16:00:41 #startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting 16:00:41 Meeting started Mon Dec 20 16:00:41 2010 UTC. The chair is jlaska. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:41 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:00:44 #meetingname fedora-qa 16:00:44 The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa' 16:00:48 #topic Gathering in the lobby .... 16:01:27 Hello all ... anyone lurking for likely our last meeting of 2010? 16:01:48 jlaska: me! 16:02:04 mkrizek: hi there! Is it quiet there today? 16:02:39 jlaska: it is, in the fedora qa box anyway 16:02:39 yo 16:02:57 hello 16:05:06 adamw: Alam Hi there! 16:05:16 sorry, I'm back ... just had a display hang 16:05:38 okay, anyone else? robatino, Viking-Ice, wwoods 16:05:48 * fenrus02 waves 16:05:53 fenrus02: hey! 16:06:44 okay, let's get started ... 16:06:50 #topic Previous meeting follow-up 16:06:58 #info jlaska to ping jens+rhe and Alam for thoughts on a F15 l10n/i18n test day 16:07:17 good news for me, rhe and Alam are already on top of this! 16:07:32 #info http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/158 - F15 l10n/i18n test day planning 16:07:45 Alam: anything else you want to highlight or share on that subject? 16:08:20 yeah, awesome job alam/rhe, thanks 16:08:21 jlaska: we selected test day and on the way to plan test cases 16:08:37 Alam: that's great news ... sounds like you guys are really movin' 16:09:00 we'll touch on test days shortly, but feel free to raise any questions/concerns in the ticket or on test@lists.fedoraproject.org :) 16:09:17 #info jlaska to merge User:Bruno#Mockup_for_QA_-_Tracking_bug_queries into QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting 16:09:42 With the queries the Bruno provided, I did some minor re-org of the blocker meeting SOP page 16:09:49 #link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting#In_Action 16:10:14 I'm not in love with my changes, but it at least gets those queries on the meeting radar for F15 16:10:22 nice! 16:10:32 I also added excessive meetbot commands to the page 16:10:40 simple and to the point and has links == good 16:11:19 (compliments to the Design team how to for example -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_run_a_Fedora_design_team_meeting) 16:11:23 adamw: thanks 16:11:32 last up ... 16:11:34 #info Bodhi feedback patch from fcami (see ticket#701 (infrastructure) awaiting review 16:12:04 I think fcami posted the updated patch last week ... so it's now on lmackens' radar for comment 16:12:18 not sure what else to track here 16:12:44 * wwoods lurks 16:13:01 wwoods: howdy :) 16:13:56 so, I guess we'll just stay tuned on that 16:14:07 alright ... quick recap ... 16:14:10 #topic Call for Test Days ... 16:14:13 * rbergeron lurks too ;) 16:14:21 rbergeron: hi there :) 16:14:33 so adamw and company have been going gang-busters on getting test days on the schedule 16:14:48 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Fedora_15_test_days 16:14:56 Some nice additions this past week 16:15:24 including the l10n/i18n event discussed earlier (thanks Alam + Hurry) 16:15:46 #link https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/159 - Consistent Network Device naming (pitched by shyamiyerdell) 16:16:10 adamw: any other updates or news to share on this topic? 16:16:22 nope 16:16:30 short and sweet, huh? :) 16:16:34 definitely! 16:16:40 oh ... did you hear back on systemd yet? 16:16:45 or are those folks already on break? 16:17:59 * rbergeron will just pipe in and say the cloud SIG has been talking about doing a test day - I will ping them this week and see when we might want to schedule that and put in a ticket 16:17:59 adamw: ^^^ ? 16:18:11 rbergeron: ooh, that'll be a fun new topic 16:18:36 sorry, multitasking 16:18:44 actually i have mgracik asking me stuff about systemd right now 16:18:46 so i'll ask him 16:18:47 adamw: no distracted driving! :) 16:18:55 adamw: okay 16:19:13 jlaska: indeed 16:19:16 so, the next topic was an update on the investigation bruno was doing with regards to query potential with upstream bugzilla 16:19:29 we can hold that off until he's available 16:19:34 but for those interested ... 16:19:37 #link https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/89#comment:18 16:19:40 general test day note 16:19:47 adamw: shoot 16:19:48 remember, we only put thursdays in the calendar 16:20:04 ah yes, good reminder 16:20:09 but if you really want to go in a week we have something else scheduled, you can go ahead and add a tuesday or wednessday 16:20:20 we like the thursday 'cadence' (heh) but it's no big deal to double-dip a few weeks 16:20:40 #info We only put Thursdays in the test day calendar, but other days are available if really needed 16:20:56 and for somethings, double+triple dipping works out great (e.g. Xorg) 16:21:00 well, except for adamw's sanity 16:21:09 right - if you want to run multiple related test days, it can work well to put them in a single week 16:21:15 Is there a reason why only thursdays? Just easier to advertise/remember that way? 16:21:15 as we're planning with i18n/l10n 16:21:30 rbergeron: basically, yes, the idea is for it to be a regular event. thursday was picked because it was a nice quiet day, iirc. 16:21:35 * rbergeron just wonders if that is something interesting to put on the test days wiki page so people don't go creating their own stuff in the table. 16:21:47 yeah, we could add a note there. 16:21:56 * rbergeron can do that real quicklike 16:22:08 sure, just saying the above 16:22:12 yup 16:22:15 * rbergeron goes a-typin' 16:22:21 clickity-clackity 16:22:51 When we try to host several unrelated test days in the same week, that can often be overload/confusing 16:23:19 and then if it's the same people responsible for hosting multiple events in one week ... that can be pretty taxing 16:23:38 as indicated by the hibernation adamw goes into after xorg week 16:23:58 alright, thanks for the updates adamw Alam and rbergeron 16:24:12 #topic Requirements review for Fedora test case management 16:24:32 that's a vicious slander! 16:24:42 Just a reminder, Hurry is still collecting thoughts and developing requirements for a formal test case management tool 16:24:51 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Rhe/tcms_requirements_proposal 16:24:52 * adamw breaks out the duellin' gloves 16:25:10 adamw: uh noes ... I think I just got slapped by your gauntlet! 16:25:37 New rule, never duel with a Canuck 16:26:12 Hurry and I have been discussing different approaches off-list, but most of hte thoughts are collected on the talk page 16:26:15 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Rhe/tcms_requirements_proposal 16:26:57 it'll probably be easier to provide feedback to once finalized, but if there are any general ideas on how to organize thoughts etc... the Talk: page is your friend 16:27:19 so thanks Hurry for starting this process :) 16:27:23 #topic Critical Path test case development 16:27:38 adamw: you're on! 16:27:54 uh, i'm working on it. =) 16:28:05 hehe ... should I send that to #info :) 16:28:07 we thrashed out various issues in the ticket this week 16:28:18 and i'm now drafting up wiki stuff which will document the whole process 16:28:26 once i have those drafts in place i'll send them to the lists for review 16:28:31 yeah, that was some good discussion, thanks for managing that! 16:28:56 #info Adamw drafing wiki pages intended to document the process 16:28:59 the biggest unsolved issue that i just have no idea how to tackle is how to express relationships between packages for test plans 16:29:09 e.g. 'when yum is updated we should probably run the test plan for packagekit' 16:29:11 that's really hard 16:29:18 hmm 16:29:20 if anyone has bright ideas about that, go ahead and throw them at the ticket 16:29:27 for now i am cheerfully ignoring it 16:29:51 well, that's another not tremendously difficult to manage thing with tcms ... so the future is promising 16:30:08 with only Categories to use, that is tough to manage with wiki 16:30:17 adamw: alrighty, thanks for the updates 16:30:32 #topic AutoQA Update(s) 16:31:00 note, we're missing kparal and jskladan this week 16:31:12 wwoods or mkrizek, any exciting updates on the autoqa front to share? 16:31:46 iirc, the big discussion last week was around the rework of the post-bodhi-update how/where the batching logic should live 16:32:08 I think wwoods and jskladan hashed out the details on list and over email 16:32:19 I've got nothing:) 16:32:21 right - I think we finally sorted out some of the complexity relating to depcheck and handling multithreaded testing of updates 16:32:36 gordian knot style 16:32:41 hah! 16:32:44 we decided not to test updates multithreaded 16:32:54 problem, solution! 16:33:32 eventually we'll need locking/semaphore stuff so we can handle situations with multiple tests sharing data 16:33:41 * adamw notes intel and amd are both roadmapping futures where we have zillions of cores for everything...but hey. 16:33:46 that's a long way off, i guess. 16:34:03 anyone with experience developing such stuff ... input would be appreciated! 16:34:24 mkrizek: how's the staging support coming along? 16:34:32 adamw: current data shows that, during our busiest-ever month, we would need depcheck (on average) once every 33 minutes 16:34:44 current average depcheck runtime: ~50-60sec 16:34:52 jlaska: done 16:35:06 jlaska: I will push it into mkrizek-staging 16:35:29 we're a long, long way from needing to care about multithreading *multiple depchecks for a single Fedora release* 16:35:32 wwoods: oooh, nice numbers! 16:35:35 all other testing is still multithreaded. 16:35:44 mkrizek: ooh, nice, what's next for that? 16:36:37 #info Team decided to serialize depcheck tests to avoid complexity relating to handling multiple depcheck tests running at the same time 16:36:50 jlaska: just starting coding logging suport, hopefully we will have /var/log/autoqa.log/different verbose modes soon 16:37:29 #info Depcheck data - during busiest-ever month, we would need depcheck (on average) once every 33 minutes. Depcheck currently takes <= 1m to complete 16:38:01 #info mkrizek finished up autoqa staging support (pushed to mkrizek-staging) 16:38:36 #info mkrizek starting logging support to better capture output from watchers and 'autoqa' 16:38:52 mkrizek: cool, nice ... that'll help avoid having to read 'autotest' mail to scan for failures 16:39:04 mkrizek: nice - using the python 'logging' module? 16:39:19 wwoods: yes 16:39:27 * wwoods finally getting good at using 'logging' and kind of loves it now 16:40:02 Small update on the clumens branch. I made a more improvements to the checkbot.sh test, drafted a compose-tree pungi test, and also added a preliminary post-git-receive watcher hook that triggers whenever a git push occurs for anaconda.git 16:40:13 jlaska: and also helps debugging I would say 16:40:17 mkrizek: yes! 16:40:51 #info updates to clumens anaconda branch - improved checkbot.sh test, new compose-tree pungi test, and initial post-git-receive watcher to trigger events on git push 16:40:58 alrighty ... anything else to report on the autoqa front? 16:41:45 don't think so 16:42:00 okay, open discussion time ... 16:42:06 #topic Open discussion - 16:42:42 anything not already discussed that folks would like to raise? 16:43:00 where's my christmas present?! 16:43:50 adamw: I will send you a secular non-specific winter pleasantry 16:44:20 if no topics, I'll #endmeeting in 2 minutes 16:44:51 Happy Chrismakwanzika folks 16:45:16 indeed, happy Festivus to all 16:45:30 1 min remaining until #endmeeting 16:45:38 for some reason my xmas goodies have been bacon-themed this year - I made two batches of maple-bacon chocolate chip cookies and four batches of maple baconated bourbon 16:45:50 I blame the meaty influence of the Hot Dog 16:46:08 uh I mean, praise. praise the meaty influence of the Hot Dog. 16:46:09 that was one delicious cookie! 16:46:12 wwoods, W00T! that is awesome with awesome sauce 16:46:28 okay all ... thanks for your time! 16:46:32 happy holidays :) 16:46:37 #endmeeting