fedora-qa
MINUTES
15:03:03 <adamw> #startmeeting Fedora QA meeting
15:03:03 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Apr 25 15:03:03 2016 UTC.  The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:03:03 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:03:03 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_qa_meeting'
15:03:05 <handsome_pirate> nirik++
15:03:14 <adamw> #meetingname fedora-qa
15:03:14 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa'
15:03:16 <handsome_pirate> .fas jdulaney
15:03:16 <zodbot> handsome_pirate: jdulaney 'John Dulaney' <jdulaney@gnu.org>
15:03:20 <adamw> #topic Roll call
15:03:25 * garretraziel is here
15:03:28 <handsome_pirate> .fas jdulaney
15:03:28 <zodbot> handsome_pirate: jdulaney 'John Dulaney' <jdulaney@gnu.org>
15:03:29 <adamw> ahoy everyone, who's here for qa meeting times?
15:03:33 <handsome_pirate> Y'all see my shiny new email?
15:03:35 <handsome_pirate> :)
15:03:41 * tflink is here
15:03:58 * kparal is here
15:04:15 * brunowolff is here
15:04:17 <adamw> handsome_pirate: nice
15:05:06 * pschindl is here
15:05:09 <adamw> hi everyone
15:05:24 <adamw> sorry if i make no sense this morning, i got in from lfnw 8 hours ago
15:05:25 <sumantro> hi adamw
15:05:50 <handsome_pirate> adamw:  you could join maxamillion for his broken coffee maker :)
15:06:03 <adamw> heh, the adams are on poor form this morning huh
15:06:05 <adamw> #topic Previous meeting follow-up
15:06:41 <adamw> #info "adamw to get dennis' thoughts on https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6383" - damnit i still somehow didn't do that, dgilmore, could you put your notes in that ticket? we've talked about it in IRC I know
15:08:07 <adamw> #info "adamw to tweak i18n test day page a bit so it's clearer that tests are found on the app page" - I did that, the test day is all done now and went pretty well I think
15:08:20 <adamw> "sumantro to work on test cases for the media writer Test Day, adamw to guide and help out" - i'd say that went pretty well right sumantro? any notes?
15:08:46 <sumantro> yes adamw , went pretty well. !!
15:09:25 <sumantro> in bodhi now for update testing and most of the bugs are fixed
15:09:32 <adamw> great
15:09:59 <adamw> #info "sumantro to work on test cases for the media writer Test Day, adamw to guide and help out" - this was done, we had a good test day with a lot of response and bugs found, and an update for the tool is in testing now
15:10:14 <adamw> any other previous meeting follow-up i missed that isn't covered on the agenda?
15:11:54 <adamw> okey dokey
15:11:59 <adamw> #topic Live Media Writer status
15:12:03 <adamw> oh, before i forget...
15:12:09 <adamw> #chair handsome_pirate tflink
15:12:09 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw handsome_pirate tflink
15:12:41 <adamw> so, the big news here is - AIUI - that live media writer will no longer be the 'default download' for F24, due to legal issues with providing the sources for windows
15:13:05 <handsome_pirate> wait
15:13:06 <kparal> but it's still "officially supported" for Linux, I believe
15:13:08 <adamw> i believe the rewrite is still going ahead and we'll link to the new version from the docs and so forth, but the download page will just give you an ISO as before
15:13:09 <handsome_pirate> How does that work?
15:13:16 <kparal> so the blocker bugs still apply, I'd say
15:13:30 <kparal> s/supported/recommended
15:13:36 <adamw> handsome_pirate: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/6LJHMCE4HT4MYBBAGK64R5TE3UHSZTLX/
15:13:44 <adamw> kparal: yeah, i agree
15:14:20 <adamw> handsome_pirate: basically for compliance we need to be sure we can provide the correct sources for all the bits in the 'stack' of the windows build, which includes python and stuff and is apparently hard, there's lots of discussion in that thread
15:14:57 <adamw> the reason this hasn't been a problem up till now is that technically fedora doesn't distribute the tool for windows, the windows download links have always just pointed to someone's personal space
15:15:07 <handsome_pirate> ah
15:15:16 <adamw> but if we start putting it as the official download on fedoraproject.org, legal requires us to be a lot more strict about compliance
15:15:34 <adamw> anyhow, yeah, we don't need to get too far into it here, just know about it :)
15:15:41 <brunowolff> Couldn't we cross build?
15:15:43 <handsome_pirate> nice tl;dr
15:15:50 <dgilmore> kparal: well its not going to be built and shipped and supported by fedora
15:15:57 * satellit sorry late
15:15:59 <dgilmore> kparal: it will be mbriza that is doing it all
15:16:22 <kparal> dgilmore: I understood that decision being only about the windows build
15:16:23 <adamw> dgilmore: sure, but that was the same before and we still documented its use in the wiki and stuff
15:16:35 <adamw> right, aiui the linux build is still gonna be in the repos, right?
15:16:53 <kparal> it makes no sense to go back to old LUC
15:16:54 <dgilmore> kparal: right but the linux side is just a yum install
15:17:22 * satellit add a flag to go to the old gui LUC for windows?  It did work
15:17:35 <dgilmore> kparal: so its not really providing a download, and more docs
15:17:56 <kparal> ok, so I think we agree
15:18:10 <kparal> windows stuff is not blocking, linux stuff is
15:18:13 <dgilmore> satellit: there will be windows builds of the new one, just not provided by fedora, the same as the old one was not provided by fedora
15:18:40 <dgilmore> kparal: well not really blocking, as fixes will need to go in f22 and f23
15:18:50 <kparal> yeah, we now have a concept for that
15:18:52 <dgilmore> which puts it in weird space
15:19:02 <kparal> it's Acceptd
15:19:08 <kparal> it's AcceptedPreviousRelease
15:19:37 <kparal> I have adjusted the SOPs some time ago, after weeks and months of asking for feedback on the mailing list
15:19:49 <adamw> yeah, we have a whole process for it now
15:19:50 <adamw> yay process
15:20:06 <handsome_pirate> things are so much better defined than, say, the F13 days
15:20:11 <adamw> alright, i think we beat this horse
15:20:45 <adamw> #topic Workstation graphical upgrade planning
15:20:52 <adamw> oh damn i meant to ping mclasen and hughsie for this one
15:20:57 <adamw> lemme see if i can find them
15:21:26 <adamw> meant to let them know in advance, forgot
15:21:30 <adamw> #agreed adamw's an idiot
15:22:50 <adamw> hi hughsie, thanks for coming
15:22:51 <kparal> adamw: maybe you'll show up in www.irclogsfromlastnight.com
15:22:56 <adamw> kparal: haha :)
15:23:01 <adamw> if that doesn't exist yet, make it
15:23:25 <handsome_pirate> #info kparal to do www.irclogsfromlastnight.com
15:23:31 <adamw> =)
15:23:46 <adamw> okay, so quick summary for anyone who's not up to speed
15:24:20 <adamw> graphical upgrades for Workstation are an F24 Change: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GraphicalSystemUpgrades
15:25:03 <adamw> the workstation folks have been working on this and have it in early testable shape, but it's unlikely to be the case that all the bits will be in stable repositories by beta go/no-go, i.e. meeting the requirements for blocker bugs
15:25:52 * hughsie-afk did the gnome-software 3.20.2 tarball today if that helps
15:26:05 <hughsie-afk> just waiting for kalev to do the new libhif fix for the dnf mark blocker
15:26:10 <adamw> so we kinda have to decide if we consider 'graphical upgrade is not yet testable from official repos' as a beta blocker, and if not, we should come up with a coherent plan for how we talk about it at beta time, and how we test it and deploy it i guess between beta and final
15:26:45 <hughsie-afk> adamw, the -> stable bit is the part that doesn't make sense to me
15:26:52 <kparal> is that thing going to be in official upgrade docs? as the first option? or marked as experimental?
15:26:54 <hughsie-afk> updates-testing makes sense
15:27:29 <adamw> i believe the idea is that for f24 final it will be the official, recommended, documented, supported etc etc mechanism for Workstation upgrades
15:27:53 <adamw> as of *right now* it is not, the wiki page (which is still the reference doc for this afaik) just documents dnf-system-upgrade
15:28:13 <adamw> so this sort of falls slightly between a release validation/criteria-ish thing and a Change-ish thing
15:28:18 <kparal> in that case all release criteria should apply, and we generally require everything to be in stable updates
15:28:47 <adamw> hughsie-afk: the thinking behind that requirement is kind of tied to things that are more clearly *bugs*
15:29:07 <adamw> i.e. we don't it to be the case that you have to know to update your f23 system from updates-testing before running an upgrade or else the upgrade will explode and eat all your data, or whatever
15:29:07 <hughsie-afk> adamw, right
15:29:21 <kparal> well it's not the problem in this case, but if it is not in stable updates, somebody might use an older broken version to upgrade
15:29:27 <hughsie-afk> adamw, no requirement to update before upgrading any more
15:29:27 <kparal> in this case, there is no older version
15:29:30 <adamw> yeah
15:29:47 <adamw> so i don't like fudging things, but otoh, the reasoning behind the requirements doesn't really apply in this case
15:29:59 <adamw> for me the biggest concern is making sure we do get enough testing of the new mechanism before final
15:30:08 <hughsie-afk> if it helps, i've also emailed kalev asking to take over the libhif blocker
15:31:11 <adamw> so ignoring process *for the moment*, just looking at the issue on its merits, i'd be fine i think if we have the graphical method testable (but requiring manual steps to enable/use it) at Beta and we can document that, and maybe schedule a test day for it between beta and final
15:31:37 <kparal> we should do a test day, agreed
15:31:48 <hughsie-afk> adamw, atm, the manual steps are "enable my copr; update gnome-software; wait"
15:31:56 * hughsie-afk is up for that too if that helps
15:32:04 <adamw> on the process front i guess i'd say that this is more of a 'late Change implementation' (which comes under FESCo's purview) than a 'beta release blocker'
15:32:18 <adamw> but my on-the-merits evaluation might be influencing that
15:32:27 <adamw> hughsie-afk: do you also have to teach it to consider 24 a valid target still?
15:32:33 <adamw> not that it matters that much, just curious
15:32:57 <adamw> what does everyone else think?
15:33:11 <kparal> it would be nice to let fesco agree to what we decide here
15:33:25 <handsome_pirate> Yeah
15:33:25 <hughsie-afk> adamw, yes, if you don't want to wait
15:33:36 * handsome_pirate is +1 fesco on this one
15:33:46 <adamw> hughsie-afk: has fesco discussed it?
15:33:57 <adamw> they're supposed to review Change progress...
15:34:04 <handsome_pirate> It kind of makes me nervous
15:34:16 <kparal> also, it's marked as self contained change, but it seems to me to be a system-wide one, even affecting older fedora releases
15:34:19 <hughsie-afk> adamw, i don't think so; i'm not the best person to ask
15:34:29 <adamw> ok, gimme a sec to look at recent fesco meetings
15:34:30 <kparal> so one more reason for fesco to bless it
15:34:45 * hughsie-afk tries to spend more time on bugs and features than process...
15:35:11 <jkurik> as far as I know, it has not been discussed on the last FESCo meeting
15:35:37 <jkurik> there were discussed only Changes, not marked as "100% completed"
15:36:36 <adamw> yes, and you punted them to 04-29, which seems...late. :P
15:36:42 <adamw> but this was actually marked as ON_QA so wasn't considered
15:36:42 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308538
15:36:54 <adamw> hughsie-afk: the only problem with that is then everyone *else* has to spend time on the process...
15:37:22 <hughsie-afk> adamw, i'll just do what i'm told
15:37:24 <adamw> "just trust everything to work out OK in the end" did not historically work out 100%
15:37:36 <adamw> so, OK
15:38:35 <jkurik> adamw: I can open this topic on the FESCo meeting this Friday
15:39:38 <adamw> proposed #agreed QA considers the state of the GraphicalSystemUpgrades Change to be a 'late Change' situation not a release criteria/validation situation and we'll file a FESCo ticket asking them to evaluate it and see if they're OK with where it's at. we'll proceed under the assumption that it's going ahead, and try to ensure it's easily testable at beta release time and organize a Test Day for it shortly after Beta
15:39:55 <hughsie-afk> works for me
15:41:24 <adamw> just for the record, the Changes policy does state that "if a change is to be enabled by default, it must be so enabled at Change Completion deadline" , and that was the deadline that occurred on 2016-02-23, so i'd say this is definitely late by that definition and shouldn't have been marked MODIFIED at that time
15:41:24 <kparal> ack
15:41:25 <adamw> but oh well
15:42:04 <adamw> obviously we shouldn't have been offering F24 Alpha upgrades to F23 users at that point but it should have been in F23 and possible to use with a single dconf flip or whatever
15:43:27 <handsome_pirate> I've got to run
15:43:40 <handsome_pirate> But, I note that this whole thing makes me nervous
15:43:50 <adamw> yeah
15:43:55 <handsome_pirate> I'll go with what fesco decides, though
15:44:00 <handsome_pirate> See y'all later
15:44:06 <adamw> anyone else got an ack/nack?
15:44:24 <handsome_pirate> ack
15:44:30 <adamw> thanks handsome
15:44:59 <hughsie-afk> adamw, would a gsetting flip be what you want in the future rather than editing the .json file?
15:45:46 * hughsie-afk can do that if you file an upstream bug
15:46:11 <adamw> hughsie-afk: i kinda think so, yeah? a 'offer unstable releases' switch or something, which would cause it to consider 'Under Development' releases as valid targets
15:46:18 <adamw> dunno if you'd ever want to offer rawhide, easy enough to filter it out if not
15:46:37 <adamw> will do
15:46:48 <hughsie-afk> well, rawhide is a valid target
15:47:03 <hughsie-afk> i'd just have a key you can set to "25" or something
15:47:03 <kparal> why exclude rawhide, let's keep it in
15:47:05 <adamw> #agreed QA considers the state of the GraphicalSystemUpgrades Change to be a 'late Change' situation not a release criteria/validation situation and we'll file a FESCo ticket asking them to evaluate it and see if they're OK with where it's at. we'll proceed under the assumption that it's going ahead, and try to ensure it's easily testable at beta release time and organize a Test Day for it shortly after Beta
15:47:10 <hughsie-afk> kparal, agreed
15:47:12 <adamw> okay, we can figure the details out anyway
15:47:35 <adamw> sumantro: do you want to take on organizing the test day? it should be a fairly simple one
15:47:48 <adamw> though it'll likely be pretty popular
15:47:51 <sumantro> yes sure adamw
15:47:54 <adamw> cool thanks :)
15:47:58 <sumantro> :)
15:48:14 <adamw> #action sumantro to organize Workstation graphical upgrade test day, adamw to help out
15:48:43 <adamw> #action adamw to file ticket on easier way to enable upgrade to branched/rawhide (rather than editing a json file)
15:49:02 <adamw> #action adamw to file fesco ticket requesting them to evaluate Workstation graphical upgrade Change status
15:49:08 <adamw> thanks a lot hughsie
15:49:18 <adamw> anything else on this one? we still have at least one more topic to squeeze in so make it quick :)
15:49:39 <kparal> nothing here
15:50:20 <adamw> alrighty
15:50:30 <adamw> #topic Fedora 24 status and test planning
15:51:01 <adamw> OK, so we got a new nominated compose with i386 and other significant fixes
15:51:13 <adamw> only problem with it is that Workstation live lost the live image compose lottery
15:51:37 <adamw> still, we can test everything else, so everyone please do; we still have a lot of beta coverage to complete
15:52:25 * kparal will try to convince some people
15:53:04 <adamw> #info go/no-go is this Thursday, everyone please help test the current nominated compose, treat it as a late TC/RC
15:53:17 <adamw> i'll try and work on the server tests, though I can't do AD testing :/
15:54:14 <adamw> sumantro: have you tried validation testing yet?
15:54:41 <sumantro> no not yet. but can give it a shot. wont be a biggie .
15:54:55 <adamw> yeah, if you and arvind could help that would be great, it's the most important thing for this week
15:55:17 <adamw> sumantro: just ask in #fedora-qa if you miss anything
15:55:25 <sumantro> sure , I am all in it. just tell me what your plan is. :)
15:56:08 <adamw> sumantro: keep the 'current' pages bookmarked - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test , Current_Base_Test, Current_Server_Test, Current_Desktop_Test, Current_Cloud_Test - and https://www.happyassassin.net/testcase_stats/24/ is also handy to see what tests most need running (it tells you when each test was last run)
15:56:17 <adamw> testing instructions are included in the pages
15:56:33 <adamw> you can submit results by editing the pages or by using relval - 'dnf install relval', 'relval report-results'
15:56:49 <adamw> same instructions go for everyone else who hasn't done validation testing before :)
15:57:25 <sumantro> Got it adamw
15:57:28 <adamw> cool!
15:57:47 <adamw> ok, i don't think we have time for the 'test day planning' topic and anyhow it was mostly the upgrade thing i was gonna suggest there
15:57:50 <adamw> so let's do a very quick:
15:57:51 <adamw> #topic Open floor
15:57:59 <adamw> we have blocker review in 3 minutes (did i remember to announce it?)
15:58:00 <kparal> I'd recommended submitting results by hand by editing the wiki if you're new, with scripts it's easier to mess stuff up more
15:58:09 <adamw> kparal: funny i was gonna say the opposite
15:58:14 <adamw> kparal: it's easy to mess up wiki syntax
15:58:28 <kparal> alright, both arguments are there, pick your choice :->
15:58:30 <adamw> relval should be easier for a newbie, it's quite hard to do anything really silly with relval report-results , it can't mass-submit or anything
15:58:40 <adamw> report-auto you could do bad things with, but that is gone now :)
15:58:43 <kparal> adamw: ok, I thought it could
15:58:48 <adamw> nah, one result at at ime
15:59:23 <jkurik> I just would like to ask who is going to be on Go/No-Go & Readiness meeting on Thursday from QA ?
16:00:14 <sumantro> Me jkurik
16:00:23 <sumantro> timing ?
16:00:28 <adamw> me too
16:00:58 <jkurik> timing: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/meeting/3877/?from_date=2016-04-25 & https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/meeting/3878/?from_date=2016-04-25
16:01:09 <jkurik> depends on yout timezone
16:01:13 <adamw> ok, we're over time, so thanks, everyone
16:01:15 <jkurik> thanks
16:01:24 <adamw> i'll start blocker review meeting up immediately and leave roll call open for a few minutes
16:01:30 <adamw> see you in #fedora-blocker-review!
16:01:34 <adamw> #endmeeting