39:33 <adamw> i'm going to write up one or two example (but useful...) test cases, in the appropriate name / category layout, then mail the list again explaining the proposed system and linking to the examples
16:39:35 <jlaska> lemme know if you want me to do any queries for you
16:39:47 <jlaska> adamw: sounds like a plan
16:40:39 <jlaska> #info still experimenting with some mock-ups/examples
16:40:56 <jlaska> #info Will mail the list explaining proposed system and linking to examples
16:41:05 <jlaska> alright ... kparal, are you ready to rock?
16:41:21 <jlaska> thanks adamw :)
16:41:23 <kparal> jlaska: ready to rock the boat :)
16:41:25 <jlaska> #topic AutoQA Update
16:41:35 <adamw> jlaska: i don't really need the queries, it's bodhi/f-e-k that need them :)
16:41:44 <jlaska> adamw: right on
16:42:13 <jlaska> adamw: I meant if you wanted feedback as to whether your examples are queryable as intended etc...
16:42:33 * kparal waiting a while
16:42:43 <jlaska> kparal: another busy week for AutoQA ... what's the latest?
16:42:57 <kparal> Hello gang, even though I didn't want to be as wordy as last time, I'm afraid I will be :) Here are the latest news:
16:43:12 <kparal> 1. clumens' anaconda_storage test has been reviewed propertly (regarding AutoQA part of the test) and it is ready to be merged into master, once clumens deems it's ready. Therefore it should be very probably part of the next release [1]. Enjoy automatic Anaconda tests in the near future, hooray!
16:43:13 <kparal> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AutoQA_Roadmap
16:43:40 <kparal> (Hey, I have written it in advance, so it would be quicker, but feel free to stop me after any section if you have some comments to it)
16:44:21 <kparal> 2. The patch representing second attempt for solving ticket #205 [2] ("Provide a support for sending comments into Bodhi") has landed into autoqa-devel [3]. Big thanks to mkrizek. If no further concerns, it will be merged into master very soon. That means we will be able to send our test results as comments into Bodhi. Example is here: [4]. Currently this is planned for depcheck and for upgradepath test (not enabled yet).
16:44:21 <kparal> [2] https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/205
16:44:21 <kparal> [3] https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/autoqa-devel/2010-December/001435.html
16:44:21 <kparal> [4] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-rpmfluff-0.3-6.fc14
16:45:16 <jlaska> hehe ... you kept dmalcolm on his toes in that update :)
16:45:24 <kparal> yes we did :)
16:45:51 <kparal> but he agreed. maybe he didn't know what to expect
16:46:11 <jlaska> nice workflow with that patch set guys ... proposing, incorporating feedback, providing examples etc...
16:46:23 <wwoods> it's lovely stuff
16:46:47 <kparal> 3. lmacken enabled us to use staging Bodhi instance for AutoQA development purposes (mainly he turned off email notifications). Kudos to him for that. There is currently also an invalid certificate problem, but that should be solved in some time. Meanwhile the process of (mis)using staging Bodhi server from AutoQA is described at [5].
16:46:47 <kparal> [5] https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/autoqa-devel/2010-December/001438.html
16:47:39 <jlaska> "insecure=True" ... that gives you a warm feeling :)
16:47:47 <kparal> :)
16:48:05 <kparal> alright, next on
16:48:07 <kparal> 4. mkrizek and I worked on ticket #241 [6] ("Add support for a staging server"). The patch is not posted yet (waiting for previous patch to land in master), but the code is available at mkrizek-staging branch. It should allow us have configurable Koji/Bodhi server URLs and configurable options whether to send emails (3 different kinds, actually) and Bodhi comments.
16:48:07 <kparal> [6] https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/241
16:48:40 <jlaska> oh nice, that'll be a handy change
16:49:25 <kparal> (and expect much more documentation in autoqa.conf, as a bonus)
16:49:34 <wwoods> hooray documentation!
16:49:35 <wwoods> heh
16:49:44 <jlaska> btw ... who gets the credit for the killer __docstring__'s ?
16:49:56 <kparal> jlaska: which ones?
16:50:17 <jlaska> in the bodhi feedback patchset ... mkrizek has some really good docstrings for all the methods
16:50:34 <kparal> jlaska: the praise goes to mkrizek I believe
16:50:56 <kparal> I just asked him to document it well, he did the rest :)
16:51:07 <jlaska> nice!
16:51:32 <kparal> ok, and last but not least:
16:51:33 * mkrizek flattered
16:51:38 <kparal> 5. jskladan works on a different kind of a koji watcher. His work is available in the 'new_koji_watcher' branch. His work should enable us to hook up depcheck properly into our framework. It will also obsolete the post-bodhi-update watcher. I'll give him a word to say some key concepts of our new watcher and why we even need it.
16:52:10 * jskladan steps forward
16:52:24 <jskladan> OK, gang. We found ourselves in need of some updates on the watchers front.
16:52:26 * kparal hands out the mic to jskladan
16:52:40 <jskladan> The required changes were
16:52:40 <jskladan> 1) Make use of the -pending tags in Koji: https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/228
16:52:40 <jskladan> 2) Create 'batch' scheduler: https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/204
16:52:50 <jskladan> ad watching -pending tags)
16:53:08 <jskladan> At the moment koji watcher is querying Koji for the list of recently built packages (based on the time of build).
16:53:08 <jskladan> This is a bit unsatisfactory - we can (and we do) miss some spots in the testing chain:
16:53:22 <jskladan> 1) package Foo is built at date XYZ. It gains tag dist-f14-updates-candidate
16:53:22 <jskladan> 2) koji-watcher founds out "ha, new package, let's test it"
16:53:22 <jskladan> 3) tests are OK
16:53:22 <jskladan> 4) package Foo gains dist-f14-updates-testing-pending tag
16:53:22 <jskladan> 5) we'd like to run tests like depcheck on it, but because the 'built at' date, which the actual watcher checks is not altered, we miss the change
16:53:42 <jskladan> So we decided to use different querying model, based on the tagHistory() in Koji.
16:54:01 <jskladan> (kids, _do_ try this at home it's awesome :) `koji list-tag-history --tag=dist-f14-updates-pending`)
16:54:15 * jlaska tries
16:54:25 <jskladan> which effectively tells us which packages were 'pushed' to the tags we care about.
16:54:42 * jskladan hopes that there's no typo :)
16:54:49 <jskladan> ad "batch scheduling":
16:55:06 <jlaska> so this adds a new 'hook' name that tests would need to code to (for batch updates)?
16:55:21 <jskladan> yes, exactly
16:55:24 <jskladan> We also found us in need of 'batch' scheduling - e.g. we don't want to run depcheck for every package built, but we'd like just to inform autoqa "hey, there is new stuff in dist-f14-updates-pending tag, run tests".
16:56:05 <jskladan> So there is brand-spanking-new 'watch-koji-builds-batch' watcher.
16:56:13 <jlaska> jskladan, wwoods have you guys worked out how depcheck would integrate with this stuff?
16:56:33 <jskladan> which groups the updates according to the tag, and sends the whole 'batch' of updates at once
16:56:46 <jskladan> jlaska: I have not yet spoken with Will
16:57:07 <jskladan> jlaska: but I've tried it out in my testing environment, and it seems to be working like charm
16:57:30 <jskladan> jlaska: even though I'm not really sure about the differences in post-bodhi-update & post-koji-build
16:57:42 <jlaska> how do you mean?
16:57:56 <jskladan> (e.g. if we can miss something by watching only koji-tags, and amending the post-bodhi hook as such)
16:58:23 <jskladan> because at the moment, it seemed to me, that watching the tags is more straightforward for depecheck
16:58:34 <jskladan> because we can easily determine the repo
16:58:43 <jskladan> (or the tag, if you want)
16:59:04 <jlaska> from my understanding, it does seem to better align with the use of hte koji -pending tag
16:59:56 <jskladan> yes, this is also my point of view - I just wanted to make sure, that by setting the post-bodhi aside (at least for depcheck), we're not gonna miss any updates
17:00:18 <jlaska> can run the old watcher, and your watcher side-by-side to compare?
17:00:22 <jlaska> s/can/can we/
17:01:14 <jskladan> the koji & bodhi watcher? sure can, but I belive that it suffers from the same problem as the old koji watcher - e.g. it's reacting to 'builds' instead of 'tag changes'
17:01:36 <jlaska> jskladan: I'll have to take it offline ... I think I'm getting confused :)
17:01:48 <jskladan> eh, my bad
17:02:04 <kparal> this is a bit longer description than I expected :)
17:02:10 <jlaska> wwoods and jskladan ... can you guys sync up on the watcher and depcheck integration?
17:02:34 <jskladan> to put it straight: the plan is to effectively disable post-bodhi, and replace it with post-koji watcher over the 'pending' tags
17:02:40 <wwoods> oop sorry, got waylaid by something, catching up on scrollback
17:03:27 <jskladan> in the mean time - if you're interested in the new koji watcher, feel free to explore the git: <http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=autoqa.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/new_koji_watcher>
17:03:42 <jskladan> and post comments on autoqa-devel (or IRC)
17:03:45 <wwoods> using tag-history is definitely the right approach
17:03:59 <jlaska> jskladan: nice ... I've got plenty of catch-up work to do on autoqa-devel :)
17:04:36 <wwoods> but batching updates.. I don't think that's necesssary or desirable
17:05:11 <wwoods> since the plan is to move to a messagebus as soon as it's feasible
17:05:20 <wwoods> and the messagebus is going to send individual messages for each event
17:05:50 <wwoods> it's not going to batch the messages, so we don't want to build batching into the infrastructure and then drop it later
17:06:12 <kparal> let's consult it after the meeting
17:06:25 <wwoods> this is ticket #204
17:06:43 <wwoods> https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/204
17:06:51 <jlaska> yeah, was going to suggest continuing this in #fedora-qa after the meeting
17:07:16 <jlaska> what else on the autoqa front?
17:07:17 <wwoods> right - this is just a quick summary for the meeting notes
17:07:37 <jlaska> wwoods: thank you, that makes my minute gathering life easier!
17:07:40 <wwoods> ticket #204 involves batching updates from the watcher
17:07:54 <wwoods> a related problem is ticket #208, which concerns simultaneous depcheck runs
17:07:58 <wwoods> err, sorry
17:08:03 <wwoods> that's ticket #248
17:08:07 <wwoods> https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/248
17:08:50 <wwoods> I've tried to give some details on the proposed solutions there
17:08:59 <jlaska> there's been a ton of change recently on the AutoQA front ... so if we need a side-meeting to talk through some of that ... let's do it
17:10:00 <jlaska> let's discuss post-meeting
17:10:05 <wwoods> anyway there's some complex, thorny issues with timing and tagging for depcheck (and other tests in this path)
17:10:07 * jsmith likes that idea
17:10:15 <jlaska> wwoods: kparal: I think you both are talking from different POV's in ticket#248
17:10:16 <wwoods> we should definitely discuss it further
17:10:35 <wwoods> I'm also working on a blog post to try to explain what the problems are and how we can fix 'em
17:10:46 <wwoods> not finished yet, but here's a diagram I'm working on:
17:10:50 <wwoods> http://wwoods.fedorapeople.org/images/repos-draft.png
17:10:55 <kparal> Thanks everyone, but this was supposed to be a summary, erm :)
17:11:08 <kparal> wwoods: we will discuss if after the meeting
17:11:08 <wwoods> heh, ah well
17:11:22 <wwoods> but yes. Further Discussion Outside The Meeting Is Suggested
17:11:24 <jlaska> no worries ... sounds like it identified a topic we need to drill down on outside of the meeting
17:11:34 <jlaska> wwoods: nice diagram :)
17:11:41 <kparal> thanks jskladan for the problem description
17:12:07 <kparal> and this was also my last topic in the "AutoQA news"
17:12:21 * jskladan is shocked by the outcome :-D but looking forward to discussing this further :)
17:12:53 <jlaska> thanks for the autoqa updates all
17:12:58 <jlaska> alright ... open discussion time
17:13:07 <jlaska> #topic Open discussion - <your topic here>
17:13:24 <jlaska> we've gone a bit over today ... are there any other items we need to review here?
17:13:47 * jlaska waits 60 seconds
17:14:27 <jlaska> 20 seconds ...
17:14:36 <adamw> nothing from me
17:14:45 <jlaska> 5 seconds ...
17:14:54 <jlaska> Alright gang ... thanks for your time and updates today
17:15:05 <jlaska> I'll follow-up to the list later today with minutes
17:15:08 <jlaska> #endmeeting