15:00:13 <jlaska> #startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting
15:00:13 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Jun  6 15:00:13 2011 UTC.  The chair is jlaska. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:13 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:00:17 <jlaska> #meetingname fedora-qa
15:00:17 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa'
15:00:20 <jlaska> #topic Roll Call
15:00:37 * Viking-Ice here..
15:00:41 <adamw> yo
15:00:41 <jlaska> tgr__: Hi there ... we're just doing roll call atm
15:00:48 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: adamw: hey hey
15:00:50 * tflink is here
15:01:00 * athmane is there
15:01:15 <tgr__> well, i'm here :)
15:01:21 * jlaska greets tflink & athmane
15:01:29 * jsmith lurks
15:01:50 * j_dulaney waves
15:01:52 * kparal here
15:01:58 <jlaska> hi j_dulaney && kparal
15:02:21 * vhumpa says hi
15:02:39 <jlaska> helloooo
15:02:39 * rbergeron takes a seat
15:02:42 <j_dulaney> jlaska, vhumpa, kparal
15:02:55 <jlaska> okay, let's get started
15:03:08 <jlaska> we don't have a complicated/lengthy agenda today ... just checking in on a few recurring topics
15:03:17 <jlaska> as always, feel free to raise topics during open-discussion
15:03:37 <jlaska> and thanks to vhumpa j_dulaney and adamw for #chair'ing last week
15:03:38 <j_dulaney> .bacon
15:03:38 <zodbot> I love bacon, you love bacon, WE ALL LOVE BACON!
15:03:50 <vhumpa> jlaska: was fun
15:03:53 <j_dulaney> Indeed
15:04:09 <jlaska> So, I'm skipping the 'previous meeting follow-up' topic today ... since that's really covered by the agenda
15:04:23 * jlaska queues adamw first ..
15:04:27 <jlaska> #topic Release Criteria Updates
15:04:32 <jlaska> well, vhumpa too really
15:04:51 <jlaska> What's the word on the "too-similar menu names" proposal that went out last week?
15:05:16 <vhumpa> jlaska: I started a discussion on test + desktops mailing lists
15:05:16 * adamw defers to vhumpa
15:05:37 <vhumpa> People are supportive of the idea that *something* needs to be done with the issue
15:05:45 <jlaska> #info vhumpa started a discussion on test + desktop lists last week
15:06:39 <vhumpa> vhumpa: ideas spread from modifying the app launcher to make sure that they would differentiate the apps with same names properly - to just renaming some of the problematic apps
15:07:09 <jlaska> I guess depending on the solution ... a different group of people would need to make the changes?
15:07:21 <vhumpa> For example of this issue: You all know terminal/terminal etc.
15:07:22 <j_dulaney> Indeed
15:07:39 <vhumpa> jlaska: Yes, the first one, simply, is upstream
15:07:53 <vhumpa> thus not something I think we can do very quickly
15:08:24 <vhumpa> Should gnome-shell offer e.g. popups for the app icons, that would present one set of means how to deal with the issue
15:08:35 <Viking-Ice> how does QA fit into this discussion as in is this not something all the *DE should take care of among themselves ?
15:08:44 <vhumpa> But, I am not sure how reasonable it would be to push that through
15:08:45 <adamw> right,viking
15:08:59 <adamw> the fix isn't our problem exactly
15:09:00 <athmane> Viking-Ice, +1
15:09:01 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: yeah ... I'm just seeing this as  QA bringing this to appropriate desktop attn
15:09:14 <vhumpa> That brings me to what FEdora can do...
15:09:27 <adamw> what we're concerned with is whether this should be a release requirement
15:09:40 <j_dulaney> Indeed
15:09:57 <vhumpa> It's a problem of a few apps really... So what we can do is merely to rename some of them, in their desktop files
15:09:57 <Viking-Ice> I'm not seeing this as an  release requirement
15:10:03 <vhumpa> the QE connection:
15:10:13 <vhumpa> enforce that it is done with a requirement
15:10:41 <athmane> if we tests each desktop separately this issue will not raise, afaik
15:10:58 <vhumpa> athmane: true
15:11:05 <vhumpa> athmane: partially
15:11:07 <j_dulaney> The biggest issue I see is apps within the same desktop
15:11:16 <vhumpa> there are issues even withing single desktop
15:11:17 <jlaska> what's the ideal outcome for this topic?  ... upstream acknowledgement of the issue?
15:11:35 <vhumpa> I suppose so
15:11:38 <jlaska> ... formalizing tests and applicable criteria?
15:11:58 <jlaska> (depending on whether it's accepted or not)
15:12:03 <vhumpa> Meaning.. upstream acknowledgment is a "pony" perhaps
15:12:06 <adamw> we should probably add it to the desktop menus test case
15:12:22 <j_dulaney> I'm thinking that a good outcome would simply be that what the user sees is different names for different apps
15:12:33 <vhumpa> I agree with Adam on this one.
15:12:36 <jlaska> I don't see any feedback from anyone upstream on this topic ... have they weighed in on this yet?
15:12:52 <vhumpa> jlaska: nope
15:13:04 <athmane> maybe we should fill bugs on upstream tracking app ?
15:13:05 <j_dulaney> The actual names don't necesarily have to be different for the actual app, just the menu choices
15:13:16 <Viking-Ice> are these apps that any of the *DE ship by default or is this something that is mixed apps between *DE ?
15:13:36 <j_dulaney> Viking-Ice:  Default
15:13:55 <j_dulaney> For instance, within just Gnome:  Softare Update and Software Updates
15:14:08 <adamw> so we have a plan for testing
15:14:11 <vhumpa> Some are issue in deafult, some become an issue when you have multiple environments installed
15:14:13 <jlaska> What's the next step?  Should we focus on trying to get feedback/input from upstream on this topic?
15:14:19 <Viking-Ice> anyway this sounds to me just something that the relevant *DE maintainers need to take care of not something related to QA per se
15:14:31 <adamw> then the question is, should it be a release criterion, i.e., should we require same name situations to be resolved for release
15:14:36 <jlaska> adamw: should we move forward with testing and criteria without feedback from GNOME?
15:14:40 <j_dulaney> The QA angle would be enforcement
15:14:44 <vhumpa> I would concentrate in choosing menu names around Fedora desktops to minimize this issue... Upstream should come later
15:14:57 <j_dulaney> adamw:  I think so
15:15:00 <adamw> jlaska: feedback would be good, i guess
15:15:08 <jlaska> adamw: seems like it should be required to me
15:15:16 <jlaska> how can we create criteria and tests without their input?
15:15:24 * jlaska might be missing something though
15:15:57 <vhumpa> The problem lies in how Fedora names apps, which I am not sure how connected is to upstream really
15:15:58 <jlaska> err ... I'd want to avoid creating tests and criteria that GNOME isn't interested in honoring/fixing etc...
15:16:13 <jlaska> vhumpa: good point ... it really depends on the implementation
15:16:16 <adamw> jlaska: well, addressing it upstream is only one approach
15:16:30 <jlaska> yes, I see now, gotcha
15:16:37 <adamw> i can see, for instance, that if upstream GNOME decide they don't care, we would decide Fedora still does care
15:16:45 <jlaska> right, that makes sense
15:16:50 <vhumpa> adamw: yes
15:16:56 <jlaska> so when will we know which of those routes to take?
15:16:57 <Viking-Ice> sounds like a ( test ) candidate for fit and finish
15:16:59 <j_dulaney> +1
15:17:46 <jlaska> I guess we can conclude that if we don't get GNOME feedback, then it's up to Fedora to decide?
15:17:53 <vhumpa> So the question is 1) Do we ask upstream to help with this 2) We just rename a few menu items in Fedora
15:18:04 * j_dulaney goes with 2
15:18:10 <vhumpa> +1
15:18:14 <Southern_Gentlem> both
15:18:15 <j_dulaney> Easiest solution
15:18:17 * jsmith goes with 1)
15:18:19 <Viking-Ice> both
15:18:20 <jlaska> we'll likely go with #2 ... but I'd like to give #1 another attempt
15:18:21 <adamw> vhumpa: i think that's kind of up to the devs to decide really
15:18:47 <adamw> i think we may be going round in circles at this point?
15:18:54 <jlaska> yup ... let's wrap up on this topic
15:18:54 <vhumpa> 1) definitely too - but facing reality that it would be a more long term solution but for later
15:19:07 <vhumpa> True
15:19:10 <jlaska> anyone want to approach GNOME with this topic this week?
15:19:14 <jlaska> if not ... I'll take it
15:19:38 <jlaska> or any other #action items ... feel free to grab
15:19:45 <vhumpa> If I know how to approach them, I will
15:20:17 <jlaska> vhumpa: okay, thank you
15:20:29 <jlaska> anything else to cover on this before next week?
15:20:34 <adamw> i'll sync up with you on that
15:20:40 <Viking-Ice> is this only relevant to Gnome or is this problem present in all *DE we ship ?
15:20:41 <vhumpa> Meaning: we'll be aproaching for modifing the launcher, right? You don't just mean renaming apps on Upstream side
15:20:57 <vhumpa> Unsure on that
15:21:01 <jlaska> #action vhumpa/adamw - reach out to GNOME for opinions on presenting duplicate application names in overview
15:21:04 <j_dulaney> Viking-Ice:  I'm not sure about within other DEs
15:21:21 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: KDE solves it iirc, but it's not specific to a single DE
15:21:44 <jlaska> While we are here, anything else on release criteria?
15:21:59 <jlaska> adamw: any other notable criteria changes to highlight?
15:22:30 <adamw> er, i think i did some
15:22:36 <jlaska> heh
15:22:40 <adamw> but i think we may have covered them last week
15:22:43 <jlaska> okay
15:22:50 <adamw> oh, the 'release-blocking desktops' thing may have been this week
15:23:01 <j_dulaney> That was last
15:23:08 <adamw> okay. then, i think nothing new.
15:23:12 <adamw> (sorry, it's been a busy week.)
15:23:19 <jlaska> okay, then moving on
15:23:32 <jlaska> I'm switching the next two topics so we don't keep tgr__ waiting too long
15:23:40 <jlaska> #topic IPv6 Test Day
15:23:46 <jlaska> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Day:2011-06-08_IPv6
15:24:06 <jlaska> #info World IPv6 Day is happening on June 8, along with a Fedora IPv6 test day
15:24:22 <jlaska> so this is just intended as a check-in for Test Day preparedness
15:24:57 * j_dulaney has the network in his house setup for IPv6 already
15:25:14 <adamw> i haven't checked in on this for a few days i'm afraid
15:25:17 <adamw> since my last email shot
15:25:25 <adamw> anyone know of any recent developments?
15:25:25 <jlaska> looks like we have 2 test cases linked .. .and one in need of a test case
15:25:40 <jlaska> tgr__: any updates/concerns on your end with regards to test day prep?
15:25:43 <jlaska> #link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_NetworkManager_ipv6
15:25:47 <jlaska> #link
15:25:50 <jlaska> #link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_NFS_ipv6
15:26:14 <jlaska> #info test case needed for ipv6 printing
15:26:29 <tgr__> Red Hat will announce the event in a blog and refer to the Fedora test and ask for participation
15:26:41 <jlaska> tgr__: do you know when that is going out?
15:27:01 * Viking-Ice throws in --> http://ipv6eyechart.ripe.net/  <-- for interested parties reading the meeting logs..
15:27:03 <tgr__> tomorrow if everything goes right
15:27:10 <adamw> awesome
15:27:18 <rbergeron> the press blog?
15:27:20 <tgr__> I've written a howto which covers enabling ipv6 on RHEL/fedora
15:27:21 <adamw> today would be a good day to be blogging about this for everyone else
15:27:35 <tgr__> using configuration file/NetworkManager
15:27:59 <tgr__> and instructions how to verify if a website has been reached via IPv6 or not
15:28:10 <tgr__> this alone should get us some feedback on any basic issues
15:28:27 <j_dulaney> tgr_:  You want to link to that for info?
15:28:36 <j_dulaney> Or is it not online, yet?
15:28:48 * j_dulaney notes that he'll put something in his blog as well.
15:28:49 <tgr__> it's not online yet, we are having ISP troubles
15:29:04 <jlaska> the wiki links to rawhide live images ... I assume we just want F15 live images for this?
15:29:21 <tgr__> if we can't get it up within red hat I will provide the info via the fedora wiki
15:29:22 <j_dulaney> jlaska: +1
15:29:23 <adamw> yeah, good catch, let's fix that
15:29:26 * jlaska fixes
15:30:37 <tgr__> i'm working on getting www.fedoraproject.org listed as participant on isoc.org
15:30:46 <jlaska> anyone want to volunteer to send an event reminder to test-announce@ ?
15:30:47 <tgr__> it's currently only listed as IPv6 enabled website
15:30:55 <jlaska> tgr__: nice!
15:31:12 <adamw> jlaska: i can do it
15:31:24 <jlaska> adamw: thank you
15:32:03 <jlaska> Anyone object if I move the different setup procedures out into unique wiki pages?
15:32:07 <jlaska> just to clean up the main page a little?
15:32:13 <jlaska> or is that not really needed
15:32:16 <j_dulaney> jlaska:  Good idea
15:32:18 <tgr__> i think that's a good idea
15:32:31 <jlaska> okay, I'll make a minor adjustment after the meeting
15:32:37 <adamw> yeah sounds great
15:32:53 <tgr__> i will add instructions how to do setup if isp provides native ipv6 connectivity
15:32:56 <adamw> there's some boilerplate text still in there too which we should remove
15:33:08 <j_dulaney> +1
15:33:11 <jlaska> adamw: like the test results stuff?
15:33:13 <adamw> "Provide a list of test areas or test cases that you'd like contributors to execute. For other examples, see Category:Test_Cases. "
15:33:15 <adamw> and yes
15:33:21 <adamw> though we need to set up a proper table for that
15:33:29 <jlaska> okay ... I'll include that in my wiki cleanup
15:33:33 <adamw> thanks
15:33:42 <jlaska> #action adamw - send test-announce@ for IPv6 test day
15:33:53 <jlaska> #action jlaska - test day wiki cleanup (remove boilerplate)
15:34:10 <jlaska> #action tgr__ - provide wiki instructions for native ipv6 connectivity
15:34:20 <jlaska> feel free to grab any #action's that I missed
15:35:25 <jlaska> tgr__: thanks for joining today ... anything else you want to cover before we move on?
15:35:40 <tgr__> jlaska: i think i'm done, thanks
15:35:48 <jlaska> tgr__: great, thank you!
15:35:54 <jlaska> #topic AutoQA Updates
15:36:08 * kparal goes on stage
15:36:19 <jlaska> it's time for a regular autoqa check-in!
15:36:24 <kparal> I have only one update today
15:36:30 * jlaska sees he has plenty of unread autoqa-devel mails to catch up on
15:36:47 <kparal> and that is the announcement of 'pretty patch' that was just posted into autoqa-devel
15:36:49 <kparal> #link https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/autoqa-devel/2011-June/002344.html
15:37:07 <jlaska> woah, that knocks out quite a few tickets :)
15:37:22 <kparal> this patch should allow us to create pretty html logs
15:37:22 * j_dulaney was just looking at that
15:37:35 <jlaska> yay! ...
15:37:36 <jlaska> #link http://kparal.fedorapeople.org/autoqa/upgradepath2.html
15:37:36 <j_dulaney> Shiny
15:37:40 <kparal> they should be more concise and readable than the previous logs
15:38:13 <adamw> ooooooh pretty
15:38:19 <j_dulaney> More shiny
15:38:22 <vhumpa> Thus the name :)
15:38:26 * j_dulaney likes shiny
15:38:27 <adamw> now people will break their packages just to see the failure
15:38:38 <kparal> now we need to review the patch and merge into master. but the most of the work should be done already
15:38:45 <kparal> adamw: let's hope not :)
15:38:46 <jlaska> #link http://kparal.fedorapeople.org/autoqa/depcheck.html
15:39:13 <jlaska> that's awesome stuff
15:39:22 <jlaska> I think I can understand depcheck output now :)
15:39:23 <j_dulaney> Wow, the shiny just keeps piling up
15:39:33 <jlaska> hopefully I can stop bugging tflink for help with that!
15:39:37 <kparal> this patch should be the core of 0.5.0 release, hopefully to come really soon
15:39:51 <kparal> together with email reduction patch from tflink
15:40:01 <j_dulaney> How's that one going?
15:40:16 <tflink> pretty much done, other than a little bit more of cleanup and testing
15:40:30 * j_dulaney keeps getting distracted; cheerleaders
15:40:40 <tflink> I'm planning to send out a patch email to autoqa-devel today
15:40:59 <kparal> tflink: great
15:41:06 <vhumpa> tflink: nice!
15:41:27 <jlaska> tflink: I still haven't heard back yet on the email notification for all passed results
15:41:27 <j_dulaney> +1
15:41:49 <tflink> jlaska: I'll make sure that the configuration works so that we can change it later
15:41:54 <tflink> without changing code
15:41:58 <kparal> jlaska: I have talked to some developers and they liked the idea of not getting bothered when everything works fine
15:41:59 <jlaska> tflink: but I now see my lucky ping recipient online ... so I'll see if we can get some more info
15:42:41 <jlaska> kparal: okay, good to know ... sounds like this will be tunable (without patching) based on how tflink is implementing
15:43:27 <kparal> well, and that was the big announcement of today. I have no further updates
15:43:31 <jlaska> #info tflink finalizing test result email reduction patchset - expecting patch out for review later today
15:43:52 <jlaska> With help from lmr, I've been packaging what will become autotest-0.13.0
15:44:09 <jlaska> finding a few bugs here and there (nothing major), but so far it's working okay
15:44:35 <jlaska> note, those changes are in the autoqa fedora-15-testing repo ... so make sure you *arent* using that when you are testing for the next autoqa release
15:44:35 <vhumpa> Need to run, bye for now everybody.
15:44:38 <jlaska> vhumpa: cya!
15:45:14 <jlaska> #info Packaging for soon-to-be-released autotest-0.13.0 almost complete
15:45:39 <jlaska> kparal: tflink: anything else to cover on AutoQA?  I guess it depends on patch review for when we'll start the packaging machine for autoqa-0.5.0 ?
15:46:05 <kparal> jlaska: no. yes. :)
15:46:30 <tflink> nothing I can think of. review and testing for this week, yes
15:46:38 <jlaska> heh, okay ... thanks for the autoqa updates all
15:46:52 <jlaska> #topic Open Discussion - <your topic here>
15:47:08 * rbergeron raises her hand
15:47:10 <jlaska> I've got just a quick status update if there are no other open discussion topics
15:47:14 <jlaska> rbergeron: what's up?
15:47:21 <rbergeron> jlaska: go first, i have a few minor things
15:47:26 <jlaska> s/I've got/I have/
15:47:45 <jlaska> #topic Open Discussion - fedora-qa F15 TRAC tickets
15:48:07 <jlaska> I'm doing some TRAC ticket maintenance to prepare for the retrospective tickets
15:48:09 * Viking-Ice points out we need to start looking at potential features being introduced and if we need to cover that ( grub2 and btrfs pop up to my mind )
15:48:11 <jlaska> #link https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&milestone=Fedora+15
15:48:28 <rbergeron> Viking-Ice: +1
15:48:37 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: good point ... I believe grub2 is in TRAC already, we'll need something for btrfs I believe
15:48:56 <jlaska> there are still some open tickets in the 'Fedora 15' TRAC milestone ... I closed out all the completed test events already
15:49:15 <jlaska> and I'll likely start annoying ticket owners to find the most suitable outcome for any remaining tickets
15:49:21 <jlaska> prepare to be annoyed!
15:49:52 <jlaska> #chair rbergeron
15:49:52 <zodbot> Current chairs: jlaska rbergeron
15:49:55 <jlaska> rbergeron: #topic away
15:50:00 <rbergeron> Woot. thanks
15:50:04 <j_dulaney> jlaska: Since I'm already using btrfs, I can start on test cases for it
15:50:04 <rbergeron> #topic Schedule
15:50:12 <rbergeron> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/16/Schedule
15:50:21 <rbergeron> #info schedule is posted, feedback is welcome, please.
15:50:41 <jlaska> rbergeron: is there any *easy* way to diff the F15 and F16 schedules?
15:50:51 <rbergeron> I know you guys have a retrospective; if there are things to be converted into schedule changes, let me know.
15:50:59 <rbergeron> jlaska: ahahahahaha.
15:51:08 <jlaska> okay, I'll be bugging you about any schedule topics that come out of the retrospective
15:51:15 <rbergeron> I assume you mean the "original" schedule vs. schedule as it turned out?
15:51:19 <jlaska> rbergeron: I should clarify ... a human-readable diff :)
15:51:26 <rbergeron> I haven't added anything *new* for you guys.
15:51:33 <rbergeron> I'd speculate that the easiest way would be this:
15:51:38 <adamw> are any of the windows noticeably different?
15:52:09 <rbergeron> http://rbergero.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-15/f-15-quality-tasks.html vs. http://rbergero.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-16/f-16-quality-tasks.html
15:52:17 <rbergeron> adamw: they shouldn't be.
15:52:32 <rbergeron> Other than - the dates showing in *that* F15 schedule are the slipped dates.
15:52:39 <Viking-Ice> you might want to compose any previous schedules as in what they where and how they turned out to be
15:52:39 <jlaska> ah, okay
15:52:57 <rbergeron> This schedule is more or less as the original f15 schedule was.
15:53:16 <rbergeron> Just, 6 months later.
15:54:01 <jlaska> I'll try to come up with more focused feedback after finishing the retrospective ... but the branch timing and Alpha still lend to slippage
15:54:08 <jlaska> I don't have any great ideas at the moment
15:54:14 <jlaska> will try to process
15:54:33 * rbergeron nods
15:54:47 <rbergeron> happy to have a brainstorming meeting with you / whoever else is interested.
15:54:51 <rbergeron> (or should be there, lol)
15:54:52 * jlaska notes ... there isn't an option to "Create a new month" in the schedule
15:55:12 * Viking-Ice is not foreseeing any slips this release cycle..
15:55:30 <rbergeron> any other schedule q's/comments?
15:55:59 <rbergeron> #topic Fixing features
15:56:06 <rbergeron> I'll keep this brief:
15:56:43 <rbergeron> Basically some folks have mentioned that the feature process is perhaps not quite as robust as it could be, or could account for "different types of features" better (aka: marketing-ish features vs. stuff that is going to break the universe features)
15:56:54 <rbergeron> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fixing_features <--- your feedback is welcome.
15:57:12 <rbergeron> #info if you have any thoughts on the good, the bad, the ugly in the feature process, feel free to add your commentary to wiki page.
15:57:17 <rbergeron> And that's all on that.
15:57:24 * jlaska queues for reading
15:57:25 * rbergeron looks around before continuing
15:57:51 <Viking-Ice> features aren't mandadory process afaik ..
15:58:26 <adamw> yes
15:58:47 <rbergeron> well, i think that depends. and I think that's part of the problem.
15:58:55 <rbergeron> but not going to open pandora's box at the moment. :)
15:59:04 <rbergeron> Just wnated to give a heads-up to that, if you're interested.
15:59:07 <jlaska> yes, save that for #pandora :)
15:59:12 <rbergeron> #topic Cloud stuff
15:59:35 <rbergeron> You may notice that there are a boatload of cloud features for f16, we're already talking about test-day stuff, possibly  breaking into two test days.
15:59:45 <rbergeron> ke4qqq posted something to the cloud list for anyone who might be interested in helping us work that stuff out.
15:59:49 <rbergeron> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/cloud/2011-June/000632.html
16:00:06 <rbergeron> (basically, we haz lots of stuff, we should start planning now rather than last second like last time.)
16:00:06 <adamw> awesome
16:00:23 <rbergeron> because there is going to be a lotta stuff. :)
16:00:23 <adamw> it's definitely a good idea to hash out a clear test day topic
16:00:31 <adamw> 'cloud test day' is pretty vague, so splitting it like last time is good\
16:00:40 <j_dulaney> Are there going to be any clouds setup specifically for us to test on?
16:00:40 <adamw> we can always make room for more test days, so don't worry about having too many
16:00:45 <jlaska> yeah, I think that worked pretty well
16:00:47 <jlaska> wasn't too vague
16:00:49 <rbergeron> yeah, and we can group them by different types of cloud apps.
16:00:56 <jlaska> cloud test week :)
16:01:12 <rbergeron> j_dulaney: unknown. that's part of what we need to solve ahead of time, so we can get that kind of thing set up for folks without it being a nightmare.
16:01:17 <jlaska> anyway ... will have to see how the features fall out
16:01:18 <Viking-Ice> cloud test week sounds like a good way to proceed
16:01:22 <jlaska> s/fall/pan/
16:01:33 <j_dulaney> +1
16:01:40 <rbergeron> But: would appreciate any feedback if you're on the cloud list. :)
16:01:43 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: I know you like the test week idea ... assuming we have a series of clear topics, that might work
16:01:48 <jlaska> rbergeron: okay
16:02:03 <rbergeron> And would like to invite folks to come to a meeting maybe in 2 weeks or so, but will update on that next week. :)
16:02:07 <rbergeron> That's it. :)
16:02:17 <j_dulaney> Sweet
16:02:25 * j_dulaney is getting hungry
16:02:51 <jlaska> #topic Open Discussion - Last call for topics
16:03:05 <Viking-Ice> jlaska, cloud test week which would cover Aeolus,CloudFS,CloudStactk, Sheepdog testing..
16:03:06 * jlaska sets the fuse for 2 minutes
16:03:40 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: yeah, could be ... will see what comes out of that thread
16:04:05 <jlaska> 1 minute until #endmeeting ...
16:04:14 * j_dulaney wanders off in search of food and to start thinking about btrfs test case
16:04:19 <j_dulaney> Peace, y'all
16:04:21 <rbergeron> Viking-Ice: yeah, and all the other ones I know of in the pipeline but aren't posted yet (openstack, pacemaker-cloud, $others)
16:04:24 <jlaska> cya j_dulaney
16:04:35 <jlaska> 30 seconds until #endmeeting ...
16:05:02 <jlaska> Thanks everyone for your time today!! ... I'll follow-up with minutes to the list
16:05:06 <jlaska> #endmeeting