16:00:00 <jlaska> #startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting
16:00:00 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Jan  3 16:00:00 2011 UTC.  The chair is jlaska. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:00 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:06 <jlaska> #meetingname fedora-qa
16:00:06 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa'
16:00:18 <jlaska> #topic Gathering in the lobby
16:00:52 * kparal welcome
16:01:04 <jlaska> Happy 2011 fedora-qa!  Who is ready to join me hosting the first awesome meeting of 2011?
16:01:49 * jskladan_home is lurking from the shadows, but will be departing soon :-/
16:01:59 <jlaska> howdy jskladan and kparal
16:02:13 <jlaska> mkrizek is out this week, so hopefully he's hitting the books hard
16:02:31 <jlaska> and wwoods is now fully transitioned over to anaconda-devel
16:03:34 <wwoods> well, I'm still lurking here
16:03:39 * rbergeron peeks in
16:03:51 <wwoods> but unofficially!
16:03:54 <jlaska> Anyone else lurking?  Viking-Ice, robatino, adamw etc...
16:04:00 <jlaska> rbergeron: hi there :)
16:04:06 <rbergeron> jlaska: howdy sir!
16:04:31 <kparal> I think adamw has holiday, if he's in Canada
16:04:32 * Viking-Ice drops in Happy New year ;)
16:06:15 <jlaska> oh goodness, my gnome-shell session just froze .... one moment while I recover folks
16:06:18 <jlaska> apologies for delay
16:06:56 <jlaska> okay ... we'll run this from the console then ...
16:07:39 <jlaska> #topic Previous meeting follow-up
16:07:58 <jlaska> The only item I had on the list was tracking the bodhi patch that fcame sent out for review
16:08:24 <jlaska> kparal: thanks, I didn't realize today was a holiday in Canada
16:10:21 <jlaska> I haven't seen any updates in the ticket.  I have it listed as infrastructure ticket#701, but I think I must have typo'd that from a previous meeting
16:10:38 <jlaska> Will likely need to catch up with fcami and lmacken for an update here
16:11:03 <jlaska> So ... into the agenda ...
16:11:29 <jlaska> Nothing earth shattering planned for today ... just a recap on current activities so we don't completely forget what we were working on
16:11:35 <jlaska> #topic Fedora 15 Test Days
16:11:55 <jlaska> The schedule looks pretty good so far
16:12:27 <jlaska> The open items I have are that AdamW was waiting to hear back from mezcalero on the timing of a systemd test day
16:12:46 <jlaska> Aside from that ... there are still a handfull of open slots remaining (7 slots)
16:13:15 <jlaska> we don't have to have each of these filled of course, and as AdamW notes, while they are typically held on Thursdays ... folks are certainly welcome to choose a more applicable day of the week
16:13:50 <rbergeron> jlaska: does the QA team normally have these test days individually added / detailed on the Fedora schedule?
16:14:00 <Viking-Ice> If they suddenly will get filed we might need to drop some of those Gnome-Shell event I think I saw AdamW marked three testdays dedicated to Gnome-shell..
16:14:19 <jlaska> rbergeron: no, we've debated adding them to the official schedule, but given the dynamic nature of the test day slots ... we've held off on doing that
16:14:42 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: that'll be a good problem to have!  Too many people interested in hosting events :)
16:14:52 <Viking-Ice> hehe ;)
16:15:15 <jlaska> I understand that the 3 gnome-shell events lines up with what was requested on @desktop list and based on feedback from some of the upstream GNOME QA folks
16:15:26 <jlaska> rbergeron: does that answer your q?
16:15:53 <rbergeron> jlaska: indeed.
16:15:58 * jlaska trying to figure out how to cut'n'paste links from `links`
16:16:24 <jlaska> #info If anyone has topic suggestions, or would like to host an event, please reach out on test@lists.fedoraproject.org
16:16:39 <Viking-Ice> Has not experience tough us not being hosting *DE test days until after alpha just before beta + I think we would need to host the systemd test day before Gnome-shell one
16:16:52 <jlaska> #link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Fedora_15_test_days
16:17:18 <Viking-Ice> perhaps all the graphics card related once as well ( Intel Radeon Nouveaou )
16:17:46 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: definitely!  I know that idea came up with regards to priorizing the xorg-x11-drv* stuff before the shell events
16:18:06 <Viking-Ice> yeah I think systemd should be there as well
16:18:10 <jlaska> okay
16:18:36 <jlaska> #info Viking-Ice suggested that systemd and xorg-x11-drv-* test days should be scheduled *before* gnome-shell events
16:18:59 <jlaska> anything else on the test day topic?
16:20:08 <jlaska> Alright ...
16:20:16 <jlaska> #topic Fedora TCMS use case review
16:20:24 <jlaska> Just a quick heads up on some of the work Hurry has been doing ...
16:20:27 <jlaska> #link http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/152
16:20:39 <jlaska> She has drafted 2 new pages ...
16:21:03 <jlaska> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Rhe/tcms_use_cases - to list all of our current test management use cases
16:21:30 <jlaska> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Rhe/tcms_Comparison - Comparison of the features of the different use cases
16:21:49 <jlaska> I find that second document very readible ... but I like tables and colors :)
16:22:13 <jlaska> As always, I'm sure any ideas or suggestions to help Hurry move forward on this subject would be appreciated
16:23:11 <Viking-Ice> I prefer the tables and colors as well
16:23:21 <jlaska> I believe the first goal is to identify and document all current uses of the wiki for test management (cases, plans and results)
16:23:43 <adamw> hiya
16:23:53 <adamw> sorry, lunch overran...
16:24:06 <jlaska> from there, and I'm not sure of the order, to identify which features are present in nitrate, and to prioritize the missing features so they are on the nitrate development roadmap
16:24:11 <jlaska> adamw: hi there!
16:24:24 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: okay
16:24:40 <jlaska> adamw: no worries, we actually thought you were on holiday today
16:24:57 * jlaska suspects this is all part of the adamw beach beverage plan
16:25:04 <jlaska> good timing though ...
16:25:10 <adamw> wasn't sure if we were supposed to be on holiday or not
16:25:19 <jlaska> #topic CritPath Test Case development
16:25:32 <jlaska> #link http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/154
16:25:53 <jlaska> adamw: I'm still coming up to speed on your latest here, but it looks like you have some new drafts/mock-ups?
16:26:05 <adamw> well, just what i did right before xmas
16:26:25 <adamw> they're not new, exactly, i just picked a set of existing test cases and converted them to the new naming scheme as an exampke
16:26:52 <jlaska> I'm cut'n'paste deficient at the moment ... got any handy links?
16:27:10 <adamw> you can drill down from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Test_Cases to see how it works
16:27:27 <adamw> to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_xorg-x11-drv-ati_test_cases and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Critical_path_test_cases
16:27:49 <jlaska> nice!
16:28:08 <jlaska> I still have a few unread updates from you on the subject, I'll try to respond and clarify and comments shortly
16:28:17 <jlaska> any other updates or next steps you want to share?
16:29:43 <adamw> well, i was kinda hoping for some feedback over xmas break, but haven't seen any
16:30:05 <adamw> if we assume no news is good news then next step is simply continuing to convert existing test cases, and getting people started writing new ones
16:30:09 <jlaska> #help Feedback on ticket#152 and ticket#154 needed
16:30:13 <adamw> then talking to the tool devs
16:30:44 <jlaska> #info Need more feedback from testers/developers
16:30:56 <jlaska> sounds great, thanks adamw
16:31:15 <jlaska> #topic AutoQA Updates
16:31:35 <kparal> ah
16:31:38 <jlaska> kparal: what's the latest?  Do we have a holiday easter egg implanted in autoqa now? :)
16:32:02 <kparal> I don't really have anything prepared for today. I must admit I haven't been working on autoqa over christmas :)
16:32:31 <jskladan_home> neither have I
16:32:34 * jskladan_home blushes
16:32:35 <kparal> but today I pushed to master mkrizek's support for staging server
16:32:37 <jlaska> good for you guys!
16:32:45 <kparal> so at least mkrizek deserves kudos
16:32:52 <jlaska> heh ... already mkrizek :)
16:33:35 <jlaska> kparal: in general, how are things looking for the next %{version} of autoqa?
16:33:41 <jlaska> or is it too soon to tell?
16:34:21 <kparal> well, I am not sure how it looks about depcheck
16:34:34 <kparal> I am sure we can adjust the koji watcher in time
16:35:21 <kparal> I believe the next release should occur this month
16:35:55 <jlaska> cool!  I'm not sure on the status of depcheck either, I started a thread with wwoods on that topic, so hopefully we'll know more soon.
16:36:44 <jlaska> clumens and I finished up some work on his private branch, which includes a new installer test called 'compose-tree' that does a pungi test whenever a new anaconda is built in koji
16:37:13 <jlaska> I also have a preliminary git-post-receive hook (along with companion .wsgi app) to allow us to trigger tests based on 'git push's
16:37:50 <kparal> sounds great
16:38:04 <kparal> what's the wsgi app for?
16:38:22 <jlaska> the wsgi app is how the git-watcher triggers tests on the autoqa server
16:38:38 <kparal> ok
16:38:43 <jlaska> I'll have to document this in more detail of course, I took a stab at a long README in the hook directory for this
16:38:48 <jlaska> but I'm sure it'll need more docs
16:40:05 <jlaska> oh, I should also mention that Hongqing Yang joined the group in Beijing.  He's tasked with coming up to speed on our installation testing and looking for areas to automate
16:40:20 <jlaska> alright ... open-discussion time ...
16:40:26 <jlaska> #topic Open discussion - <your topic here>
16:40:52 <jlaska> quick topic for rbergeron ... are there any open items related to QA and the F15 schedule?
16:41:00 <kparal> jlaska: does that mean that Honqging will cooperate with clumens or will it be a separate task?
16:41:45 <jlaska> kparal: unsure at this time ... they may end up converging, but the initial scope is somewhat different
16:42:20 <jlaska> Another question for everyone ...
16:42:48 <jlaska> #info Are there any suggestions/ideas on how we can make our weekly meetings more effective?
16:43:26 <Viking-Ice> Merge Bug Zappers meetings with this one
16:43:34 <jlaska> Change the format, change the frequency, rotate meeting chair, More open to topic submissions etc...
16:43:40 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: that's an idea ... hmmm
16:43:45 <kparal> it depends what 'more effective' means... shorter? :)
16:44:07 <jlaska> kparal: to me, more effective means it served a purpose, and we all found it a valuable use of our time
16:44:14 <adamw> do we think it's currently ineffective?
16:44:14 <jlaska> and shorter would be nice!
16:44:16 <Viking-Ice> posting the topics with a bit more advance then hour before meeting ;)
16:44:34 <jlaska> adamw: I don't think it's ineffective, but I think it could be more effective
16:44:46 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: that's always something I struggle with ... indeed, I could do a better job of that
16:44:55 <adamw> do 'em on friday
16:45:01 <adamw> put them on a wiki page people can edit
16:45:02 <jlaska> the meetings, or the agenda?
16:45:06 <adamw> agenda
16:45:08 <jlaska> hmm, likey
16:45:14 <jlaska> that might facilitate more topic suggestions
16:45:19 <adamw> that's how we do/did it for bugzappers, it works fine when people actually have things to contribute
16:45:28 <adamw> in fact it was just a rolling list
16:45:36 * jlaska would like to stop carrying all the topics
16:45:40 <adamw> whoever does the meeting announcement grabs everything off the list and puts it in
16:46:23 <jlaska> well, that's a quick fix I can implement for the next meeting ... thanks!
16:47:05 <jlaska> following that idea ... if there are no topic submissions, is it acceptable to not have a meeting?
16:47:47 <adamw> fine by me.
16:47:47 <jlaska> is it *bad* if we go 2/3/4 weeks without a meeting?  I would think that means we have a problem somewhere, no?
16:47:50 <Viking-Ice> I think the bug zappers meeting should be merged with this one
16:47:59 <adamw> but we have some recurring topics at present which would cause that to be very unlikely.
16:48:03 <jlaska> #topic Improve QA meetings
16:48:14 <jlaska> #info idea - Merge BugZappers and QA meetings
16:48:33 <jlaska> #info idea - Post and solicit meeting topics on Friday, conditionally host meetings on Monday
16:48:54 <kparal> I have just a slight idea how BugZappers meeting look like. but keeping it separate looks more reasonable to me
16:49:03 <Viking-Ice> why ?
16:49:23 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: sounds like we should also raise this for discussion on the next BugZapper meeting?
16:49:45 <kparal> Viking-Ice: because going over proposed bugs is outside of my usual tasks
16:50:02 <Viking-Ice> yeah it was them that split of the process from QA in the first place so they might not like it so much
16:50:27 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: I wouldn't completely kill the idea, but seems worth more info/exploration
16:50:40 <adamw> kparal: that's not what happens in bugzappers meetings
16:51:15 <kparal> adamw: ah, ok. so first I should attend one, before speaking, sorry :)
16:51:21 <Viking-Ice> having one meeting for the whole QA community is what I'm after it will alow reporters to be a bit more aware of what's happening on that side
16:51:35 <adamw> kparal: you can see logs at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/bugzappers/ if you like
16:51:51 <Viking-Ice> I personally never attend any "BugZappers" meeting
16:51:53 <adamw> we haven't actually had many bugzappers meetings at all lately so it's somewhat academic
16:52:41 <jlaska> Well, by being more transparent with collecting meeting topics for this meeting, we can certainly encourage more BugZapper participation
16:53:07 <jlaska> if the meetings consistently go over 1 hour in length, I would probably have to shoot myself
16:53:20 <jlaska> That'd be my personal goal :)
16:53:42 <Viking-Ice> from my stand point we all work as one group or we split of QE in their corners bugzapper in theirs and reporters in their corners
16:53:49 <kparal> after reading the logs, it doesn't seem so bad. taking back my statement :)
16:54:09 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: let's start the discussion with the bugzappers ... see what they think
16:54:37 <jlaska> I don't think it's as black and white as you articulate (QA vs BugZappers) ... but I'm open to combining the meetings
16:55:48 <jlaska> for this week, I'll adjust the meeting topic process.
16:55:57 <adamw> can we go back to test days, since I missed that bit of the meeting?
16:56:06 <jlaska> sure ... you got 4 minutes :)
16:56:15 <jlaska> #topic Fedora 15 Test Days
16:56:30 <jlaska> adamw: any updates/topics/cautionary_tales to add?
16:56:31 <adamw> just to say the ordering of the test days i've put in so far isn't just me throwing stuff at a wall
16:56:47 <adamw> the gnome test day schedule is based on me talking to the desktop team, that's the schedule they want
16:56:56 * jlaska nods
16:57:26 <adamw> we don't need to do the systemd test day before the gnome3 test days unless we're particularly scared that zillions of people will be unable to boot f15, which by all current experience isn't the caes
16:57:34 <Viking-Ice> I propose xorg-x11-drv test and systemd before first gnome-shell test
16:57:44 <adamw> we can't do that, practically speaking
16:57:48 <Viking-Ice> why
16:57:54 <adamw> wouldn't be enough time for everything
16:58:02 <Viking-Ice> ?
16:58:05 <adamw> systemd and xorg devs don't want their test days really early
16:58:28 <adamw> especially for xorg, it'd mean we were testing code with little relevance to what we were actually going to ship
16:59:10 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: it sounds like current schedule was developed in conjunction with desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org ... /me searches for desktop@ link
16:59:11 <Viking-Ice> yeah well we have had problems in the past with the X not being in good enough shape before *DE tests when hosting DE before the X tests
16:59:17 <adamw> the only particular benefit of doing them before gnome3 test days is if we're really worried systemd or x drivers are going to cause lots of people to be unable to get into gnome3, yes? at present that doesn't look like it'd be the case
16:59:45 <adamw> jlaska: most of the discussion was on irc, but i can provide a log if anyone wants (i'd have to check with mclasen first as it was in /query)
16:59:54 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: I don't have a lot of data on the retrospective pages about people being unable to test desktop environments due to a large number of xorg-x11-drv issues
17:00:34 <Viking-Ice> F8 and F9 X changes and radeon
17:01:00 <jlaska> That's when we introduced modesetting for the first time, right?
17:01:05 <Viking-Ice> yeah
17:01:10 <adamw> we could move X up to late february, but i'd have to check with the X devs
17:01:19 <jlaska> okay
17:01:41 <jlaska> I don't think we're in the same boat with regards to disruptive core xorg-x11-drv-* changes like we were when modesetting landed
17:01:50 <adamw> systemd really doesn't worry me, we've had people using it for quite a long time now and it really hasn't presented any problems
17:02:11 <adamw> the systemd test day will be 'polishing advanced use cases' not 'omg does this thing work', i think
17:02:14 <Viking-Ice> adamw: not on fresh install I dont think it's the same with upgrades. . .
17:02:34 <adamw> Viking-Ice: that's fine. we don't get many people doing upgrades for test days.
17:02:41 <jlaska> alright, we've exceeded the one hour limit ... let's start to wrap-up
17:02:56 <jlaska> so summary ...
17:03:11 <jlaska> * reach out to xorg devs to see if there is any wiggle room for the Xorg Test Week?
17:03:33 <jlaska> * Add upgrades to the list of use cases to explore during systemd test day?
17:03:37 <jlaska> </proposed>
17:04:23 <jlaska> adamw: Viking-Ice: that sound right?
17:04:25 <adamw> sure
17:04:30 <Viking-Ice> yup
17:04:40 <jlaska> eggsellent
17:04:48 <jlaska> okay folks ... let's close out unless there are any other topics
17:04:54 <jlaska> #topic Open Discussion - <your topic here>
17:05:00 * jlaska sets the fuse for 1 minute
17:05:45 <jlaska> 15 seconds...
17:06:01 <jlaska> Thanks for your time everyone!
17:06:14 <jlaska> I'll follow-up with minutes to the list
17:06:16 <jlaska> #endmeeting