==================================
#fedora-meeting: Fedora QA meeting
==================================


Meeting started by adamw at 16:00:05 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2015-11-23/fedora-qa.2015-11-23-16.00.log.html
.



Meeting summary
---------------
* Roll call  (adamw, 16:00:13)

* Previous meeting follow-up  (adamw, 16:03:21)
  * "adamw to draft up proposal for better handling of 'special
    blockers'" - yep, did that, and we'll be discussing the draft later
    in the meeting  (adamw, 16:04:13)
  * "adamw to finish off the 'installer help' criteria / test case
    changes" - did that: can't find the link in new hyperkitty mailing
    list archive, but trust me, I did it  (adamw, 16:06:18)
  * "adamw to work with releng to get rawhide nightly boot.iso compose
    working and create an initial f24 nightly validation event" - did
    that too, nirik fixed all the things stopping nightly composes and
    we have nightly validation events going now  (adamw, 16:07:03)
  * LINK:
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_24_Rawhide_20151120_Installation
    (satellit, 16:13:41)
  * satellit reports ongoing problems with Rawhide image compose and
    install  (adamw, 16:14:08)

* Non-media blocker process  (adamw, 16:14:28)
  * AGREED: QA is generally in favour of changing the process to include
    some kind of check on the status of blocker-fixing updates as an
    input to go/no-go  (adamw, 16:44:49)
  * ACTION: kparal to look further into the details of go/no-go process
    and propose a practical policy for changing it to cover blockers
    fixed by updates  (adamw, 16:47:16)

* Open floor  (adamw, 16:48:01)
  * ACTION: kparal to check with dnf-system-upgrade maintainers if
    they're OK with blocking on N+2 upgrades  (adamw, 16:55:51)

Meeting ended at 17:00:04 UTC.




Action Items
------------
* kparal to look further into the details of go/no-go process and
  propose a practical policy for changing it to cover blockers fixed by
  updates
* kparal to check with dnf-system-upgrade maintainers if they're OK with
  blocking on N+2 upgrades




Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* kparal
  * kparal to look further into the details of go/no-go process and
    propose a practical policy for changing it to cover blockers fixed
    by updates
  * kparal to check with dnf-system-upgrade maintainers if they're OK
    with blocking on N+2 upgrades
* **UNASSIGNED**
  * (none)




People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* adamw (86)
* kparal (60)
* dgilmore (16)
* roshi (11)
* sgallagh (10)
* linuxmodder (10)
* satellit_e (10)
* tflink (5)
* zodbot (4)
* garretraziel (4)
* pschindl (3)
* nirik (1)
* satellit (1)
* danofsatx (1)




Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4

.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot