15:00:24 <jlaska> #startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting
15:00:24 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Jun 20 15:00:24 2011 UTC.  The chair is jlaska. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:24 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:00:33 <jlaska> #meetingname fedora-qa
15:00:33 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa'
15:00:38 <jlaska> #topic Roll Call
15:00:42 <jskladan> j_dulaney: hi there. Well, got struck by two most unpleasant things at once - illness and end-semester exams
15:01:03 * j_dulaney waves
15:01:03 * jskladan steps out of the shadows
15:01:15 <j_dulaney> jskladan:  Man, that sucks
15:01:29 <jlaska> Hey j_dulaney, jskladan
15:01:35 <adamw> yo
15:01:59 <jlaska> hey adamw
15:02:05 <j_dulaney> tflink, adamw, jlaska
15:02:36 <jlaska> hey robatino
15:02:43 * jlaska sees tflink joined too
15:02:49 <jlaska> anyone else I'm forgetting?
15:03:10 <vhumpa1> Hi there
15:03:15 <jlaska> Vita!
15:03:51 <jlaska> okay, let's get things moving ...
15:03:53 * vhumpa1 stands out of his dark dungeon
15:03:57 <j_dulaney> Yo, bro
15:04:47 <jlaska> we didn't have a meeting last week ... so I have no previous items to cover
15:04:58 <jlaska> but if something surfaces, let's discuss in open-discussion
15:05:05 <jlaska> #topic Release Criteria Updates
15:05:37 <jlaska> adamw: I don't know if you had any remaining criteria updates ... or if you've made all the planned changes already
15:05:57 <jlaska> the other item on under this topic, was vhumpa1's investigation into the Shell duplicate application names
15:06:16 <adamw> there may be something else, i'm still kinda swimming upstream here
15:06:32 <adamw> i know vita's been working hard on that but i haven't caught up with that thread yet, vita can update i'm sure :)
15:06:55 <jlaska> adamw: what's the upstream work you're doing?  re: shell?
15:07:23 <vhumpa1> I reached up to some upstream people and the response I got was that it was an non-issue
15:07:56 * j_dulaney sort of expected as much
15:08:00 <jlaska> vhumpa1: oh rats, so they're not interested in a solution that better distinguishes duplicate application names in the menu?
15:08:04 <vhumpa1> Basically, we are free to do what we want about this issue, but they want to have nothing to with it
15:08:33 <adamw> jlaska: oh, no, metaphorically swimming upstream
15:08:39 <adamw> jlaska: as in freeing myself from giant piles of email
15:08:47 <jlaska> #info Upstream GNOME not interested in resolving duplicate application names - Fedora free to resolve as it sees fit
15:08:54 <jlaska> adamw: oh oh roger :)
15:09:00 <j_dulaney> If we were to submit a patch or some such, would they actually apply it?
15:09:04 <vhumpa1> jlaska: I really just have the same input as I told you on Friday
15:09:18 <jlaska> vhumpa1: right on
15:09:29 * j_dulaney notes that he was literally going upstream yesterday, in a boat
15:09:59 <vhumpa1> Since, it an issue of when you have multiple environments mixed up, it is people's problem
15:10:22 <jlaska> Upstream is focusing only on their desktop experience, not when you mix applications from multiple DE's ?
15:10:23 <vhumpa1> And they don't want to have design decision driven by this
15:10:28 <jlaska> okay
15:10:33 <vhumpa1> jlaska: exactly
15:10:47 <jlaska> vhumpa1: is this important enough that we want to continue persuing options?
15:11:14 <adamw> vhumpa1: how about the parallel discussion about stuff like the GenericName field and app descriptions in tooltips?
15:11:17 <vhumpa1> We are free to make a path or gnomeshell extension - but should not "expect them to condone it" :)
15:12:01 <vhumpa1> jlaska: A good question, I think it is, yet not with very high priority
15:12:01 <jlaska> #info We are free to make a path or gnomeshell extension - but should not "expect them to condone it"
15:12:43 <vhumpa1> adamw: I believe that is the same stuff
15:13:06 <vhumpa1> adamw: I mean that is what I was asking for the upstream opinion for
15:13:39 <adamw> so, no movement there either? hum.
15:13:45 <vhumpa1> adamw: renaming the desktop files in Fedora packing process seems like a no-go now based on some input I got
15:14:23 <j_dulaney> What about just editing the menu names in the .desktop file?
15:14:48 <vhumpa1> Ah sorry for mistyping, that is what I ment in the previous post
15:15:02 <adamw> from a fedora packaging perspective?
15:15:03 <j_dulaney> Ah
15:15:07 <vhumpa1> Yep
15:15:20 <j_dulaney> How so?
15:15:30 <j_dulaney> It doesn't seem like it would be difficult.
15:15:36 * adamw doesn't see anything specifically forbidding it in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Desktop_files
15:15:39 <vhumpa1> We take the desktop files from upstream... So they'd have to be modified with each new version etc... if I am not mistaken
15:15:40 <jlaska> maintenance?
15:15:48 <vhumpa1> jlaska: exactly
15:15:55 <adamw> vhumpa1: i've modified .desktop files before, it's not terribly hard
15:16:10 <j_dulaney> Could not a script be created?
15:16:23 <vhumpa1> adamw: definitely not :) Depends on if maintainers would be willing to do so
15:16:43 <j_dulaney> Include it as an automated part of the build process so that it wouldn't be forgotten
15:16:49 <adamw> you can usually run a sed command inside the spec
15:16:50 <jlaska> so ...do we want to take this to the packaging-list with suggestions for updating the Desktop_files guidance?
15:17:02 <vhumpa1> j_dulaney: I suppose so, that it could be automated from inside spec files somehow
15:17:16 <j_dulaney> jlaska  +1
15:17:23 <adamw> well, this is only feedback from one upstream
15:17:37 <vhumpa1> jlaska: might be worth it
15:17:42 <adamw> have we looked at all the current name collisions and seen how many actually involve GNOME packages? (and how many involve *two* GNOME packages?)
15:17:50 <jlaska> good question
15:17:56 <jlaska> what's the scope of the problem space?
15:18:15 <j_dulaney> adamw:  I can think of one such within Gnome
15:18:19 <vhumpa1> i'd say, it would not be more than 10-15 packages
15:18:25 <j_dulaney> The Update/Updates thing
15:18:36 <vhumpa1> even less if we target really only the most obvious one
15:18:41 <j_dulaney> vhumpa1:  +1
15:18:42 <vhumpa1> ones
15:19:02 <adamw> j_dulaney: i think one of those is a Fedora package, not a GNOME one
15:19:06 <vhumpa1> Still: how exactly to rename them and how is an question
15:19:32 <adamw> oh, no, they're both from gnome-packagekit. i lose.
15:19:41 <adamw> i think we could prevail upon hughsie to fix that one, though.
15:19:45 <vhumpa1> Might bring some unhappiness from some upstream people if we rename some apps in a way they dont like it
15:20:02 <adamw> yeah, it's a slightly touchy subject
15:20:14 <adamw> i think we should check on the other collisions and see what upstream projects they involve
15:20:15 <j_dulaney> vhumpa1:  Of course, in some instances, we are the upstream...
15:20:29 <jlaska> anyone want to pull together a complete list of the collisions?
15:20:42 * j_dulaney can
15:20:42 <jlaska> s/want to/want to volunteer/
15:20:48 <jlaska> thanks j_dulaney
15:21:01 <jlaska> #action j_dulaney - will gather a full list of the application name collissions
15:21:11 <vhumpa1> j_dulaney: you can find a sketch of such in the testlist discussion
15:21:24 <jlaska> anything we need to discuss before we have the complete list of collisions?
15:21:31 <jlaska> or will that list be used to figure out step#2?
15:21:47 <j_dulaney> vhumpa1:  Roger
15:22:44 <jlaska> anything else to cover on this topic?
15:23:31 <adamw> i think that's important to figuring out step #2
15:23:40 <jlaska> yeah, that makes sense
15:23:48 <jlaska> okay, getting ready to move on then
15:24:00 <jlaska> thanks all for the update ... we'll follow-up on the list with this topic
15:24:06 <jlaska> #topic AutoQA updates
15:24:19 <adamw> brb, nature calls
15:24:19 <jlaska> kparal is out today ... tflink, can you guide us through the latest and greatest?
15:24:28 <jlaska> quick give adamw action items!
15:24:29 <tflink> not a problem
15:24:55 <tflink> proposed #action adamw finish AutoQA 0.5.0
15:25:07 <jlaska> ack!
15:25:09 <jlaska> :)
15:25:11 <j_dulaney> LOL
15:25:16 <j_dulaney> +1
15:25:29 <jlaska> actually ... adamw is really good at giving out action items to me ... so I'll be +0 on this :)
15:25:51 <tflink> We've been working to test and finish up AutoQA 0.5.0 and at the moment we're hoping to finish up and release this week some time
15:26:08 <jlaska> #info We've been working to test and finish up AutoQA 0.5.0 and at the moment we're hoping to finish up and release this week some time
15:26:26 <tflink> the major features are bodhi comment email reduction and better log data presentation (in HTML)
15:26:56 * jlaska loves the error highlighting in the HTML reports
15:27:01 <tflink> we still have 2 issues to work out (that I'm aware of) - jskladan has submitted a patch for one and I'm still working on the other
15:27:59 <tflink> that's about all I can think of to say from AutoQA land. Look for a new release announcement later this week!
15:28:30 <jlaska> tflink: given the testing you guys have already done ... does it seem feasible to resolve those 2 issues and release this week?
15:29:38 <tflink> jlaska: I think so. jskladan's patch looks good and I'm still having issues reproducing the last bug
15:30:11 <jlaska> tflink: cool, are you getting what you need out of the test instance we setup?
15:30:12 <tflink> if I still can't reproduce it in the next couple of days, I'm of the opinion that we can ship with it and fix it if it becomes a problem
15:30:20 <jlaska> okay
15:30:27 <jlaska> #info we still have 2 issues to work out (that I'm aware of) - jskladan has submitted a patch for one and I'm still working on the other
15:30:36 <jlaska> #info Look for a new release announcement later this week!
15:30:47 <tflink> to reproduce that bug? No, that setup isn't set up for reproducing the issue
15:30:57 <jlaska> this is the email issue, right?
15:31:07 <tflink> yep - the wonders of tight coupling!
15:31:08 <jlaska> would it help if you had autoqa-results-staging@ ?
15:31:18 * vhumpa1 goes back to studies
15:31:24 <jlaska> tflink: on fedorahosted i mean, instead of your private setup?
15:31:27 <jlaska> vhumpa1: good luck!
15:31:38 <vhumpa1> jlaska: thx! will need it
15:31:39 <tflink> jlaska: it wouldn't matter. The SMTP traffic is being blocked
15:31:45 <adamw> #action vhumpa1 finish autoqa 0.5.0
15:31:51 <tflink> either fedorahosted or my list are outside the network and affected
15:31:55 <jlaska> adamw: strikes!
15:32:14 <tflink> and the emails that go out to that list are different
15:32:22 <jlaska> I see
15:32:23 <tflink> the issue has to do with the bodhi comment emails
15:32:28 <jlaska> ah!
15:32:40 <tflink> which are disabled on the test system
15:33:00 <jlaska> tflink: thanks for the details
15:33:09 <tflink> np
15:33:22 <jlaska> okay, if nothing else on the autoqa front, we'll move on
15:33:34 <jlaska> fingers crossed for a successful autoqa release this week
15:33:57 <tflink> that makes at least two of us. I want to get this stuff into production
15:33:59 <jlaska> oh well, I might as well #info something ...
15:34:44 <jlaska> #info Fedora infrastructure team planning to move existing autoqa systems on July 12 ... jlaska working with smooge+nirik to prepare install/configure new servers (prod + stage) ahead of time
15:35:16 <jlaska> so thanks to those two for providing guidance, and what is shaping up to be a much more official setup
15:35:21 <jlaska> more news @ 11
15:35:22 <j_dulaney> Try to have 0.5.4 or .5 out by then?
15:35:51 <jlaska> who knows what %{version} we'll be at then :)
15:36:16 <jlaska> okay ... moving on ...
15:36:25 <jlaska> #topic R^3 - Retrospective recommendation review
15:36:30 <jlaska> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_15_QA_Retrospective#Recommendations
15:36:41 <jlaska> I finally pulled together the retrospective feedback into some recommendations
15:36:57 <jlaska> I've blogged and fired this off to the list to the thunderous sound of crickets
15:37:14 <jlaska> if you have a moment, please review what I've documented on the page so far
15:37:29 <jlaska> some of these things are already inprogress (b/c you guys naturally like to fix problems)
15:37:48 <jlaska> s/guys/people/ :)
15:38:14 <jlaska> there aren't a lot of earth shattering changes proposed imo ... but of course, it would be nice to have some input
15:38:26 <jlaska> some highlights ...
15:38:32 * j_dulaney likes
15:38:49 <jlaska> Since the Alpha's have always slipped, and each time it's due to live image-related problems (creation or install)
15:38:49 * adamw will have feedback soon
15:39:12 <jlaska> I thought we should ask to have live images included during TC1 (updated SOP), and also with the acceptance test runs leading up to the TC
15:39:41 <jlaska> I've got a few items on the list that we'll need to approach other teams on
15:39:53 <jlaska> for example ... there are 3 items that need to be reviewed with rbergeron
15:40:00 <jlaska> same for rel-eng (likely dgilmore)
15:40:21 <adamw> yay more lives
15:40:45 * j_dulaney notices that he now can set blocker status.
15:41:14 <j_dulaney> Is that across the board for all Bugzilla account holders, or just those with a FAS?
15:41:26 <jlaska> j_dulaney: related to a feature awilliam requested maybe?
15:41:28 <jlaska> .bug 707252
15:41:30 <zodbot> jlaska: Bug 707252 Allow any registered user to change the Blocks: field - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707252
15:41:38 <adamw> yeah, i've been waiting on that one for a bit
15:41:55 <j_dulaney> jlaska:  Indeed
15:42:16 <adamw> j_dulaney: so far it's been that you need editbugs privileges to set that field
15:42:22 <adamw> which packagers and bugzappers and rh staff get
15:42:28 <jlaska> okay ... so please all take a minute to review, add feedback, tell me what sucks or is missing
15:42:35 <jlaska> (in as constructive a way as possible of course) :)
15:42:48 <jlaska> I'd like to start converting these tasks into tickets and begging for volunteers
15:43:03 <jlaska> if there is something you like on the list, and want to get started on ... by all means, go for it
15:43:14 <j_dulaney> adamw:  So, it is across the board now, then?
15:43:26 <jlaska> #info I finally pulled together the retrospective feedback into some recommendations.  I'd like to start converting these tasks into tickets and begging for volunteers.  if there is something you like on the list, and want to get started on ... by all means, go for it
15:43:41 * j_dulaney wonders about how to prevent things like the GlibC almost-foulup
15:43:48 <jlaska> #info j_dulaney noted that bugzilla now allows any logged in user to set the Blocks field
15:44:00 <jlaska> any other comments/thoughts/concerns on this?
15:44:12 <jlaska> if folks are okay with this process/format ... I'll also add a ticket for me to SOP this
15:44:13 <adamw> j_dulaney: i dunno, i hadn't heard of any change
15:46:04 <jlaska> okay, I'll stay tuned to the list for ideas
15:46:06 <jlaska> thanks all!
15:46:14 <jlaska> #topic Open Discussion - <your topic here>
15:46:26 <jlaska> I had one item I just remembered ... but someone else can go first
15:47:49 <jlaska> actually ... my topic was a bout whether we should include athmane's security test matrix in F16 release validation runs
15:47:59 <jlaska> but I think I'll actually just add that to the retrospective recommendations
15:48:25 * j_dulaney raises hand
15:48:43 <jlaska> #info jlaska asked whether we should include athmane's security test matrix in the list of F16 release validation matrices (refer to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Athmane/Fedora_15_Security_Lab_Testing)
15:48:44 <adamw> i'd say definitely, and one thing i'm trying to do is come up with a third test matrix for releases which will include those and a few other tests that aren't really install or desktop
15:48:48 <j_dulaney> Btrfs test case creation
15:48:55 <adamw> but i've been terminally short on round tuits :(
15:49:12 <jlaska> adamw: nice, I think I've got that suggestion from you on the retrospective
15:49:17 <j_dulaney> adamw:  Know the feeling
15:49:50 <jlaska> j_dulaney: re: btrfs ... do you mean tests related to installing systems with btrfs partitions?
15:49:56 <jlaska> or more about post-install btrfs tasks?
15:49:58 <jlaska> (or both)
15:50:16 <j_dulaney> For instance:
15:50:16 <j_dulaney> Both
15:50:21 <j_dulaney> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jdulaney/Draft_Testcase_Mount_btrfs
15:50:35 <j_dulaney> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jdulaney/Draft_Testcase_btrfs_migration
15:50:51 <jlaska> j_dulaney: I've got it on the retrospective to talk with rhe about adding installer coverage for btrfs (actually, it was her idea)
15:51:07 <jlaska> perhaps your additional tests might line up with the additional stuff adamw is talking about
15:51:22 <j_dulaney> Indeed
15:51:31 <jlaska> definitely as package specific tests to start with
15:51:35 <j_dulaney> adamw:  Let's talk on this later this week?
15:51:35 <j_dulaney> when I have time?
15:52:21 <jlaska> Okay .... last call for open-discussion topics ...
15:52:30 <jlaska> I'll #endmeeting in 2 minutes
15:52:33 * jlaska sets fuse
15:53:33 <jlaska> 1 minute until #endmeeting ...
15:54:14 <adamw> j_dulaney: sure
15:54:30 <jlaska> alright ... thanks everyone!
15:54:34 <j_dulaney> What about, say Wednesday?
15:54:40 <jlaska> I'll send minutes to the list later today
15:54:44 <jlaska> #endmeeting