15:02:18 <adamw> #startmeeting Fedora QA Meeting
15:02:19 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Apr 29 15:02:18 2019 UTC.
15:02:19 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
15:02:19 <zodbot> The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:02:19 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:02:19 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_qa_meeting'
15:02:22 <adamw> #meetingname fedora-qa
15:02:22 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa'
15:02:26 <adamw> #topic Roll call
15:02:30 * kparal is here
15:02:37 <bcotton> .hello2
15:02:40 <adamw> morning everyone, how's it going?
15:02:41 <tablepc> tablepc is here
15:02:41 <zodbot> bcotton: bcotton 'Ben Cotton' <bcotton@redhat.com>
15:02:56 <coremodule> .me, present!
15:03:25 <lruzicka> .hello2
15:03:26 <zodbot> lruzicka: lruzicka 'Lukáš Růžička' <lruzicka@redhat.com>
15:03:39 * sumantro is here
15:04:41 <tflink> .hello2
15:04:42 <zodbot> tflink: tflink 'Tim Flink' <tflink@redhat.com>
15:05:06 * coremodule asks, "is this working?"
15:05:10 <coremodule> oh, now it is
15:05:11 <coremodule> huh
15:05:44 * adamw taps mic
15:05:47 <adamw> is this thing on?
15:05:50 <adamw> check...check...
15:06:02 <lruzicka> yes, we can hear you
15:06:04 <adamw> 1, 2, a 1 2 3 4
15:06:21 <lruzicka> maybe add a little deesser
15:06:30 <tflink> is it time to show that we can hear you through the throwing of vegetables?
15:06:32 <adamw> a little vibe pedal
15:06:34 <coremodule> can someone turn up the bass?
15:06:40 <adamw> yay vegetables
15:06:42 <adamw> i get to eat this week
15:06:50 <pingou> \ó/
15:07:17 <pingou> tomato soup it is!
15:07:21 * tflink would be impressed if he could throw vegetables far enough to hit adamw
15:07:29 <adamw> pingou: please just don't throw the kind in cans
15:07:45 <pingou> :(
15:07:55 <tflink> we're showing that we can hear him, not that we want to kill him :)
15:07:59 <tablepc> some fresh carrots would be good
15:08:39 <pingou> I was merely proposing a receipe for all these tomatoes that are landing on stage :)
15:08:56 <adamw> allllrighty
15:09:00 <adamw> #topic Previous meeting follow-up
15:09:09 * adamw drags the notes from the previous meeting out of deep storage
15:09:34 <adamw> #info "adamw to put proposed printing criteria into production" - did that, e.g. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_30_Beta_Release_Criteria#Printing
15:10:14 <lruzicka> We had to modify them, however.
15:10:26 <lruzicka> oh, no
15:10:43 <adamw> #info "adamw to get printing test cases written and added to matrices" - mostly did that too, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Template:Desktop_test_matrix (though we might need a new one too)
15:11:24 <adamw> #info "adamw to implement move of 'basic graphics' criterion to Final and follow up on mailing lists" - did that too, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_30_Final_Release_Criteria#.27Basic_graphics_mode.27_boot_mode_behavior
15:11:35 <adamw> okay, next one isn't for me :P
15:11:38 <lruzicka> adamw, we needeed to modify the test case for this, because we did not have any USB printer to use.
15:11:46 <adamw> lruzicka and sumantro to look over specific issues that came up in the modularity test day and talk to sgallagh about possible improvements, especially re. modules with no default profile
15:12:30 <adamw> lruzicka: i don't see a reference to USB in the criterion or the test case?
15:12:32 <lruzicka> adamw, yeah, I also got some more inputs from the dnf team, so I will have to write a longish report
15:12:51 <lruzicka> adamw, because kparal has modified it
15:13:34 <lruzicka> if I remember correctly, we expected IPP and print to file to work
15:13:35 <adamw> ah, okay.
15:14:30 <lruzicka> we can test IPP here, but not USB or anything like that, as we do not have a printer of our own ... however, I have one at home just sitting, I could bring it in.
15:14:38 <kparal> the criterion doesn't specify connect type, so I erased it from the test case
15:14:43 <kparal> *connection type
15:15:44 <adamw> so, what's the status on this action item>
15:15:45 <adamw> ?
15:16:39 <kparal> which one and who you're asking? :)
15:17:06 <kparal> I was just clarifying my change in the printer test case
15:17:27 <adamw> the one i quoted most recently
15:17:29 <adamw> and i'm asking lruzicka
15:17:35 <adamw> and/or sumantro :P
15:17:42 <tablepc> Not specifying the connection is a good thing
15:18:05 <sumantro> adamw, sent out this https://marc.info/?l=fedora-test-list&m=155497560706158&w=2
15:18:41 <adamw> sure, this was about a follow-up to that, though, i think
15:18:43 <sumantro> its an retrospection to test day report for modularity and didn't get any replies
15:18:44 <lruzicka> sumantro, did any answer come back? because
15:19:08 <lruzicka> yeah, I think they still have not met any important decision on that, just proposals
15:19:32 <sumantro> i concur with lruzicka there
15:20:24 <sumantro> also adamw it will be awesome if you can view this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752855
15:20:36 <sumantro> which was filed on test day and has restricted access
15:20:36 <adamw> so...did you talk to sgallagh?
15:20:37 <lruzicka> what I was pushing into was, that there would be criteria defined for modules and also suggested some UI behaviour in sgallagh mail thread on devel list, but I was told that they do not want what I suggested .
15:21:10 <adamw> sumantro: that's an ovirt bug from 2011, i think you missed some digits?
15:21:15 <lruzicka> I expected some follow up would come, but then I lost track of what happened to that mail discussion.
15:22:11 <adamw> who is "they", here, and where specifically did this discussion happen?
15:23:53 <adamw> i'm just trying to figure out what actually happened in response to this action item :)
15:23:55 <lruzicka> So the thread's name is Modularity UX questions ...
15:24:01 <adamw> on which list?
15:24:51 <sumantro> https://marc.info/?l=fedora-devel-list&m=155420938100327&w=2
15:24:58 <sumantro> adamw, devel
15:25:19 <lruzicka> So, I am trying to get the conclusion:
15:25:41 <lruzicka> As Stephen wrote: Yeah, I think if no default object exists in the metadata, `dnf module
15:25:42 <lruzicka> install modulename:stream` should probably not install anything and
15:25:42 <lruzicka> instead prompt them to select a profile explicitly (ideally listing
15:25:42 <lruzicka> the available options or suggesting `dnf enable modulename:stream`).
15:26:53 <adamw> #info "lruzicka and sumantro to look over specific issues that came up in the modularity test day and talk to sgallagh about possible improvements, especially re. modules with no default profile" - some discussion on devel@ in the thread https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UIX3OAICKHBXRKIRRINRFFPBYTROQRQE/
15:27:09 <lruzicka> The thing is, that thread does not bring any real solutions or decisions, only what sgallagh thinks is correct. I have been waiting for some "hard rules" but they never came
15:27:11 <adamw> lruzicka: if you're not satisfied that our feedback there was fully taken on board, reopen the thread with a ping, i guess
15:27:17 <adamw> ask them to follow up
15:27:23 <lruzicka> adamw, yeah, I will
15:27:39 <adamw> thanks
15:28:09 <adamw> #action lruzicka to follow up on "Modularity UX Questions" thread again asking for more concrete results
15:28:37 <lruzicka> adamw, I asked just now.
15:28:41 <adamw> great
15:28:44 <adamw> #topic Fedora 30 wrap-up / final tasks
15:29:03 <adamw> so, we signed off F30 final on Friday - big thanks to everyone for all the short notice validation testing
15:29:16 <coremodule> woot!
15:29:17 <adamw> #info thanks to everyone for Fedora 30 Final validation testing, release will happen tomorrow
15:29:48 <adamw> the F29 libdnf update was pushed stable, so we don't need to worry about that
15:29:49 <tablepc> That! a Yahoo
15:29:58 <adamw> and no massive fires broke out over the weekend, that i'm aware of anyway
15:30:26 <adamw> so, only really updating the common bugs is left, i can work on that today
15:30:48 <adamw> #action adamw to revise F30 Common Bugs for Final
15:30:56 <adamw> anyone have any other notes on F30?
15:31:56 <kparal> nothing here
15:32:08 <coremodule> just glad we got it out on time!
15:32:35 <kparal> was it our second time in history when we haven't slipped?
15:32:35 <adamw> +1 that
15:32:37 <adamw> yep
15:32:39 <sumantro> for the third time :D
15:32:40 <adamw> second on-time release ever
15:33:14 <kparal> either the release got so much better or our testing so much worse
15:33:38 <adamw> column A, column B...
15:33:45 <adamw> #topic Xen release criterion
15:33:55 <adamw> so, yeah, this came up at go/no-go
15:34:12 <adamw> fortunately xen domU does more or less work in f30 final, but we didn't get any testing on it throughout the cycle
15:34:20 <kparal> I'd wait a while for Konrad's response
15:34:25 <adamw> the last time we proposed removing the xen criterion, some xen folks showed up and promised to do testing on it
15:34:36 <adamw> kparal: but i mean, if he shows up and says 'no we'll do it this time for realz!', do we believe him?
15:35:20 <kparal> the real question should be whether it's an important feature for Fedora to block on, and not whether some xen folks volunteer to test it (regardless whether they show up)
15:35:23 <adamw> anyway, i wasn't gonna change it right away, more wanted to have the topic in the meeting in case anyone had any questions or thoughts about it
15:35:26 <kparal> and that's something I can't answer
15:35:46 <kparal> but from my POV Xen is uninteresting and not worth blocking on
15:36:18 <bcotton> it hasn't been important enough to have regular testing, which suggests that it's not worth keeping
15:36:23 <tablepc> Is it in the list of core applications?
15:36:24 <adamw> there was some suggestion that running on xen is important for running in ec2 or something at some point, wasn't there?
15:36:36 <adamw> tablepc: it's not an application, exactly. it wouldn't be covered there.
15:37:03 <coremodule> The last time I tested it (before 30) was on F24, and since then, I've forgotten about it until each go/no-go meeting when it seems to come up... I don't think people use it over kvm, it's more of a legacy test for compatibility with cloud stuff, that as far as i can tell, is no longer needed/true
15:38:53 <bcotton> idk how closely ec2 tracks upstream xen at this point, but if that's the motivation, testing in ec2 directly is probably better anyway
15:39:02 <tablepc> Given it's not core and a small user base perhaps it shouldn't be in the release criterion
15:39:05 <adamw> right. and we do have that on the cloud matrix, though it doesn't always get tested unfortunately
15:39:20 <adamw> tablepc: that seems to be the general consensus, yeah
15:39:27 <coremodule> I can see it staying in the matrix as an *optional* test
15:40:22 <adamw> sure, anything can be optional :P
15:40:42 <adamw> #info general consensus that Xen criterion can go and test case be made non-blocking, we will wait a few more days for list feedback
15:40:56 <adamw> #topic Late-discovered blocker waive proposal
15:41:05 <adamw> so, this is another thing that came up during go/no-go
15:41:23 <adamw> i remembered this thing where we'd talked about documenting a process for waiving blockers discovered extremely late
15:41:27 <adamw> but couldn't find it anywhere
15:41:37 <adamw> then realized I'd proposed it on the list but never put it into practice
15:41:52 <adamw> the thread was called "Blocker bug process proposal: waiving late-discovered blockers to next release"
15:42:03 <adamw> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/Q46M75GUKRHMI5IMNGBNL6XHLD5GLLTS/
15:43:10 <adamw> i wrote a second draft and it seems there were a few replies to it, then it kinda stalled
15:43:54 <tablepc> Please sent it out and I'll be happy to read and or help
15:44:12 <adamw> OK
15:44:24 <adamw> I guess I'll resurrect the draft and maybe try to add something for kamil's suggestion
15:44:39 <adamw> i think the idea is still basically sound, anyone had second thoughts about it?
15:44:52 <bcotton> i am a billionty percent in favor of it
15:44:53 * kparal will need to read it again
15:45:33 <coremodule> Agreed, I’ll reread it and post feedback there, but am in favor of the idea as I understand it now
15:46:13 <lruzicka> I do not know, isn't a late blocker still a blocker?
15:46:58 <bcotton> it could be
15:47:07 <tablepc> I think that depents on the proposed blocker's impact.
15:47:08 <bcotton> but it doesn't *have* to be
15:47:13 <adamw> lruzicka: that was always the case before, but there seemed to be a consensus at the time for making it possible for that *not* to happen, occasionally
15:47:37 <adamw> anyway, can you re-read the draft and think about it there? since the draft has the proposed detail about the circumstances
15:47:56 <lruzicka> ok, I understand why this should be the issue, but it is tricky.
15:48:17 <lruzicka> if any blocker is a showstopper, it is quite clear.
15:48:49 <adamw> yeah, that's covered in the draft, i think
15:49:01 <adamw> but please do review it, either the original or the re-send i'll try and do
15:49:18 <tablepc> Perhaps we just need a little more clarification on what is a show stopper
15:49:25 <adamw> #action adamw to resurrect the 'late blocker waiver' proposal with a third draft or re-send of the second draft
15:49:36 <lruzicka> ok, so we are not about to take a decision yet, because I believe that this is somehow pushing things on a slope
15:49:46 <lruzicka> but I will review
15:50:24 <adamw> lruzicka: no, we're not making a decision here for sure
15:50:28 <lruzicka> tablepc, that could be done by revising the criteria
15:50:33 <adamw> i'm just going to re-start the list dicussion
15:51:17 <adamw> #topic Test Day / community event status
15:51:24 <adamw> sumantro: where are we at? :)
15:52:49 <sumantro> Call for Test Days has been made.  mbriza cut a new release and mediawriter test day is tomorrow 2019-04-30. The kernel test week is from 2019-05-13 through 2019-05-18. We will keep evolving with f31 changesets test days as the release moves ahead.
15:53:05 <adamw> #info Fedora 31 call for test days was sent out
15:53:30 <adamw> #info media writer Test Day is 2019-04-30: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2019-04-30_Fedora_Media_Writer
15:53:42 <adamw> #info Kernel test week is 2019-05-13 to 2019-05-18, mark your calendar!
15:53:50 <adamw> thanks sumantro :)
15:53:55 <adamw> any other notes / questions on this topic?
15:54:24 <sumantro> nopes :)
15:54:30 <sumantro> np np adamw :)
15:55:05 <adamw> #topic Open floor
15:55:10 <adamw> alrighty, any other business, folks?
15:55:22 <coremodule> yeah
15:55:37 <adamw> state your business, peasant
15:55:44 <coremodule> expect Heroes of Fedora posts for beta and final by the end of this week or early next week, sire
15:55:48 <adamw> =)
15:56:09 <adamw> #info coremodule working on Heroes of Fedora blog posts for end of this week or early next week
15:56:55 <adamw> coremodule: you may return to your hovel
15:57:32 <coremodule> thank you revered one
15:57:47 <adamw> i'm letting you keep all your limbs because i'm in a good mood today
15:58:09 <tablepc> I never realized what a tough group this is.
15:58:31 <lruzicka> :)
15:58:52 <adamw> tablepc: too late, you're in now
15:59:16 <adamw> once you're QA, you're QA till the end
15:59:34 <adamw> =)
15:59:35 <tablepc> I've alway been good at breaking things
15:59:41 <lruzicka> tablepc, you cannot escape the family
15:59:48 <adamw> alrighty folks, thanks for coming out, and thanks again for the F30 testing! great job everyone
15:59:52 * satellit why is fedora media writer not installed in lives?
16:00:21 <tablepc> Yes, it has to be installed I'd be for making it core.
16:00:34 <adamw> that'd be a choice for the live image owners really
16:00:46 <adamw> up to them what's in their package sets...
16:01:26 <tablepc> So how does one propose it to them?
16:01:29 <satellit> would be usefull as it is primary way to make bootable lives
16:04:15 <adamw> tablepc: usually on the relevant mailing list
16:04:19 <adamw> #endmeeting