15:00:35 <tflink> #startmeeting 2011-08-15 Fedora QA Meeting
15:00:35 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Aug 15 15:00:35 2011 UTC.  The chair is tflink. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:35 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:00:39 <tflink> #topic roll call
15:00:45 * kparal here
15:00:50 * athmane is here
15:01:00 * mkrizek is present
15:01:14 <tflink> kparal, athmane, mkrizek, pschindl: welcome
15:02:22 <adamw> yo
15:02:24 <adamw> sorry folks, was on hairball patrol...
15:02:33 <tflink> adamw: that sounds like fun
15:03:11 * tflink waits another couple minutes to see if we get more people
15:04:50 <adamw> sorry for no meeting announcement, either, was focusing on alpha
15:05:07 <tflink> no worries, I was in the same boat :)
15:05:14 * tflink forgot until this morning
15:05:24 <tflink> ok, let's get this started
15:05:33 <tflink> #topic Previous Meeting Follow-Up
15:05:44 <tflink> AFAIK, we don't have anything to follow up on
15:05:51 <tflink> is there anything I'm missing?
15:06:01 <adamw> were there any #action items last week?
15:06:05 * jskladan lurks in
15:06:19 <adamw> the 'previous meeting followup' is mostly a checkin to make sure #actions were...actioned
15:06:40 <tflink> adamw to split up 728891 into separate bugs and assign them appropriately
15:06:46 <adamw> done!
15:06:59 <adamw> that was the file conflict bug, it's been solved for a while now
15:07:16 <tflink> #info 728891 successfully split up into separate bugs
15:07:27 <tflink> that's the only one I'm seeing from last week
15:07:39 <adamw> okay
15:07:47 <tflink> on to the next topic
15:07:58 <tflink> #topic Current Alpha Blockers
15:08:08 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Current_Release_Blockers
15:08:44 <tflink> we have 2 new proposed blockers that it'd be nice to go over quick
15:09:10 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_16_Alpha_Release_Criteria
15:09:19 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730415
15:09:28 <tflink> #info kickstart with user --name=blah results in traceback
15:10:10 <tflink> talking with bcl on friday, this should be fixed soon
15:10:21 <tflink> IIRC, a patch has been posted to anaconda-devel
15:10:21 <adamw> this doesn't really make any blocker criteria
15:10:29 <tflink> nope, probably not
15:10:44 <adamw> we don't have a specific 'kickstart install should work' criterion but if we did i bet it'd be beta
15:11:22 <tflink> proposed #agreed 730415 - RejectedBlocker, AcceptedNTH - Does not hit any alpha release criteria but it is kind of ugly. Tested fix would be accepted.
15:11:55 <adamw> i'm not sure about nth at this point
15:11:59 <tflink> ack/nack/patch?
15:12:03 <adamw> that'd involve respinning anaconda again to do nothing but fix this...
15:12:08 <Southern_Gentlem> can you stay its a beta blocker
15:12:12 <adamw> do we have an anaconda dev in the house?
15:12:19 * tflink thought that there was another bug that they wanted to fix
15:12:21 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: it can be proposed as one and then we'd discuss it on friday
15:12:31 <tflink> oh, it's proposed nth
15:13:49 <tflink> proposed #agreed 730415 - RejectedBlocker - Does not hit any of the alpha release criteria - repropose as beta blocker
15:14:12 <clumens> THUD
15:14:14 <adamw> ack for that
15:14:26 <adamw> clumens: so we're split on whether 730415 should be nth
15:14:35 <adamw> is there any other reason to rebuild anaconda at this point?
15:14:51 <clumens> no
15:15:00 <tflink> 729599 would be the other one, but that's nth too
15:15:05 <clumens> right
15:15:09 <tflink> and we were having trouble reproducing that on friday
15:15:24 <tflink> well, in the way that we were fearing anyways
15:16:02 <tflink> any other votes?
15:16:02 <adamw> so...yeah, i'm kinda -1 nth at this point. anyone else have a vote?
15:16:24 <clumens> i'm fine with kicking it on down to final
15:16:46 * tflink is taking that as an ack so that we can move on
15:16:55 <tflink> #agreed 730415 - RejectedBlocker - Does not hit any of the alpha release criteria - repropose as beta blocker
15:17:08 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729500
15:17:19 <tflink> #info Error while installing updates on Fedora 16 Alpha RC3
15:17:28 <tflink> adamw: any luck reproducing this?
15:17:33 <adamw> not seen it again
15:17:37 <adamw> and no-one else has either
15:17:49 <adamw> so let's reject it for now
15:17:49 <tflink> rejected blocker?
15:17:54 <adamw> and if others hit it for rc4...add it again
15:18:23 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 729500 - RejectedBlocker - Have not been able to reproduce, rejecting as blocker. Re-propose if it shows up again.
15:18:27 <tflink> ack/nack/patch?
15:18:56 <adamw> ack
15:19:24 * tflink would prefer to have 3 votes ...
15:19:55 <tflink> #agreed - 729500 - RejectedBlocker - Have not been able to reproduce, rejecting as blocker. Re-propose if it shows up again.
15:19:56 * maxamillion is here ... late but here
15:20:04 <tflink> maxamillion: welcome
15:20:10 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730438
15:20:11 <maxamillion> tflink: thanks :)
15:20:22 <tflink> #info SSL CA errors when reporting an installer bug to bugzilla
15:20:30 * adamw notes once more for the record that you don't need to pass an exam to vote on blockers
15:20:40 <tflink> this is something that I hit on friday - it was covered up by another libreport bug
15:20:43 <adamw> being an idiot on the internet with an opinion is enough
15:20:53 <adamw> right, nice catch tflink
15:20:57 <maxamillion> adamw: lol
15:21:06 <pjones> but maybe we should start?
15:21:09 <tflink> #info fix available, test boot.iso is being built for karma now
15:21:12 <adamw> if we haven't formally voted yet: +1 blocker, prevents bug reporting from anaconda (again)
15:21:15 * maxamillion isn't entirely sure how to respond that
15:21:28 <adamw> maxamillion: i recommend blithely ignoring it
15:21:37 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 730438 - AcceptedBlocker - he installer must be able to report failures to Bugzilla, with appropriate
15:21:40 <tflink> information included.
15:21:44 <adamw> ack
15:21:46 <maxamillion> adamw: rgr that
15:21:48 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 730438 - AcceptedBlocker - he installer must be able to report failures to Bugzilla, with appropriate information included
15:22:07 <tflink> ack/nack/patch ?
15:22:27 <tflink> don't make me start calling people out by name :)
15:22:39 <adamw> ack. with an extra t.
15:22:51 <adamw> (no, not 'tack'.)
15:22:54 <tflink> kparal, jskladan: votes?
15:22:56 <rbergeron> attack?
15:23:03 <jsmith> ACK
15:23:08 <tflink> finally :)
15:23:09 <adamw> ubuntu is attacking?!
15:23:11 <adamw> man the defences!
15:23:14 <tflink> #agreed - 730438 - AcceptedBlocker - he installer must be able to report failures to Bugzilla, with appropriate information included
15:23:17 <rbergeron> OMG
15:23:27 <tflink> OK, proposed NTH time
15:23:31 * Viking-Ice joins in
15:23:32 * kparal was slow to vote
15:23:36 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729599
15:23:41 <adamw> tflink, to the Negative Review Cannon!
15:23:45 <tflink> #info PartitionException: msdos disk labels do not support partition names.
15:23:49 <adamw> rbergeron, to the FUD Dispenser!
15:24:04 <rbergeron> adamw: only if it has a flip-back yead
15:24:05 <rbergeron> head
15:24:13 <adamw> you got it
15:24:21 * bcl pokes his head in
15:24:21 * maxamillion is pretty confident he missed something
15:24:28 <tflink> I think that I'm -1 nth on this one for alpha - the impact doesn't seem to be quite as bad as we first thought
15:24:37 <adamw> oh, right, this one...
15:24:38 <jsmith> +1 for NTH, -1 for blocker
15:24:46 <jsmith> (alpha blocker, that is)
15:24:50 <adamw> tflink: is ther news that's not in the bug?
15:25:01 <tflink> adamw: it was your testing, you tell me
15:25:05 <adamw> ah
15:25:11 <adamw> well, i don't wanna rely too much on my little test
15:25:19 * athmane is sorry, need to go
15:25:21 <tflink> I'm not too strongly -1
15:25:26 <tflink> athmane: thanks for joining us
15:25:27 <adamw> if bcl is sufficiently worried about the impact of this one, i'm still +1
15:25:47 <Viking-Ice> this happens only on upgrade right ?
15:26:01 <tflink> the theory is that it could happen on clean install, too
15:26:08 <adamw> yeah
15:26:15 <Viking-Ice> with msdos partition ?
15:26:16 <bcl> It happens any time you have a msdos labeled disk with the /boot partition on it
15:26:19 <tflink> if you have msdos disk labels
15:26:29 <adamw> the theory is that any install to a disk with an msdos disk label, which isn't being entirely reformatted, could be in trouble
15:26:55 <Viking-Ice> which we clean out if default partitioning scheme is chosen in anaconda ?
15:26:57 <adamw> i tried a test to confirm this and the install worked, but it's entirely possible i screwed something up.
15:27:10 <adamw> Viking-Ice: default depends on exactly what's on the disk already, i think
15:27:27 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 729599 - Doesn't hit any alpha criteria but could affect clean installs to disks with existing msdos partitions
15:27:33 <tflink> ack/nack/patch?
15:27:46 <tflink> whoops, that was supposed to say AcceptedNTH
15:27:56 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 729599 - AcceptedNTH - Doesn't hit any alpha criteria but could affect clean installs to disks with existing msdos partitions
15:27:57 <adamw> bcl: how messy is the fix for this?
15:28:03 <clumens> so, i'll be doing an anaconda after all?
15:28:23 <clumens> https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2011-August/msg00181.html
15:28:38 <clumens> looks straightforward to me
15:28:55 <adamw> yeah...
15:29:01 <adamw> lemme see, what's the worst that could possibly happen...
15:29:07 <adamw> if the boot partition doesn't get a name, would it still work?
15:29:13 <bcl> adamw: the fix is clean, I just had to check to make sure the disk label supports the feature before using it.
15:29:14 <adamw> (i.e. if somehow that conditional was never satisfied)
15:30:02 <bcl> yes, everything would probably be fine. The change was primarily for EFI
15:30:08 <adamw> okay...
15:30:09 <Viking-Ice> I'm +1 nth if there is no risk of breaking partitioning if there is -1 nth
15:30:15 <adamw> i guess, based on the simplicity of the fix, +1 nth
15:30:26 <adamw> so yeah, new anaconda
15:30:27 <maxamillion> +1 nth
15:30:35 <bcl> there is always risk. the question is -- is the risk better to take in Alpha or Beta?
15:30:40 <tflink> ok, sounds like we have an agreement
15:30:43 <clumens> can do.
15:30:51 <tflink> #agreed - 729599 - Doesn't hit any alpha criteria but could affect clean installs to disks with existing msdos partitions
15:31:02 * tflink will wait for new anaconda build before putting out a test boot.iso
15:31:07 <clumens> bcl: i thin this is a low risk change.
15:31:47 <tflink> ok, accepted blocker time
15:31:56 <tflink> wait, do we need to do this?
15:32:25 <adamw> prolly worth reviewing the rpm fix
15:32:26 <tflink> eh, there's only one and that'll come up a little later (rpm issue)
15:32:42 <tflink> or we can do it now :)
15:32:53 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728707
15:33:01 <tflink> #info on package upgrade RPM is removing empty directories accidentally
15:33:02 <adamw> so, good news, there's a 'fix'
15:33:10 <adamw> bad news, it involves pulling in a medium-size bunch of package rebuilds
15:33:19 <adamw> still, if we gotta do it, we gotta do it
15:33:30 <tflink> yep
15:33:35 <Viking-Ice> yup
15:33:37 * adamw is still not entirely sure why panu doesn't think rpm should be fixed.
15:34:00 <maxamillion> what are the chances that the fix could break the package rebuilds? or cause $other?
15:34:25 <tflink> it sounds like rpmbuild was part of the problem
15:34:30 <adamw> the fix in rpm? negligible
15:34:52 <maxamillion> adamw: cool
15:34:54 <adamw> but in general, every time you rebuild a package even with no changes, there's a small-but-existent chance of it screwing _something_ up
15:35:08 <maxamillion> well ... ture
15:35:11 <maxamillion> true even
15:35:15 <tflink> so do we want to try pushing for a fix in rpm?
15:35:15 <maxamillion> bleh .... typing is hard
15:35:54 <adamw> i just poked the bug with that. but panu already said the right thing is the rebuilds, and we're short on time
15:36:15 <tflink> very true
15:36:17 <maxamillion> what would the estimated ETA on the rebuilds be?
15:36:21 <adamw> they're all done
15:36:25 <maxamillion> oh
15:36:26 <Viking-Ice> ;)
15:36:27 <adamw> need karma, but that's about all
15:36:41 <adamw> so we should just spin rc4 with the rebuilds of all packages on the dvd, and hope
15:36:50 <maxamillion> then +1 to the rpm fix
15:37:04 * maxamillion likes his package manager to be as bug free as possible
15:37:36 <Viking-Ice> adamw, yup
15:37:48 <jsmith> +1 to the rpm fix as well
15:37:55 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 728707 - unless something new comes up, go with the rebuilds as a fix for the rpm issue and make sure RC4 has the new builds
15:38:03 <Viking-Ice> ack
15:38:14 <adamw> ack
15:38:16 <tflink> #agreed - 728707 - unless something new comes up, go with the rebuilds as a fix for the rpm issue and make sure RC4 has the new builds
15:38:17 <jsmith> ACK
15:38:32 <tflink> ok, done with the bug review party for now
15:38:36 <adamw> great
15:38:44 <tflink> #topic RC3 Testing Status
15:38:54 <adamw> so, bcl and clumens, if we could get a new anaconda build asap that'd be great, then we can compose rc4 and get to testing
15:39:22 <tflink> I'm probably not the best person for this update, anyone care to take it on?
15:39:45 <adamw> well, it's pretty straightforward...we covered most everything that needs covering, and hit some bugs that should be fixed in rc4
15:39:51 <adamw> i guess the only thing missing is kde desktop validation
15:40:07 <tflink> at this point, might as well wait for RC4
15:40:12 <clumens> yeah i can do that real quick
15:40:52 <tflink> #info still missing KDE desktop validation, may wait for RC4 for those tests
15:41:19 <tflink> anything else RC3 related?
15:41:37 <tflink> then moving on ...
15:41:41 <adamw> any issues anyone's worried about that haven't been reviewed as blockers?
15:41:46 <adamw> speak now or forever hold thy peace...
15:42:15 <tflink> #topic Fedora 16 Alpha RC4 ready-ness
15:42:42 <tflink> As I understand it, we're pretty much ready for RC4
15:42:52 <tflink> just waiting on an anaconda build and hopefully some karma
15:43:24 <tflink> I assume that the plan is to spin up RC4 today and get testing
15:43:24 <adamw> yeah
15:43:27 <adamw> definitely
15:43:33 <Viking-Ice> yup
15:43:38 <adamw> we're pretty tight on time; we need at least alpha  validation tests complete by wednesday
15:43:45 <tflink> #info next go/no-go meeting is on Wednesday (2011-08-17)
15:43:55 <adamw> given all these damn rebuilds landing, and changed anaconda, we should try to avoid relying on pulled-forward rc3 tests as much as possible
15:44:21 * jsmith agrees with adamw
15:44:27 <tflink> #info due to all of the rebuilds needed for RC4, we should avoid carrying forward results from RC3
15:44:42 <adamw> note that the Alpha, Beta, Final column on the validation matrix itself is somewhat out of whack - if in doubt, criteria take priority
15:45:16 <adamw> (so if something's marked 'Alpha' on the matrix but the matching release criterion is Beta, then it's a Beta test and we should fix the table at some point)
15:45:53 <tflink> alpha, beta ... they're all just greek letters :-D
15:46:05 <adamw> if robatino's around when rc4 compose is done he'll do the announcing, otherwise myself or tflink will take care of it
15:46:44 <tflink> #action robatino, adamw or tflink - do RC4 announcement once the compose is complete
15:47:12 <tflink> overall, I think that the message is - be ready for testing. Let's not slip alpha another week
15:47:19 <tflink> not that anyone needed reminding
15:47:41 <tflink> but I think that about covers it for RC4 stuff until it's released
15:47:53 <tflink> any concerns with RC4 that we didn't cover?
15:48:03 <Viking-Ice> nope not from me
15:48:40 <tflink> OK, I think that covers the agenda that I had in mind
15:48:45 <tflink> #topic Open Discussion
15:48:54 <tflink> any other topics that should be discussed?
15:49:21 <adamw> i don't see anything else major upcoming
15:49:24 * jskladan needs to catch the bus home. see you tomorrow gang!
15:49:26 <adamw> there's a test day slot thursday but it's empty
15:49:29 <adamw> cya jskladan!
15:49:37 <adamw> which is probably a good thing given all of this
15:49:43 <adamw> do we have an autoqa update from anyone?
15:49:57 <kparal> do we have an autoqa update at all? :)
15:50:02 <tflink> we don't have much to say
15:50:05 <kparal> we releases 0.6.1
15:50:10 <adamw> have you all beek working on Project Colada? :)
15:50:11 <kparal> that fixes some bugs
15:50:22 <kparal> *released
15:50:24 <adamw> cool
15:50:38 <kparal> and planned 0.7
15:50:49 <tflink> #info AutoQA 0.6.1 released and deployed to fix some bugs
15:50:55 <kparal> https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&milestone=0.7.0
15:51:09 <adamw> sounds like everything's rolling
15:51:18 <adamw> what are the major goals for 0.7.0?
15:51:19 <tflink> #info AutoQA 0.7.0 has been planned, work is progressing
15:51:24 <kparal> we would like to concentrate on the infrastructure for the next release
15:51:57 <kparal> resultsdb and staging/testing are the general themes I believe
15:52:23 <kparal> adamw: wasn't it Project Coconut?
15:53:10 <adamw> it has many names
15:53:17 <kparal> I see
15:53:21 <adamw> but only one goal
15:53:34 * kparal imagining it vividly
15:54:03 <kparal> any other thoughts on autoqa updates?
15:54:26 <tflink> we need a package review (soon to be 2)
15:54:35 <tflink> and a sposor for mkrizek
15:54:47 <kparal> hongqing says he'll provide a new test for autoqa soon - mediakit_sanity. it should test ISO images of Branched release
15:54:47 <tflink> s/sposor/sponsor
15:54:54 <adamw> the package review thing is looking like a bit of a roadblock
15:55:11 <adamw> i've been distracted by alpha, but one thought i had was to keep it in the family
15:55:27 <kparal> there has been some progress for mkrizek I believe. the future now looks brighter
15:55:28 <mkrizek> tflink: good news, I might get a sponsor this week hopefully
15:55:36 <adamw> we can exchange (or just provide) reviews within the qa group; we have, or should have, enough packagers to do that
15:55:54 * tflink makes note to remember that
15:56:02 <kparal> adamw: the roadblock was the packaging _sponsor_ I believe
15:56:22 <kparal> they are scarce
15:56:35 <tflink> but it sounds like mkrizek might have found one
15:57:57 * nb is a sponsor
15:58:30 <kparal> here we go, remember that nick, mkrizek :)
15:58:38 <nb> mkrizek, have you already found someone? or are you still looking?
15:58:45 <tflink> cool, progress :)
15:59:26 * kparal has dinner on the table. let's speed it up! :)
15:59:33 <mkrizek> nb: I might, I have been contacted with one
15:59:41 <adamw> two is better than one...
15:59:42 <nb> mkrizek, ok, if that doesn't work, let me know
15:59:50 <mkrizek> nb: ok, thanks!
15:59:51 <adamw> thanks a bunch nb
15:59:56 <nb> adamw, no problem
15:59:57 <adamw> do we have anyone else who needs sponsoring?
16:00:24 * tflink was already sponsored but can't quite do reveiws yet
16:00:32 <tflink> odd situation
16:00:38 <nb> tflink, you can't?
16:01:14 <adamw> well, reviews shouldn't be a big deal
16:01:19 <adamw> i can do those if no-one else can
16:01:30 <tflink> nb: long story short, I got sponsored to take on a to-be-orphaned package and I still have a mentor
16:01:30 <adamw> let's not let kparal's dinner go cold...
16:01:44 <tflink> adamw: where were you when I was waiting 4 months for a review on py.test?
16:01:52 <tflink> :)
16:01:54 * kparal already moved his notebook to kitchen, no worries
16:02:11 <nb> tflink, oh ok
16:02:23 <tflink> anyhow, unless we have other topics I'm setting the #endmeeting fuse for 5 minutes
16:02:38 <adamw> tflink: on project colada!
16:02:39 <tflink> nb: so its not so much can't as shouldn't until I have more experience
16:04:01 <tflink> any volunteers to do the bug updating?
16:04:50 <adamw> i can, if no-one else wants to
16:05:09 <adamw> dgilmore: i'll do an rc4 recipe update on the trac ticket once the anaconda update is up
16:05:12 <adamw> then we can all get to testing...
16:06:00 <tflink> adamw: think it's worth the effort to get a boot.iso out for karma on lorax, anacanda etc. ?
16:06:12 <tflink> or can we just pull all that in to RC4 without karma
16:06:13 <dgilmore> adamw: ok, what about rpm?
16:06:21 <adamw> tflink: probably worth a sanity test, yeah.
16:06:27 <adamw> dgilmore: the fix for the rpm issue does not appear to be in rpm.
16:06:32 <tflink> k, just making sure I wasn't wasting my time :)
16:06:38 <adamw> dgilmore: the fix is to rebuild all the affected packages, it seems
16:06:44 <dgilmore> tflink: we can pull it in without, but it will not hurt to get it
16:06:47 <adamw> dgilmore: so we'll have to pull all those rebuilds.
16:06:50 <dgilmore> adamw: fun
16:07:28 <tflink> alrighty, thanks for coming everyone
16:07:40 <tflink> time to test the crap out of alpha RC4
16:07:48 * tflink will send out minutes shortly
16:07:50 <tflink> #endmeeting