15:00:30 <adamw> #startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting
15:00:30 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Apr  1 15:00:30 2019 UTC.
15:00:30 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
15:00:30 <zodbot> The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:30 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:00:30 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_qa_meeting'
15:00:36 <adamw> #meetingname fedora-qa
15:00:36 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa'
15:00:39 <adamw> #topic Roll call
15:01:15 <frantisekz> .hello2
15:01:16 <zodbot> frantisekz: frantisekz 'František Zatloukal' <fzatlouk@redhat.com>
15:01:47 <kparal> .hello2
15:01:47 * satellit listening
15:01:47 <zodbot> kparal: kparal 'Kamil Páral' <kparal@redhat.com>
15:02:07 * cmurf is somewhere staring out a window
15:02:34 <lruzicka> .hello2
15:02:34 <zodbot> lruzicka: lruzicka 'Lukáš Růžička' <lruzicka@redhat.com>
15:03:04 <coremodule> .hello2
15:03:05 <zodbot> coremodule: coremodule 'Geoffrey Marr' <gmarr@redhat.com>
15:03:29 <adamw> morning folks
15:03:32 <adamw> how's everyone?
15:03:51 <coremodule> Doing well, how about you adamw?
15:03:54 <frantisekz> everyone is celebrating tomorrow beta release.... :)
15:05:25 <lruzicka> Even my "teta" is looking forward to Beta.
15:06:18 <tflink> .hello2
15:06:19 <zodbot> tflink: tflink 'Tim Flink' <tflink@redhat.com>
15:07:30 <jlanda> gtg, I'll read later
15:07:37 <adamw> got tonsillitis and trying to catch up with things, but fine!
15:07:37 <cmurf> .hello2
15:07:38 <zodbot> cmurf: Sorry, but you don't exist
15:07:41 <cmurf> haha
15:07:53 <cmurf> I do that just because it's a rare joy a computer says that these days.
15:08:03 <frantisekz> .fire cmurf for not-existing
15:08:03 <zodbot> adamw fires cmurf for not-existing
15:08:04 <tflink> the ghost of cmurf is with us :)
15:08:38 <adamw> #topic Previous meeting follow-up
15:09:11 <coremodule> blehhhhh, sorry to hear that... bet that's not fun
15:09:15 <adamw> so, there are a couple of action items for me and sgallagh which i think we didn't do anything about yet...
15:09:34 <sgallagh> Hmm?
15:09:40 <adamw> "adamw to work with sgallagh on putting those criteria into practice" (.fire self for writing terrible notes) and "adamw and sgallagh to find or write test cases to back the printing criteria"
15:09:48 <adamw> i don't think we did that yet did we? i don't remember doing it anyway
15:10:28 <adamw> ah, by 'put them into practice' we meant 'actually put the criteria into the criteria pages'
15:10:28 <sgallagh> I did not. I think you approached me and I reminded you that I am not a printing SME and it would be better to find someone that was to help write criteria
15:10:38 <adamw> we already agreed the criteria
15:10:38 <sgallagh> I just proposed the high-level change that we acked
15:11:18 <adamw> the things that need doing are a) actually put the agreed text in the pages and b) write test cases
15:11:53 <adamw> #info "adamw to work with sgallagh on putting those [printing] criteria into practice [i.e. production]" - not yet done, we will do it this week
15:12:04 <adamw> #info "adamw and sgallagh to find or write test cases to back the printing criteria" - not yet done, we will also try and work on that soon
15:12:20 <adamw> #action adamw to put proposed printing criteria into production
15:12:31 <adamw> #action adamw to get printing test cases written and added to matrices
15:13:12 <adamw> #info "adamw to ask sumantro to make contingency plans for upcoming test days  if composes are still not available" - that got sorted out in the end, we had images for the test days
15:13:46 <cmurf> apparently Brno has an IPP Everywhere printer that can be used for testing the printing criterion
15:15:24 <adamw> do we have any other followup from last week?
15:17:21 <adamw> i guess not!
15:17:38 <adamw> #topic Fedora 30 status
15:17:44 <adamw> #info Fedora 30 Beta will be released tomorrow
15:17:57 <adamw> #info Common Bugs page is ready: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F30_bugs
15:20:14 <adamw> i'm not aware of any other major f30 business ATM, it seems to be in decent shape
15:20:20 <adamw> anyone have thoughts / notes on where we are with f30?
15:20:57 <frantisekz> nothing special, works like a charm, we should declare it as a final tomorrow :)
15:21:01 <satellit> can fix the missing browser icon if remove favorite and then add favorite
15:21:43 * satellit beta 1.8
15:22:21 <adamw> project colada++
15:22:21 <zodbot> adamw: Karma for colada changed to 1 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
15:22:30 <adamw> satellit: i don't think that fixes it, it more moves it around
15:22:36 <adamw> the bug affects the top icon, *whatever the top icon is*, aiui
15:22:54 <adamw> haha, i forgot colada is actually an account that exists
15:23:00 <adamw> alrighty then
15:23:14 <adamw> #info otherwise no news on Fedora 30, we believe it is currently in solid shape and will move forward with Final testing
15:23:28 * satellit works for me if add ff icon after removing zero hight ff first
15:23:49 <adamw> there should be a new compose nominated for testing soon, we should look at getting the Final tests that were not done before done now
15:24:24 <adamw> #topic Release criteria / test case proposal status
15:24:40 <adamw> #info as noted in 'previous meeting follow-up', the printing criteria process is still ongoing
15:25:11 <adamw> the other ongoing one here, i think, is basic graphics mode
15:25:17 <cmurf> release The Kparal!
15:25:21 <adamw> i kicked off a discussion on that after the go/no-go agreed to move it from beta
15:25:34 <adamw> so far it seems people are generally in favour of applying the existing criterion at Final? any thoughts?
15:26:00 <cmurf> i've already added my 2 cents to the devel@ thread
15:26:18 <coremodule> I'm +1 for the idea
15:26:21 <frantisekz> +1 to leave it as a final criterion without changing anything else
15:26:37 <cmurf> I think basic should keep the boot loader menu item
15:26:38 <satellit> tested DVD last test period for install and it worked
15:26:54 <cmurf> and then for final we block if it's not working as expected or as designed or whatever
15:27:54 <kparal> I believe the basic graphics mode is not used that rarely as some think. I needed it even for some very old radeon card
15:27:58 <adamw> cmurf: i don't really see the value in ensuring we have a present but not-necessarily-working menu item at basic.
15:28:14 <adamw> what's the use of making sure it's there but not making sure it works?
15:28:17 <cmurf> it's gotta be there to find out if it's not working
15:28:25 <adamw> not really, you can just add 'nomodeset' manually.
15:28:50 <kparal> well it increases the chances of people finding out and reporting to us
15:28:51 <cmurf> yeah for QA people, I'm talking about normal people haha
15:29:23 <adamw> i guess...
15:30:20 <kparal> I don't actually care that much whether we have a separate beta criterion for the menu item. but I think the Final one should be there (the whole mechanism must work)
15:30:53 <adamw> ok
15:31:03 <cmurf> in the interest of thinning the herd of criteria, I can go along with that
15:31:18 <adamw> #info wide agreement at meeting that the existing 'basic graphics' criterion should apply more or less unmodified at Final
15:31:30 <coremodule> I agree with kparal
15:31:36 <coremodule> ack ^^
15:31:47 <lruzicka> ack
15:31:52 <adamw> #action adamw to implement move of 'basic graphics' criterion to Final and follow up on mailing lists
15:32:54 <adamw> any other business re criteria or test cases?
15:34:12 <adamw> in that case...
15:34:18 <adamw> #topic Test Day / community event status
15:34:21 <adamw> sumantro: ahoy, around?
15:34:32 <sumantro> A couple of test days coming up starting with Silverblue on 2019-04-05
15:34:53 <sumantro> Vagrant 2.2, Bash 5.0, Upgrade and Virt are in talks
15:35:13 <sumantro> Modularity test day went well
15:35:19 <adamw> #info Silverblue test day will be 2019-04-05
15:35:26 <adamw> #info Modularity test day completed successfully
15:35:48 <sumantro> although we had A LOT of people who were not so happy with illformed modules and commented a lot
15:36:12 <sumantro> we might have to find a way to capture that in the form of report
15:36:35 <adamw> hmm, are there many bad modules?
15:36:45 <adamw> i thought there was supposed to be Magic CI (TM) to prevent this
15:37:14 <lruzicka> adamw, well it is hard to tell, because the modules have no standard defined, so it is really hard to tell.
15:37:31 <cmurf> adamw is dancing around April Fool's day turf right now
15:37:33 <adamw> there is https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/modularity/making-modules/packaging-guidelines/
15:37:43 <adamw> and https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/modularity/making-modules/managing-defaults/
15:37:48 <lruzicka> adamw, I had a meeting with modularity guys and told them about that and they promised that some standards will be followed
15:37:50 <sumantro> adamw,  docker wont get installed ... that seemed blocker for many folks
15:38:20 <cmurf> oh yeah that's a blocker for me if it happens on Server
15:39:09 <adamw> right now i don't think any criteria would cover that...
15:39:31 <sumantro> many GO packages had the same fate too ... we might need to capture this as a part of retrospection at the least
15:39:36 <lruzicka> adamw, that is all nice, but it does not say whether a module has to have a default profile defined. If it does not, you cannot install it without exactly specifying it
15:39:36 <adamw> #info Modularity test day results suggest many modules are broken (including Docker), we are concerned about this
15:39:40 <adamw> sgallagh: any thoughts?
15:40:07 <adamw> sumantro: go packages or go modules?
15:40:33 <cmurf> does this impact upgrades?
15:40:37 <sgallagh> adamw: I unfortunately missed the test day, so I don't know what was found.
15:40:50 <sgallagh> sumantro: Do you have a report of the bugs identified on that day?
15:40:50 <sgallagh> I'
15:40:56 <sgallagh> ll look into them in a bit
15:40:58 <sumantro> golang-ecosystem
15:40:59 <cmurf> e.g. if you have docker already installed, and do a dnf system-upgrade, does it fail because it can't upgrade docker?
15:41:11 <lruzicka> sgallagh, some modules still do not have default profiles defined, so people get confused when using them
15:41:21 <lruzicka> sgallagh, also, some have broken dependencies
15:41:21 <sgallagh> lruzicka: Some are not supposed to.
15:41:35 <sumantro> sgallagh, I do , I am going to sent it over to @test in a while
15:41:44 <sgallagh> Thank you. Please CC me as well
15:41:51 <sgallagh> (I don't always remember to read test@)
15:41:54 <adamw> is the dnf output when trying to enable a module with no default stream useful?
15:42:02 <lruzicka> sgallagh, yeah, I know, but that is not docker, for example
15:42:11 <adamw> i.e. does it read as something a normal human would understand as "hey this module has no default stream you gotta pick one"?
15:42:35 <lruzicka> adamw, no ... instead it only enables the stream and does nothing
15:42:36 <sumantro> sgallagh, for sure
15:42:46 <sgallagh> lruzicka: That is untrue
15:42:47 <cmurf> lruzicka: not good
15:43:00 <lruzicka> ok, let me see it and copy paste
15:43:05 * cmurf not a fan of silent failures
15:43:14 <sgallagh> You're confusing that with a module with no default profiles
15:43:30 <adamw> oh no, he said 'default profile'
15:43:36 <sgallagh> I'm also running the FESCo meeting, so it's hard to have this conversation right now
15:43:38 <adamw> i was the one who misread and introduced 'default stream', my bad
15:43:44 <adamw> but anyway, that is the angle i would attack from
15:43:55 <sgallagh> argh
15:44:17 <adamw> if there is an allowable situation where enabling a module requires non-obvious actions on the user's part, dnf should make that as clear as possible and be as helpful as possible when a user tries to do it and gets it wrong
15:44:29 <lruzicka> I would expect that a module would have both, default stream and default profile, so that it can be installed as:
15:44:51 <lruzicka> dnf module install <module>
15:44:59 <sgallagh> It's very rare that a stream doesn't have a default profile.
15:45:12 <sgallagh> It would only happen if there's no set of packages that reasonably makes sense.
15:45:21 <sgallagh> e.g. a hypothetical "CPAN" module
15:45:27 <lruzicka> when there are no defaults set, one has to pick streams and profiles explicitely and do dnf module install <module>:<stream>/<profile>
15:45:34 <lruzicka> anything less does not work
15:45:36 <cmurf> adamw I'd consider that a nice suggestion from QA to dnf folks for sure
15:46:15 <adamw> lruzicka: sumantro: can i ask you to look into this a bit more and maybe talk to sgallagh about specific cases and what can be improved, when he's less busy?
15:46:37 <sgallagh> Note that I sent out a poll asking for feedback on this to devel@ weeks ago.
15:46:42 <sgallagh> Few people replied.
15:46:49 <sgallagh> I'll bump it and you can all chime in... right?
15:47:03 <sumantro> adamw, sure
15:47:17 <lruzicka> yeah, I would love to take part in some sort of survey
15:47:26 <lruzicka> must have missed it
15:47:41 <sumantro> sgallagh, sure ..sorry that I missed it
15:47:44 * adamw does not read everything on devel any more :/
15:48:18 <lruzicka> I have counted like 7 modules without default profile on the first glance
15:48:21 <sgallagh> lruzicka: Oh, actually it was part of my most recent commblog post.
15:48:27 <sgallagh> I raised these as Open Questions at the end.
15:48:49 <lruzicka> sgallagh, is it on some list? or web?
15:49:06 <sgallagh> https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/modularity-hackfest-march-2019/
15:49:17 <adamw> #action lruzicka and sumantro to look over specific issues that came up in the modularity test day and talk to sgallagh about possible improvements, especially re. modules with no default profile
15:49:44 <lruzicka> ok
15:49:59 <lruzicka> sgallagh, the open questions should be answered in comments?
15:50:18 <sgallagh> lruzicka: as soon as FESCo is over, I'll bring them to devel@
15:50:25 <sgallagh> Which I should have done back then, but forgot
15:50:37 <lruzicka> sgallagh, thanks
15:50:40 <cmurf> related question
15:50:54 <cmurf> dnf system-upgrade and the --setopt='module_platform_id=platform:f30 switch?
15:51:10 <lruzicka> cmurf, yes?
15:51:11 <cmurf> is that something that'll be required for final or is that temporary? it's not currently listed as a common bugs
15:51:12 <adamw> what's the question?
15:51:32 <sgallagh> cmurf: We (Modularity and QA) agreed that that's a blocker for Final
15:51:45 <sgallagh> It must not be required for GA
15:51:52 <adamw> it should be in commonbugs, though, good spot
15:52:07 <lruzicka> adamw, if it is not required?
15:52:27 <lruzicka> adamw, if it behaves correctly, then we do not have a bug, right?
15:52:39 <adamw> sorry what?
15:52:50 <sgallagh> lruzicka: It must not be required for GA.
15:53:25 <lruzicka> adamw, I mean, if at the GA upgrades can be done without using that option, it behaves correctly as if normal, or am I wrong?
15:53:42 <lruzicka> adamw, and if it behaves correctly, then why do we need to mark it as common bug?
15:53:52 <cmurf> well it's common right now
15:53:58 <cmurf> it's not fixed yet
15:54:06 <sgallagh> lruzicka: It's a commonbug for Beta
15:54:14 <cmurf> so it's a common bug for beta period that is also a blocker for final
15:54:16 <kparal> lruzicka: you're misunderstanding what sgallagh says
15:54:32 <lruzicka> kparal, as usual
15:54:34 <adamw> =)
15:54:35 <adamw> ok
15:54:37 <sgallagh> !
15:54:43 <adamw> i've tagged the bug for commonbugs, i'll add it to the page later today
15:54:46 <adamw> thanks for the headsup cmurf
15:54:55 <adamw> #topic Open floor
15:55:04 <adamw> any other business? blocker review meeting starts in 5 mins in #fedora-blocker-review
15:55:07 <lruzicka> as usual I am misunderstading. sgallagh has nothing to do with it :)
15:55:36 <sgallagh> heh
15:55:38 <kparal> lruzicka: the options must not be required, meaning it's a bug and must be fixed
15:55:42 <kparal> *option
15:55:48 <cmurf> 5 minutes before blocker review and I imagine some people want a coffee or a beer or kombucha or other refresher :D
15:56:12 <cmurf> maybe dinner
15:56:21 <lruzicka> kparal, but when it is fixed, it is not a bug anymore. and if it is a blocker, it means that there will not be any final until fixed.
15:56:24 <cmurf> dinner and blocker review yay
15:56:36 <lruzicka> kparal, so where is my reasoning wrong?
15:56:48 <adamw> lruzicka: we have a common bugs page for beta
15:56:53 <adamw> people will try to upgrade to the beta
15:56:56 <adamw> we should tell them about this :)
15:57:02 <cmurf> +2
15:57:11 <kparal> lruzicka: GA means Final
15:57:16 <lruzicka> adamw, ok ... I thought that common bugs were mainly for final
15:57:32 <kparal> no, they are valid throughout the whole release
15:57:34 <adamw> nah, just as important for beta
15:57:34 <kparal> and post-release
15:57:44 <sgallagh> lruzicka: No, it's especially useful for Beta, since things aren't fully baked yet
15:58:08 <cmurf> also, something can be a common bug that is not a blocker ;-)
15:58:32 <lruzicka> cmurf, this one I would understand ... we are not blocking on that, but we know about that.
15:58:34 <cmurf> e.g. if it's suffiently confusing with a non-obvious work around
15:58:57 <sgallagh> cmurf: I think he meant that we shouldn't bother including blockers on the list, because they won't be present when GA ships.
15:59:00 <lruzicka> cmurf, what I am not gettig is why we should be telling people that there is a bug if it is not after final
15:59:06 <sgallagh> Because he didn't realize the page was useful before GA
15:59:08 <lruzicka> sgallagh, exactly
15:59:11 <cmurf> got it
15:59:26 <adamw> alrighty
15:59:28 <sgallagh> lruzicka: Once it's fixed, the page will be updated accordingly
15:59:32 <adamw> sounds like we're all done
15:59:42 <lruzicka> sgallagh, ok, that seems clear
15:59:49 <adamw> see you all for blocker review shortly
16:00:00 <cmurf> go git yer beers 'n spuds folks
16:00:05 <adamw> thanks for coming!
16:00:07 <adamw> #endmeeting