15:00:18 <jlaska> #startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting
15:00:18 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon May 16 15:00:18 2011 UTC.  The chair is jlaska. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:18 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:00:27 <adamw> yo
15:00:29 <jlaska> #meetingname fedora-qa
15:00:29 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa'
15:00:32 <brunowolff> I talked to Dennis and he is going to do the Games spin today.
15:00:33 <jlaska> #topic Roll Call
15:00:40 <jlaska> brunowolff: ah, thanks for doing that
15:00:40 * tflink is present
15:00:44 * fenrus02 hands out bacon
15:00:44 <jlaska> adamw: tflink: howdy
15:00:48 * elad661 is here
15:00:56 <jlaska> fenrus02: always a crowd pleaser :)
15:00:58 * Viking-Ice here
15:01:01 * vhumpa is here
15:01:07 <jlaska> hi elad661, Viking-Ice, vhumpa
15:01:15 * kparal waves
15:01:17 * brunowolff is here
15:01:32 <jlaska> heyo kparal and brunowolff
15:01:33 * rbergeron waves.
15:01:40 <brunowolff> SOAS is waiting for an OK, as I guess it has some issues.
15:01:44 * jlaska uses two hands to wave to rbergeron
15:01:48 <rbergeron> brunowolff: excellent :)
15:01:56 * satellit_ lurking
15:02:25 <jlaska> I don't see robatino lurking ... maybe he'll join later
15:02:40 <jlaska> same for jskladan
15:02:46 <jlaska> alright, let's get started
15:02:49 <jlaska> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20110516
15:02:56 <jlaska> #topic Previous meeting follow-up
15:03:08 <jlaska> #info tflink to follow-up with cloud sig for test day recap
15:03:17 <jlaska> looks like mgoldmann or msavy will follow-up this week (conferences previous 2 weeks)
15:03:30 <jlaska> so this'll probably be sent out shortly
15:03:46 <tflink> yeah, I think that you captured it (to my understanding)
15:03:57 <msavy> i'm typing up the test-day post mortem right now :D
15:04:07 <jlaska> msavy: sweet! thank you :)
15:04:23 <adamw> thanks!
15:04:27 <jlaska> a few bug follow-ups that were taken care of ...
15:04:37 <jlaska> #info jlaska to follow-up w/ halfline on bug#702650, kparal+jlaska to verify -- Appears to be tested and resolved, thanks kparal and halfline!
15:04:48 <jlaska> #info adamw proposing patch for bug#697834 -- Done ... AcceptedNTH and available for walters if desired
15:05:07 <jlaska> #info jlaska - file proposed NTH bugs for F14->F15 -- Done ... with help from adamw, those affecting the media were AcceptedNTH
15:05:18 <jlaska> that's all I had from last week ... anything I missed
15:05:30 <jlaska> or anything you want to make noise about?
15:05:35 <jlaska> if not ... we'll move on ...
15:05:40 * jsmith has nothing
15:06:05 <jlaska> #topic F-15-Final-RC3 status
15:06:30 <jlaska> #info Just a reminder - the Go/No_Go meeting is scheduled for tomorrow (Tuesday, May 17)
15:06:37 <jlaska> #link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Go_No_Go_Meeting
15:07:03 <jlaska> That is where QA provides an update on testing and provides an assessment for how well the release criteria are holding up
15:07:09 <brunowolff> Time?
15:07:14 <jlaska> then we go around the room and shake hands, hi-fives etc...
15:07:24 <adamw> autographs come later
15:07:30 <jlaska> yup
15:07:37 <jlaska> brunowolff: the schedule lists it at 17:00 EDT
15:07:58 <jlaska> rbergeron: will you be sending out that meeting notice, or do you want someone else to grab it?
15:08:37 <jlaska> in the meantime, we'll continue to monitor for blocker bugs at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Current_Release_Blockers
15:08:51 <jlaska> #info Thank you robatino for the RC3 announcement and wiki management
15:09:05 <vhumpa> Things look good on the desktop front. I run into few bugs while doing the desktop testing, but nothing close to being a stopper.
15:09:20 <jlaska> vhumpa: thanks for running through those desktop tests
15:09:41 <jlaska> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test
15:09:44 <adamw> vhumpa: you said you've done some of the 'desktop' (gnome) tests too, are you going to add them to the matrix soon?
15:09:47 <jlaska> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Desktop_Test
15:10:12 <vhumpa> adamw: I put them there about 15 minutes ago :)
15:10:28 * jlaska has to run a few odd-ball hardware tests on the install matrix
15:10:41 <jlaska> otherwise, it's looking in good shape
15:11:00 <adamw> vhumpa: oh huh, i didn't see it
15:11:05 <adamw> oh there we go! thanks
15:11:12 <jlaska> anything else folks want to cover before we dive into a mini-proposed bug review?
15:11:52 <jlaska> #info The QA retrospective page available for noting the good/bad/ugly ... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_15_QA_Retrospective
15:12:04 <jlaska> that page is a helpful tool for those with short memories (me) :)
15:12:11 <vhumpa> adamw: I will still try to complete the notification test case later
15:12:50 <jlaska> okay, we have 4 proposed blockers, and 3 proposed NTH ... who wants to review some bugs?
15:13:00 <jlaska> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Current_Release_Blockers
15:13:39 <adamw> small cheer
15:13:47 * jlaska notes ... silence indicates a +1
15:13:48 <jlaska> :)
15:13:53 <jlaska> this _should_ be quick
15:13:57 * jsmith is happy to help
15:13:58 <adamw> the good news is that we can pretty much take the four proposed blockers together
15:14:01 <jlaska> if not ... we'll punt for #fedora-qa
15:14:06 <jsmith> adamw: Yeah...
15:14:07 <jlaska> adamw: yeah, good!
15:14:09 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=704726
15:14:13 <jlaska> #info upgrade from F-14 broken due to conflicts with gnome-desktop
15:14:24 <jlaska> adamw: you've already reviewed these issues it seems, any thoughts?
15:14:56 <adamw> they're odd issues
15:15:11 <adamw> i really can't see why it's going wrong, but since the report's from peter who I know has his head screws on, it worries me just a bit
15:15:23 <jlaska> is Peter around?
15:15:31 <adamw> yeah, i just pinged to see if he'd pop in
15:15:33 <jlaska> do we know if these are found with 'yum' upgrades, not anaconda/preupgrade?
15:15:36 <Southern_Gentlem> ?
15:15:52 <adamw> this was a yum upgrade, but i'd like to find out what actually happened as it's an odd issue
15:15:56 <Southern_Gentlem> is this with rc3?
15:16:02 <Southern_Gentlem> if so i will retest
15:16:07 <jlaska> Southern_Gentlem: I don't think so ... it appears to be against the online reops
15:16:10 <jlaska> repos
15:16:14 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: if you're doing a yum upgrade the concept doesn't exactly apply
15:16:14 <jlaska> which may not yet be in sync with RC3
15:16:20 <adamw> (concept of 'RC3', that is)
15:16:50 <adamw> so what's happening here is that he has yum complaining about conflicts between an f15 package and a package which looks to be from the f14 install
15:17:02 <adamw> but there are clearly higher versioned f15 packages available in the f15 repos
15:17:09 <vhumpa> Saying by the gnome-desktop3 version, it looks like "RC3"
15:17:10 <adamw> so i don't know why the f14 package is in play at all
15:17:31 <adamw> it's kind of hard to tell, i guess it would be nice to have a much fuller log
15:17:38 <jlaska> How do these style of upgrades fit with the release criteria?
15:17:41 <adamw> if peter doesn't show up we can ask him for the yum history report
15:17:44 <jsmith> Yeah, I'm thoroughly confused :-(
15:17:55 <adamw> jlaska: a yum upgrade doesn't, but like i say, before we kick this out i'd like to understand it
15:17:58 <Southern_Gentlem> i will test f14 everything install (except virtualization) fully updated to f15 rc3
15:18:01 <jlaska> adamw: of course
15:18:06 <adamw> but even if it were valid as written, indeed, we wouldn't consider it a blocker
15:18:08 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: thanks
15:18:31 <jlaska> adamw: because it's something we can "easily" fix with a day-0 post-release update?
15:18:34 <vhumpa> Could be a nth but not a blocker, based on its yum upgrade...
15:19:00 <adamw> jlaska: yeah, and we just don't support yum upgrades
15:19:29 <jlaska> proposed #agreed 704726 - tentatively agree to keep on list awaiting additional feedback from reporter.  If conditions hold, likely not a blocker since yum upgrades are not the official upgrade mechanism
15:19:32 <adamw> we have shipped with issues like this in the past - things anaconda bashes its way around but yum chokes on - and all we've done is simply document them in the 'upgrading with yum' wiki page
15:19:38 <adamw> ack
15:19:54 <tflink> ack
15:19:56 <jlaska> ack from me ... will stay tuned for feedback from peter
15:20:04 <jlaska> anyone else ? ack/nak/patch?
15:20:11 <brunowolff> +1
15:20:13 <vhumpa> +1
15:20:23 <jlaska> okay, I think that should be enough
15:20:33 <jlaska> #agreed 704726 - tentatively agree to keep on list awaiting additional feedback from reporter.  If conditions hold, likely not a blocker since yum upgrades are not the official upgrade mechanism
15:21:01 <jlaska> The 3 remaining bugs appear to be the same ... any objections if we follow that plan for all 4 yum upgrade bugs?
15:21:11 <adamw> that's what i was going to suggest
15:21:15 <brunowolff> Sounds like a good plan to me.
15:21:16 <tflink> no objections here
15:21:27 <jlaska> okay, bare with me for a moment while I fiddle with #agreed
15:21:31 <adamw> btw, in case it wasn't clear, this is doubly odd because peter seems to be the only one seeingi t
15:21:39 <jlaska> #agreed 704727 - tentatively agree to keep on list awaiting additional feedback from reporter.  If conditions hold, likely not a blocker since yum upgrades are not the official upgrade mechanism
15:21:39 <adamw> i've done a yum upgrade and didn't see this, and i think others have too
15:21:43 <jlaska> #agreed 704728 - tentatively agree to keep on list awaiting additional feedback from reporter.  If conditions hold, likely not a blocker since yum upgrades are not the official upgrade mechanism
15:21:47 <jlaska> #agreed 704729 - tentatively agree to keep on list awaiting additional feedback from reporter.  If conditions hold, likely not a blocker since yum upgrades are not the official upgrade mechanism
15:21:51 <jlaska> yay for sequential bug #'s
15:22:04 <jlaska> adamw: wonder if it makes a differnce if your F14 system is updated before doing the F15 upgrade?
15:22:13 <tflink> wasn't there a time where updates weren't being pushed to updates-testing? I remember hitting that missing js build issue on friday
15:22:32 <brunowolff> I saw something similar when I did some yum upgrades a while back. I think some old applets were pinning old packages so that the transaction ended up with both new and old stuff.
15:22:40 <tflink> or am I remembering wrong?
15:23:02 <adamw> jlaska: possibly, and it could be to do with the repos selected too, but still
15:23:14 <adamw> my f14 system that i upgraded was fully updated
15:23:16 <jlaska> yup, let's stay tuned
15:23:23 <jlaska> tflink: I don't know :(
15:23:24 <j_dulaney> sorry I'm late
15:23:32 <jlaska> j_dulaney: hello
15:23:40 <j_dulaney> Just got off work
15:23:41 <adamw> pbrobinson: heh, just out of time :D
15:23:42 <jlaska> speak of the devil ... welcome pbrobinson!
15:23:51 * pbrobinson waves
15:23:58 <adamw> pbrobinson: we just decided to ask you for more information on those yum upgrade bugs, with the unspoken assumption you've been at the crack pipe again
15:24:02 * j_dulaney wonders what the topic is
15:24:15 * j_dulaney now knows
15:24:21 <pbrobinson> adamw: you know me too well ;-)
15:24:24 <jlaska> j_dulaney: reviewing proposed blockers
15:24:28 <brunowolff> Note that gnome-desktop3 and gnome desktop are different and I think this makes it possible for gnome-desktop to be kept if something requires it even though its obsoleted.
15:24:31 <adamw> pbrobinson: could you attach the full yum output to one of the bugs? you should be able to get it from yum history...
15:24:44 <adamw> brunowolff: there's an updated gnome-desktop in f15 repos, as well as gnome-desktop3 .
15:25:00 <pbrobinson> adamw: yes. I think I have at least one of them logged
15:25:22 <j_dulaney> adamw:  btw, that bug we discussed is indeed fixed for me
15:26:06 <jlaska> pbrobinson: that's really all we decided so far ... anything else you wanted to raise for those bugs?
15:26:08 <adamw> brunowolff: the error message talks about gnome-desktop-2.32.0-2.fc14.i686 , but f15 has 2.32.0-7.fc15
15:26:29 <jlaska> odd
15:26:36 <j_dulaney> indeed
15:26:57 <pbrobinson> I thought I had some logs with me, it appears it was something else. Will need to grab them when I get home in a couple of hours
15:27:16 <jlaska> pbrobinson: excellent, thank you.  We'll stay tuned to the bugs
15:27:34 <jlaska> if nothing else ... let's knock these NTH bugs off the list ...
15:27:35 <adamw> thanks peter
15:27:55 <jlaska> pbrobinson: always nice to have a special guest visitor :)
15:27:58 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=704188
15:28:01 <jlaska> #info TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not subscriptable
15:28:11 <pbrobinson> btw while I have everyone here, I spoke with dgilmore about cutting the SoaS release just after day 0 in the hope we can get a NM patch that makes wifi vaguely work. He said he had no issues with it but I now have to try and chase Dan to review my failing python patch
15:28:51 <jlaska> By definition, I think this constitutes a NTH bug ... but I'm not expecting any anaconda updates (or RC4) at this time, so it's unlikely this will be fixed in F15 (easy to document workaround)
15:28:54 <pbrobinson> jlaska: I would like to visit more often but work just seems to constantly blow chunks in terms of time spare at the moment!
15:28:56 <adamw> pbrobinson: cool
15:29:04 <j_dulaney> pbrobinson:  what's up with Python?
15:29:06 <adamw> jlaska: areed
15:29:17 <jlaska> pbrobinson: no worries ... thanks for the heads up on staggering the SoaS release
15:29:50 <jlaska> proposed #agreed 704188 - AcceptedNTH - if anaconda is respun for F15, this fix will be included
15:29:53 <jlaska> ack/nak/patch?
15:29:58 <jlaska> adamw already ack'd
15:30:04 <vhumpa> +1
15:30:05 <tflink> ack
15:30:12 <j_dulaney> +1
15:30:18 <pbrobinson> j_dulaney: not a problem with python. Its a problem with the coder as I don't know python (its been on my todo list to learn). I'm attempting to convert the Sugar NetworkManager code to the 0.9 API and I'm failing! Any help would be appreciated
15:30:46 <brunowolff> +1
15:30:48 <jlaska> #agreed 704188 - AcceptedNTH - if anaconda is respun for F15, this fix will be included
15:30:55 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=704020
15:30:59 <jlaska> #info libpanel_applet changed ABI; not all applets ported
15:31:26 <jlaska> already in VERIFIED, and I wonder if this is already in RC3
15:31:27 * jlaska checks
15:31:29 <adamw> jlaska and i are both -1 nth on this after thinking about it a bit
15:31:48 <jlaska> oh right, catching up on my comment here :)
15:32:09 <jlaska> adamw: the thinking is that this is a perfectly suitable day-0 update, and isn't required on media?
15:32:16 <adamw> yeah
15:32:24 <jlaska> right on
15:32:37 <j_dulaney> Does it block upgrades from F14?
15:32:57 <jlaska> proposed #agreed 704020 - RejectedNTH - Suitable as a day-0 update to 'updates' repo, does not inhibit anaconda-based upgrades
15:33:07 <j_dulaney> Ok
15:33:12 <j_dulaney> +1 for that
15:33:15 <tflink> ack
15:33:21 <brunowolff> +1
15:33:33 <jlaska> #agreed 704020 - RejectedNTH - Suitable as a day-0 update to 'updates' repo, does not inhibit anaconda-based upgrades
15:33:46 <jlaska> last one ...
15:33:47 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703944
15:33:52 <jlaska> #info pfstools-octave has broken dependencies.
15:34:11 <jlaska> comment#3 has the goods
15:34:22 <adamw> -1
15:34:26 <tflink> -1 NTH
15:34:29 <jlaska> A good bug report, thanks to Orion for filing ... but this seems like the previous ... a perfectly good day-0 update that doesn't require media
15:34:35 * jlaska works up the #agreed line
15:34:37 <adamw> i think dep issues are pretty simple: if they're on the media they should be blocker, if they're not on the media they shouldn't be anything
15:34:37 <brunowolff> -1 NTH
15:34:49 <jsmith> -1 NTH
15:34:53 <j_dulaney> -1 nth
15:35:00 <jlaska> #agreed 703944 - RejectedNTH - Suitable as a day-0 update to 'updates' repo, does not inhibit anaconda-based upgrades and isn't referenced in comps
15:35:07 <jlaska> okay thanks all for the mini-review
15:35:13 <jlaska> we're in good shape so far
15:35:15 * jlaska knocks wood
15:35:34 <jlaska> andw we'll continue to monitor pbrobinson's issues ... and send out drones should things look bad
15:35:44 <j_dulaney> Mmm, drones
15:35:48 <adamw> we need to finish off the desktop tests too
15:35:53 <j_dulaney> The Borg kind, or the SGU kind?
15:35:58 <adamw> if anyone wants to help out with the remaining 'desktop' and 'fallback' tests that'd be great
15:36:09 <j_dulaney> I'll get fallback
15:36:16 <jlaska> #info Desktop validation testing still needed - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Desktop_Test
15:36:20 <jlaska> j_dulaney: thank you
15:36:22 <adamw> also, for both install and desktop tests, multiple results are good! even if someone else did it already, you can add your results
15:36:30 <jlaska> +1 to that
15:36:39 <j_dulaney> Indeed
15:36:40 <adamw> two 'passes' makes us more confident than one, and one 'pass' plus one 'fail' equals an issue we wouldn't have caught otherwise :)
15:36:41 <vhumpa> adamw: I will finish the remaining KDE and Desktop - thanks dualney!
15:36:53 <brunowolff> There are some obsoleted packages still in the F15 repo. It would be nice to get those cleared out before the repo is fixed.
15:37:03 <vhumpa> +1 too!
15:37:09 <jlaska> adamw: btw, I'll update the bz's post-meeting (unless you already did it)
15:37:11 <adamw> brunowolff: ah yeah, didn't you mail the list about that?
15:37:20 <adamw> jlaska: i didn't, thanks
15:37:32 <brunowolff> Yeah, but I didn't get a response from someone who could fix it.
15:37:42 <jlaska> dgilmore: ^^^ heads up
15:37:45 <brunowolff> I also wasn't sure how to find all such packages.
15:37:48 <adamw> brunowolff: we'll try and get dgilmore on it....yeah
15:38:04 <adamw> though i think you're actually supposed to go through the whole package retirement process to get rid of such packages
15:38:09 <jlaska> #info Some obsolete packages are included in F15 repo ... brunowolff suggested removing them before release
15:38:19 <adamw> obsoleted packages hanging around hence tends to happen, i remember i ran into such a one a few weeks back from a much older release
15:38:46 <jlaska> If nothing else, we'll move on to AutoQA ...
15:39:02 <jlaska> #topic AutoQA update
15:39:18 * kparal 's topic!
15:39:22 <brunowolff> I think the proper process is that the packagers involved are supposed to ask releng to block the packages from the appropriate repos.
15:39:31 <jlaska> kparal what's the latest in the world of AutoQA?
15:39:42 * kparal takes the mic
15:39:47 <kparal> Nothing really big this week. The whole week was spent on implementing tickets for 0.5.0 milestone.
15:39:53 <kparal> EOF
15:39:55 <brunowolff> But once that gets skipped, then I think the issue tends to get lost.
15:39:57 <kparal> ok, just kidding
15:39:59 <adamw> brunowolff: yeah, that's part of the retirement process, you have to do some other stuff first too.
15:40:01 <jlaska> kparal: hah
15:40:12 <kparal> I have a few info's in here
15:40:22 <kparal> #info kparal implemented package caching in AutoQA (optional, default off). When enabled, it drastically speeds up mainly depcheck runs.
15:40:39 <kparal> well, subsequent runs
15:40:45 <kparal> not the first one :)
15:40:51 <kparal> #info jskladan introduced an algorithm to filter interesting information from depcheck log about why a particular package has broken dependencies
15:40:54 <jlaska> Cool, so this is mostly for folks testing depcheck ... not something we'll use in production?
15:41:20 <kparal> jlaska: I'd use it for developers for now
15:41:28 <jlaska> gotcha
15:41:35 <kparal> on productions we would have to solve issues like /tmp cleaning, etc
15:41:44 <kparal> e.g. you must not clean in when test it running
15:41:49 <kparal> *it
15:41:52 <jlaska> there goes your cache! :)
15:41:59 <j_dulaney> That would be interesting
15:42:18 <tflink> bah, who needs the actual packages during a test :-D
15:42:29 <jlaska> tflink: yup, details! :)
15:42:35 <kparal> ok, as for jskladan's algorithm, it should be in autoqa-devel now, but I still didn't have time to check it out
15:43:02 <kparal> #info we started to nicely document our test cases. First piece is upgradepath.
15:43:02 <kparal> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AutoQA_tests/Upgradepath
15:43:32 <kparal> I always wonder whether I'm not repeating something said in the last meeting. I hope not :)
15:43:44 <kparal> #info tflink worked on issue of yum getting stuck in a loop that generated huge depcheck logs. When new yum builds land in stable repos, we should be have that handled.
15:43:50 <j_dulaney> Just out of curiosity, would I be better off trying to reconstruct my resultsDB work, or would it be more constructive for me to do something else?
15:43:52 <jlaska> love the "Fixing the failures" section ... that seems to cover sgallagh's request for providing tips for resolving
15:44:08 <kparal> j_dulaney: let's talk at fedora-qa after the meeting
15:44:14 <j_dulaney> Right
15:44:24 <kparal> #info vhumpa created a pretty text template for our future test reports
15:44:24 <kparal> #link http://vhumpa.fedorapeople.org/prettylog_upgradepath_example2.txt
15:44:37 <adamw> go vita
15:44:43 <kparal> and that's all from my list
15:44:49 <jlaska> *much* nicer output!
15:45:01 <kparal> I may have forgotten about someone, speak up please
15:45:20 <vhumpa> I am finishing class that will construct this for all the tests
15:46:18 <jlaska> Quick update on the gi-normous test logs in production ... our compression script (thank you vita) seems to be working well and keeping things under control.  It runs every 2 hours and compresses logs > 100M.  With current disk space, test results will be kept for 15 days
15:46:54 <jlaska> one of our test clients is out of action at the moment (qa06) ... I'm investigating why
15:47:01 <kparal> that's acceptable. but in the long run, I'd like to aim higher :)
15:47:05 <jlaska> kparal: sure
15:47:13 <vhumpa> Yay for now :-) !
15:47:32 <tflink> it looks like the F15 yum update is pending push to stable and F14 is missing 1 karma
15:47:51 <jlaska> tflink: well, I could certainly deploy the f14 version and supply karma based on that :)
15:47:56 <tflink> the biggest offender in generating obscenely huge logs should be taken care of
15:47:56 <jlaska> it would be in keeping with our mascot
15:48:11 <kparal> :))
15:48:21 <tflink> jlaska: the code change is pretty simple, a couple of lines I think
15:49:05 <jlaska> anything else we need to cover on the AutoQA front?
15:49:16 <kparal> all from me
15:49:25 <tflink> nothing I can think of
15:49:45 <jlaska> okay, thanks gang.  Moving on ...
15:49:51 <jlaska> #topic Upcoming QA events
15:50:05 <jlaska> I think everyone knows this already, but for consistency sake ...
15:50:10 <jlaska> #link http://rbergero.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-15/f-15-quality-tasks.html
15:50:23 <jlaska> #info Tuesday, May 17 - Go/NoGo meeting - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Go_No_Go_Meeting
15:50:37 <jlaska> This is tomorrow, it will be fun, and we all hope it's good news
15:50:44 <jlaska> #info Tuesday, May 24 - Final (GA) release
15:50:56 <jlaska> that's all I've got listed
15:51:05 <jlaska> #info Open Discussion - <your topic here>
15:51:19 <jlaska> anything not previously discussed that needs mentioned here?
15:51:29 <rbergeron> :)
15:52:02 <satellit_> soas will get a little more time for bug fixes?
15:52:02 <jlaska> I'm still catching up on the mailing list ... a lot of feedback over the weekend
15:52:04 <j_dulaney> I move we wrap things up
15:52:15 <adamw> satellit_: probably, pbrobinson said he'd talked to dgilmore about that
15:52:21 <satellit_> ok
15:53:14 <jlaska> #info pbrobinson talking to dgilmore about shifting the SoaS release date to include some day-0 fixes
15:53:28 <jlaska> Okay, I'm setting the fuse for 1 minute ...
15:53:34 <jlaska> last call for topics ...
15:53:53 <pbrobinson> adamw satellit_: yes, I spoke about cutting the release after zero day updates hit to enable us to try and get a NM 0.9 patch in to at least give us working WiFi.
15:54:20 <adamw> i think it may be better to do it by pushing sugar-only patches into the f15 repo late, but we can figure that out later
15:54:26 * jlaska holds on #endmeeting
15:54:49 <jlaska> alright ... I think we're done here.  Let's continue discussion on the list or #fedora-qa
15:54:49 <pbrobinson> adamw: that could work as well
15:54:56 <adamw> yup
15:55:02 <j_dulaney> pbrobinson:  Whatup with Wifi?
15:55:14 <jlaska> Happy testing all, let's stay on top of our bugs and keep pushing for a successful release!
15:55:20 <jlaska> #endmeeting