16:01:02 #startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting 16:01:02 Meeting started Mon Feb 11 16:01:02 2013 UTC. The chair is tflink. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:01:02 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:01:07 #meetingname fedora-qa 16:01:07 The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa' 16:01:13 #topic Roll Call 16:01:34 #chair kparal 16:01:34 Current chairs: kparal tflink 16:02:18 * kparal waves 16:02:23 * satellit listening 16:02:29 * jskladan tips his hat 16:03:01 im not here 16:03:10 * kparal nudges pschindl 16:04:22 * tflink waits another minute before getting things started 16:05:40 bit of a small group today but let's get started 16:05:56 no adamw? 16:06:13 holiday in canada 16:06:21 snowboarding holiday 16:06:25 adamw is slacking off 16:06:27 okay continue please 16:06:34 and a public holiday, but either way 16:06:45 #topic Previous Meeting Followup 16:07:06 * pschindl is here 16:07:40 #info adamw to draft up a proposal for revising the presentation of the release criteria 16:08:11 #info adamw has been working on the release criteria presentation, no proposal has been sent out yet. will be covered later in meeting 16:08:41 #info adamw to draft up a kickstart criterion for f19 16:08:47 I don't think this was done, either 16:09:25 did I miss something? 16:09:32 nope 16:09:33 +1 16:10:02 #info this hasn't been done yet 16:10:39 anything else from meeting followup? 16:10:48 I don't see anything from the minutes 16:11:29 * tflink assumes silence == nothing else 16:11:43 #topic Criteria Revision 16:12:02 * Viking-Ice joins in 16:12:11 hello Viking-Ice 16:12:12 We started the conversation a bit last week, but it sounded like there was general agreement that the presentation of the release criteria could be improved 16:12:51 #info adamw has been working on a draft update to the presentation of the release criteria 16:13:00 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_alpha_criteria_sandbox 16:13:38 interesting 16:13:51 I don't think that he's done yet but it shows a re-thinking of the current presentation 16:13:54 where can we make suggestions here? 16:14:07 dan408-: test list 16:14:12 dan408-: test@ 16:14:32 it turns out that figuring out how to present the information is not an easy problem 16:14:34 sigh 16:15:00 one thought that I had was to take the criteria out of the wiki so that we aren't restricted by wiki formatting 16:15:20 there's nothing wrong with the wiki 16:15:26 maybe we can use talk? 16:15:31 test is way too busty 16:15:37 i dont even pay attention to it 16:15:38 tflink, yeah if we can put it on the qa criteria page you are working on 16:15:52 https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamwill/Draft_alpha_criteria_sandbox&action=edit&redlink=1 16:15:59 I took a snapshot of what adamw was working on, translated it to rst and generated a really basic proof-of-concept 16:16:03 I dont think nesting this is a way to go as adam is doing there 16:16:18 #info tflink made a proof-of-concept of taking the release criteria out of the wiki 16:16:26 #link http://tflink.fedorapeople.org/criteria_display/ 16:16:35 I haven't done _any_ theming or admonition work yet 16:16:37 since it requires the user to perform additional click to get that information 16:16:41 so the layout is really rough 16:16:59 this is prettier.. 16:17:34 but my thought is that it would allow for easier integration with the blocker proposal app, would give us _much_ more flexibility in presentation and wouldn't make it too much more difficult for people to contribute to the criteria writing 16:17:43 I have some comments about it, but I think this would be best discussed on the list 16:18:03 should really that many people be editing the criteria 16:18:32 the whole thing would live in a git repository, criteria revisions could be discussed like code reviews and the static html would be generated automatically on push to git master 16:18:35 tflink, your page is better presented then what adam has been working on 16:19:00 the question becomes how long it would take to translate everything 16:19:16 should it really be translated ? 16:19:21 but either way, we need to figure out how to present the information 16:19:30 Viking-Ice: translation from mediawiki to rst 16:19:40 poor choice of words on my part, sorry 16:19:49 ok took it as language translation 16:20:05 yeah, I should have phrased it differently 16:20:18 one thought was to talk with the design team about how to present the information 16:21:40 I don't think we need the design team for everything. this page should be mainly useful for us, because general users/testers won't read it anyway 16:21:57 we should have a simplified version for them, and _that_ could be discussed with the design team 16:22:15 I'm jumping around a bit but the main concern that I have about moving the criteria out of the wiki is the time needed to write all the templates/css and the work needed to set up reviews and the automatic generation of html 16:22:36 tflink: how do you imagine the review process? 16:23:14 kparal: agreed, but I also think that it would be good to see if we can get some outside ideas on how to present the information in a relatively easy-to-read fashion 16:23:31 tabs? 16:23:34 if we want people to cite criteria when proposing blockers, they need to be relatively easy to understand 16:23:45 kparal: reviewboard 16:24:08 that's yet another project to polish :) 16:24:15 I finished setting up a reviewboard instance that we're using for the blocker tracking app 16:24:36 it will do email notifications of code reviews on top of supporting inline and overall comments 16:24:46 great 16:24:57 the only thing it doesn't do is integrate with FAS 16:25:11 and that's due to lack of support for openid upstream 16:25:13 but so we are clear we are only talking about revisiting the presentation of the criteria not the criteria itself ? 16:25:22 that topic can be a bit misleading 16:25:23 Viking-Ice: at the moment, yes 16:25:50 I assume that's what adamw had in mind when he wrote the agenda, anyways 16:26:04 if we don't have FAS integration, we can use github comments, for instance. is there any further benefit of reviewboard? 16:26:37 #info as a clarification, this topic is about the presentation of the release criteria, not revising the criteria themselfs 16:27:01 kparal: I'd really rather not rely on github if we don't have to but it sounds like I might about the only one who thinks that 16:27:21 * kparal shrugs 16:27:27 no we should keep this inhouse 16:27:33 it might be easier than to maintain another app 16:27:47 kparal: yeah, it would be 16:27:57 if github explodes, it doesn't hurt much 16:28:15 and it's not like we would be the only ones doing it - pretty much all of fedora infra is on github now 16:28:32 interesting 16:28:32 except some of the past discussion could be inaccessible 16:28:35 kparal: it's still a hosted service outside our control and not open source 16:29:13 I don't have a clear opinion on this, I just sometimes feel like having a NIH syndrome 16:29:17 tflink: mhh, no, I think the fedora infra is still in house 16:29:25 oops i am late :-( 16:29:52 ( and pushing stuff to git hub make it more complex since this is not tied to FAS ) 16:29:59 misc: I'm pretty sure they moved everything after FUDCon Lawrence 16:30:21 https://github.com/fedora-infra 16:30:23 misc: yeah, that's true 16:30:35 to clarify, I mean most of the apps that fedora infra uses 16:30:36 we did not move everything. ;) We allowed projects that wished to use it to use it. 16:30:51 nirik: outside of koji, which projects didn't move? 16:31:53 but I digress a little bit 16:32:45 tflink: I think you should post the links (when it's somewhat ready) to test list, there will be surely lots of interesting comments 16:32:47 lots of things I'm sure. I don't have a list. 16:33:09 #info one large concern about moving the criteria out of the wiki is the theming work and the work needed to re-generate the HTML on git push 16:33:39 #info both reviewboard and github are possibilities for reviewing criteria changes if we moved out of the wiki 16:34:14 either way, we wouldn't be the first group that did stuff outside of fedorahosted 16:35:09 kparal: yeah, I imagine that there would be some interesting discussion around any proposed changes 16:35:19 :) 16:35:59 but we don't have a whole lot of time left before F19 16:36:28 any other thoughts on this for today or is it OK to move on to the next topic? 16:36:32 proposal: let's skip testing F19 and hack on infra instead 16:36:51 let's move on 16:36:53 kparal: as much as I'd like to +1000 that ... 16:37:10 #topic Fedora 19 Test Days 16:37:28 now that the F19 schedule has been accepted, we have test days to organize 16:37:48 organize/oversee/whatever-you-want-to-call-it 16:38:23 is anyone interested in volunteering to coordinate the F19 test days? 16:39:18 don't everyone volunteer at the same time :-P 16:39:40 this is something I don't really enjoy :) 16:39:53 just ensure all the *D 16:39:54 * tflink hears a volunteer :-D 16:40:02 just ensure all the *DE testing takes place after alpha 16:40:05 any ideas for test days that haven't already been proposed? 16:40:24 I think that KDE and GNOME test days have already been requested for F19 16:40:45 I'm just referring to the schedule 16:40:59 I'm planning on hosting a iscsi test day 16:41:21 we fully migrated it to systemd sometime before christmas 16:41:22 power management and NM test days have also been requested 16:42:16 #info Viking-Ice suggested an iscsi test day 16:43:10 if there's nothing else, we can move on 16:43:48 tflink, I did not suggest I *will* be hosting a iscsi test day 16:44:07 #undo 16:44:07 Removing item from minutes: 16:44:23 #info Viking-Ice will be hosting an iscsi test day 16:44:41 date scheduled on later date ;) 16:44:49 #undo 16:44:49 Removing item from minutes: 16:45:01 #info Viking-Ice will be hosting an iscsi test day. Exact date TBD and proposed later 16:45:12 ok, anything else on this? 16:45:32 we need to test "enterprise storage" in anaconda it's expected to be back ( gui wize if I'm not mistaken ( 16:45:36 uhum ) 16:45:39 ;) 16:45:51 this release cycle 16:46:00 Viking-Ice: yeah but that's hard to do in a test day - few people have access to "enterprise storage" 16:46:27 well, access to "enterprise storage" they can test fedora installs with 16:46:40 puff how does not have a san rack at home 16:46:41 ;) 16:47:09 * tflink hasn't touched a SAN since his days in storage testing 16:47:22 nirik, what kind of storage infrastructure does infra have 16:47:34 local disk only or something more "advanced" 16:47:54 mostly netapp filers, I think but testing fedora installs in the fedora infra sounds like a really bad idea to me 16:48:01 we have local disk/lvm and some iscsi stuff. Nothing too odd 16:48:40 tflink, why is that a bad idea? 16:49:09 Viking-Ice: what part of testing installs of a pre-release OS on production infrastructure doesn't sound like a bad idea? 16:49:52 tflink, hows exporting an empty share to on an pre-release os 16:50:13 it's not like they would export something with mission critical data on it to the clients 16:50:29 just and empty filesystem/partition 16:50:40 s/and/an 16:51:41 we possibly could, but don't want it to interfere with any production setups... would have to look if we have spare/isolated space for such a thing 16:51:47 that's a discussion you/we can have with infra, if they're OK with it, I'm not going to stop attempts - I'm just really cautious about addressing storage 16:52:04 * nirik nods. I don't want prod interfered with. 16:52:10 * tflink has seen far too many "enterprise" storage systems explode 16:52:37 but we digress 16:52:52 this is a discussion that can happen outside of the meeting, on test@ and with infra 16:53:01 tflink: :-) 16:53:02 since we're almost out of time ... 16:53:17 #topic Fedora 18 Retrospective 16:53:30 This is something that we haven't talked about too much post-F18 16:53:43 a few things have been added to the retrospective page 16:53:46 it's simply really never do anaconda/upgrade rewrites again 16:53:53 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_QA_Retrospective 16:54:49 Viking-Ice: while I don't think that we'll see another major rewrite like that anytime soon, I don't think it's as simple as "never rewrite again" 16:55:02 just go about doing it differently _if_ it ever happens again 16:55:54 but either way, constructive additions to that page would be appreciated 16:55:56 tflink, no really if anaconda needs another rewrite in the distant future it should just be thrown away altogther and replaced with something written from scratch 16:56:15 Viking-Ice: I don't see how it's our place to tell devs what to do 16:56:34 * satellit require install on hardware plus in Virtualiztion 16:56:36 tflink, it is when their mess ends up at our door step ;) 16:56:38 #info Constructive additions to the retrospective are appreciated 16:56:51 Viking-Ice: Most of the anaconda code *has* been rewritten from scratch 16:56:59 hurray! 16:57:09 Viking-Ice: we'd be naive to pretend that it was all their fault 16:57:18 there is plenty of blame to go around 16:57:22 blame/fault 16:57:28 fesco has the other half 16:57:47 but blamestorming doesn't help anything 16:57:51 in anycase "I wish, that f18 alpha was not declared GOLD, knowing that it will destroy data, by default. Even after such a decision was made, i wish the announcement informed us clearly that f18alpha *will destroy data*, and not wait one more week until the release notes become available. " 16:58:30 I thought it was common knowledge that pre-release testing did make the requirement to throw away their current installs at release time 16:58:33 #info Constructive additions to the retrospective page would be appreciated, tickets will be created from retrospective items shortly 16:59:25 Viking-Ice: I don't see that on the retrospective, where did it come from? 16:59:47 it's there straight under "Could have been better" 16:59:59 oh, I skipped over it due to formatting 17:00:42 the rest seem to be just adamw with criteria bits which we are already working at and Wutao85 with personal retrospective 17:01:05 as in himself could do better at replying to bugs 17:01:06 hence the request for more ideas :) 17:01:20 anyhow, we're over time already 17:01:33 anything else that people want to cover re: F18 retrospective 17:01:35 ? 17:02:07 well what did we learn about the blocker bug meetings 17:02:28 that we didn't already know before F18? 17:02:33 they don't scale all that well 17:02:45 but the hope is that F18 was very much an outlier 17:03:15 well we should set a fixed channel and keep with the 3hour max limit 17:03:38 we kinda ended up doing that 17:03:59 sure, but I think that the blocker review process is a little outside the F18 QA retrospective 17:04:07 especially when we're already over time 17:04:32 * tflink isn't trying to say that the process is perfect or that it shouldn't be discussed 17:04:46 yeah sure whatever fits your meeting needs 17:05:07 * satellit added comment to retrospective 17:05:48 #info discussion around the blocker review process for F19 would be wise before we get into testing 17:06:10 #topic Open Floor 17:06:32 Anything else that should be discussed today? 17:06:35 when will koji try again for lives? 17:06:58 I think there were some problems with rawhide over the weekend 17:07:22 something about getting comps, I think but I didn't read the details 17:07:50 either way, I'm not sure what the decision was regarding the frequency of rawhide compose attempts 17:07:54 * nirik restarted rawhide compose for today, should land in a few hours. 17:07:56 does anyone else know what the plan is? 17:08:07 thanks 17:08:18 s/else// 17:08:26 lives I can do after that. for install there was talk of doing weekly... but thats not yet started that I know of. 17:09:25 I think that dgilmore was working with anaconda devs when they requested a compose 17:09:29 FYI I installed anaconda from http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2340/4912340/Fedora-19-Nightly-20130129.10-x86_64-Live-xfce.iso 17:10:10 anyhow, if there are no other topics, I'll set the fuse for ~ 5 minutes 17:10:26 yeah it kinda serves no purpose to start composing images until anaconda says go 17:10:46 * nirik nods 17:10:48 Viking-Ice: IIRC, they were one of the groups requesting rawhide composes 17:11:35 yup 17:14:19 Thanks for coming, everyone! 17:14:27 #endmeeting