== Log ==
UTC
{{{
16:01	MootBot	Meeting started at 16:01. The chair is heno_.
16:01	MootBot	Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
16:02	heno_	welcome all!
16:02	heno_	we have an agenda here https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam
16:04	liw	I have nothing to add to the agenda
16:04	heno_	[TOPIC] Spec status
16:04	MootBot	New Topic:  Spec status
16:04	heno_	is everyone who has specs comfortable with getting them written up and with the review process?
16:05	liw	I'm new to the review process, but I'll ask questions if and when I have any
16:05	ogasawara	is there a wiki describing the review process somewhere?
16:06	bdmurray	With regards to an informational spec is it necessary to write up the spec?  With the QA schedule it seems a bit redundant.
16:06	heno_	the review team is listed here https://edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-reviewers
16:06	liw	my DesktopAutomatedTests is basically written, I'm just going to review it myself before submitting it for review; SelfTestingDesktop is still to be written, but since it's a corollary of the other one, it should be pretty quick to do
16:06	heno_	you should ask one of them to review when you feel it's complete
16:07	heno_	I don't see a wiki page
16:07	ogasawara	heno_:  I assume we should submit for review by the end of the week?
16:07	heno_	this should have been covered by the UDS howto I guess
16:08	heno_	ogasawara: yes, that would be good, to allow for some ping-pong
16:09	heno_	stgraber: did you make it to the meeting? you have several specs needing review also
16:09	heno_	stgraber: (let me know if we should have a post-UDS conversation about this)
16:10	heno_	ok, that seems clear; moving on
16:11	heno_	[ACTION] everyone should complete the spec formulations and submit them for review by the end of this week
16:11	MootBot	ACTION received:  everyone should complete the spec formulations and submit them for review by the end of this week
16:11	heno_	[TOPIC] Feedback on Hardy QA schedule
16:11	MootBot	New Topic:  Feedback on Hardy QA schedule
16:12	heno_	Brian asked for some feedback on the QA schedule on the list
16:12	ogasawara	the schedule looked fine to me
16:12	heno_	me too
16:13	pedro_	yep good for me too
16:13	heno_	bdmurray: will you pass it on the the release team next?
16:13	liw	good for me too, even if it doesn't have a date for when I'm allowed to report fourteen thousand bugs automatically
16:13	bdmurray	heno_: sure - they don't have a mailing list right?
16:14	heno_	I don't think they do, no
16:14	bdmurray	pedro_: looking at it again I seem to have missed forwarding bugs upstream that would be until about week 8 right?
16:14	heno_	liw: I guess that would be when we can trust it to DTRT
16:15	liw	heno, sure, I was trying to be funny anyway
16:15	heno_	bdmurray: you mean Gutsy bugs? I assume we forward bugs continuously in the dev release
16:16	pedro_	i don't think so
16:16	bdmurray	heno_: We discussed forwarding being more helpful until syncs stop
16:17	bdmurray	s/more helpful/useful/
16:17	bdmurray	after which we need to patch our version of the package
16:18	heno_	bdmurray: are they considered less useful closer to release because upstream are less likely to fix or because of ubuntu-specific changes
16:18	heno_	gnome is a special case that gets synced quite late I guess
16:19	heno_	liw: sure. are there automated-test milestones that should go on a regular schedule though I wonder?
16:19	heno_	it might be difficult to tell in our first cycle of doing it
16:20	bdmurray	heno_: because after import freeze the packages become more divirgent so while upstream may have fixed the bug they may have also done a lot of other things that we can't sync after import freeze
16:20	liw	heno, I don't think so, for the first cycle
16:20	heno_	ok
16:21	heno_	bdmurray: ok. I guess at that point developers will upstream individual issues they feel they need help with
16:21	heno_	[AGREED] Everyone agreed that it was a nice schedule :)
16:21	MootBot	AGREED received:  Everyone agreed that it was a nice schedule :)
16:22	heno_	[TOPIC] Gutsy bug triage, looking for SRU candidates
16:22	MootBot	New Topic:  Gutsy bug triage, looking for SRU candidates
16:24	bdmurray	I've been doing a fair bit of SRU verification for candidates already identified
16:25	heno_	there is only about a week and a half left of this phase. is it coordinated with the release team WRT for how long we will roll out fixes?
16:26	stgraber	I'm here
16:26	heno_	roughly how many bugs have we identified so far that should get gutsy SRUs?
16:26	bdmurray	The schedule is an indication of our primary focus after this week and a half we will shift to looking more at Hardy
* heno_ waves to stgraber
16:27	bdmurray	ogasawara: do you have the gutsy verification needed query?
16:27	heno_	are there any gutsy bugs that stick out as esp. high-profile?
16:28	ogasawara	bdmurray: I'll check, just a sec
16:28	heno_	how many are new and how many are ones we didn't mange to fix before release?
16:28	bdmurray	I think I have verified the updates for most of the really high-profile ones
16:28	stgraber	yes, I have 4 specs to work on, I've already talked a bit with _nand about the Tokamak one, I'll try to work on that tomorrow morning (note the "try" as I have a lot of other things to do :))
16:29	stgraber	btw, davmor2 asked me to paste that during the meeting :
16:29	stgraber	14:16 < davmor2> 1/ would it be better to bug test before the end of the freeze? That way when the freeze is on everything should be stable?
16:29	stgraber	14:16 < davmor2> 2/ with the schedule there is iso-testing latter on but not at the beginning is that how it is meant to be?
16:29	heno_	stgraber: indeed. let me know if you need help with those
16:30	ogasawara	bdmurray: I don't
16:30	bdmurray	stgraber: The schedule just indicates where our primary focus lies, iso-testing can happen as early as Alpha 1
16:30	ogasawara	bdmurray: but it shouldn't be hard to do
* bdmurray waits for it
16:31	heno_	2> by 'ISO testing' here we mean intensive testing with redundant coverage involving the dev team and others
16:31	pedro_	shouldn't be something like https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/gutsy/+bugs?field.tag=verification-needed ?
16:32	heno_	whereas earlier we do more spot/sanity checks on ISOs
16:32	bdmurray	pedro_: sure enough
16:32	pedro_	there's also http://people.ubuntu.com/~ubuntu-archive/pending-sru.html
16:32	ogasawara	eww, the link I've got in launchpad is long
16:33	bdmurray	I'm working on 17595 atm
16:34	heno_	nice page
16:34	bdmurray	one thing about the lp query is it doesn't show the repository
16:36	heno_	on davmor2's pt. 1, I'm not sure which freeze he is referring to. Things do change after the freeze too though and simple errors can get introduced that are not caught by regular use
16:37	heno_	such as the late change cause the Kubuntu installer to fail
16:37	heno_	which I think was typo-level coding error
16:38	heno_	ok, let's move the the next topic, which is related but needs some discussion
16:39	heno_	[TOPIC] Managing Gutsy and Dapper SRU nominees
16:39	MootBot	New Topic:  Managing Gutsy and Dapper SRU nominees
16:39	heno_	please look at https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/gutsy/+nominations
16:40	heno_	and https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/dapper/+nominations
16:40	bdmurray	The nominations are where anybody decides to nominate a bug for a release right?
16:41	heno_	right
16:41	bdmurray	How or why should they be managed?
16:42	heno_	we need to look at that list regularly to identify good candidates and make sure those reports get triaged
16:42	heno_	so that they can be moved forward to qualify for the SRU process
16:43	heno_	some will be not important enough and the nominations should be rejected
16:43	heno_	do you folks have the LP powers to accept/decline those?
16:44	bdmurray	I think only ubuntu-drivers does
16:44	heno_	which explains why I can
16:45	bdmurray	I can too - for spec stuff at UDS I was added to that team
16:45	heno_	I think the core triage team at least should have those powers
16:45	pedro_	I can't :-(
16:46	bdmurray	One thing about this process that bothers me is anyone can nominate
16:46	heno_	ok, I'll ask for pedro_ and ogasawara to be granted the appropriate LP powers
16:46	ogasawara	thanks
16:46	bdmurray	looking at bug 109882 it is one person with the issue and they nominated the bug
16:46	pedro_	great
16:46	ubotu	Launchpad bug 109882 in fedora "Headphone automute not working" [Unknown,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/109882
16:46	heno_	bdmurray: true, that makes it noisy. but the lists are not extremely long
16:46	ogasawara	bdmurray: heh, was just looking at that too
16:47	bdmurray	ogasawara: does l-b-m have the right version of alsa?
16:47	ogasawara	bdmurray: I think the version of alsa they want might already be in lbm
16:47	bdmurray	jinx you owe me a beer
16:47	ogasawara	bdmurray: checking on it right now
16:47	heno_	the advantage is that it can help bring up important issues
16:48	heno_	provided we look at the list regularly and it doesn't get abused
16:49	heno_	bdmurray: many of those were nominated before the gutsy release, when it made more sense, as that wouldn't be an SRU
16:50	heno_	we should do a one-time run-through after each release to remove those that clearly don't qualify
16:50	heno_	bdmurray: can bughelper help us identify those?
16:50	bdmurray	heno_: I haven't looked at the nomination property of a bug before but will look into it
16:51	heno_	thanks
16:51	heno_	it doesn't look like the point at which it was nominated gets logged automatically
16:53	ogasawara	bdmurray: http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git?p=ubuntu/ubuntu-gutsy-lbm.git;a=commit;h=d33c164bb93d09f21fd331a726052b66e40c26ab
16:54	heno_	all: please look out for nominated bugs when looking at gutsy bugs these days and ask me or brian to reject obvious non-SRU candidates
16:54	heno_	I'll do a more explicit run-through of that list next week
16:55	pedro_	ook
16:55	bdmurray	ogasawara: do you want to follow up on the bug and I'll rjeect the nominations?
16:55	ogasawara	bdmurray: sure
16:56	bdmurray	well, that's wacky
16:56	bdmurray	then nominations show up on a per package basis
16:56	heno_	let's revisit the status of this list next week. there are currently 358 bugs on it
16:56	bdmurray	so declining it for gutsy did it for both packages
16:57	bdmurray	which wasn't what I expected
16:58	bdmurray	heno_: we are only concerned about nominations for packages in main right?
16:59	heno_	hm, good question. it would be good to clean the list generally
16:59	heno_	where is the MOTU policy on updates?
17:00	heno_	is it mainly backports?
17:00	bdmurray	I think they incorporated it into the main SRU policy
* Hobbsee looks in
17:01	heno_	yep, I see it now
17:01	Hobbsee	heno_: pretty much the same as main, although a little less beaurocracy.  new features --> backports, bugfixes --> SRU
* bdmurray waves to Hobbsee
17:03	heno_	Hobbsee: ok. who from MOTU could we get to go through that list regularly? the MOTU council perhaps?
17:03	heno_	also, you shouldn't have to be a driver to accept/reject such nominations
17:04	heno_	I'm not sure they belong on that list in the first place
17:05	heno_	from the user's POV it makes sense to nominate packages equally though
17:06	heno_	I'll raise that question on the MOTU list and with various ubuntu drivers
17:07	heno_	[ACTION] mdz to evaluate list of Gutsy nominated bugs and raise questions on the MOTU and devel lists
17:07	MootBot	ACTION received:  mdz to evaluate list of Gutsy nominated bugs and raise questions on the MOTU and devel lists
17:08	bdmurray	heh - 154 nominated bugs are "New"
17:08	heno_	indeed, which is why the QA team has a role to play in an initial screening of the list
17:08	Hobbsee	oh, thisthing doesnt flash when done backwards.
17:08	Hobbsee	bdmurray: hiya!
17:09	Hobbsee	heno_: erm, you only have to be in -release to accept or deny the nominations
17:09	Hobbsee	heno_: sec, let me see the list.  i wasnt following :)
17:09	heno_	some of them will need improving (triaging) soonish, while others are less important and should be pushed to hardy
17:10	bdmurray	Hobbsee: was the universe report helpful at all?
17:10	Hobbsee	bdmurray: it wasnt what i was looking for, but it looks somewhat useful.
17:11	bdmurray	Hobbsee: okay well let me know if you need anything else
17:11	Hobbsee	heno_: ubuntu-universe-sponsors does it usually.
17:11	Hobbsee	bdmurray: will do.  but not at 4am :)
17:12	heno_	Hobbsee: ok, thanks
17:12	Hobbsee	heno_: but there may be another team starting up to do it.  unsure.  will find out in the next week or so
17:12	heno_	[TOPIC] QA team weekly meeting times
17:12	MootBot	New Topic:  QA team weekly meeting times
17:12	heno_	always a controversial one :)
17:13	heno_	bdmurray: what time is 16.00 in OR?
17:13	Hobbsee	just do away with the meetings.  problem solved :P
17:13	heno_	we've tried that before :p
17:13	liw	I think these meetings are useful, although they take a bit longer than I'd like
17:14	heno_	ut that was before we had a team really ;)
17:14	liw	it's 09:14 in Oregon (US west coast) right now
17:14	bdmurray	right 1600 was 0800
17:14	heno_	ok, so earlier would not be so good
17:15	bdmurray	yes, that would be bad
17:15	stgraber	wouldn't be good for me neither (would be at school)
17:15	heno_	liw: I agree, we should try to limit them to 1hr.
17:15	liw	I'm not throughly happy about 1600 UTC, but I can live with this (especially, as noted, if we can make them at most 1 hour :)
17:16	heno_	we have alternated times on various meeting in the past, but that's not a great solution either
17:16	liw	yeah, a constant time would be best, makes it easiest to plan ahead
17:16	liw	for me, at least
17:16	pedro_	indeed
17:16	heno_	liw: and 18.00, say, would be worse I take it
17:17	heno_	I'm an evening person, so I don't mind either way
17:17	liw	I'm UTC+2 (UTC+3 during daylight savings time), so 18 UTC would be 20 (or 21), which would mean I won't get anything else done that evening
17:17	stgraber	^ Would be perfect for me :) but indeed I doubt liw would be happy with it
17:18	liw	especially since Wednesdays are typical days for meeting people socially
17:19	liw	so basically I'm in favor of keeping 1600 UTC
17:19	heno_	ok, with one for and one against, we'll leave it as it is for now
17:19	heno_	sorry stgraber :(
17:20	liw	stgraber, indeed, sorry
17:20	stgraber	ok, well for me as you saw the best case is 17h30 at home, usually it'll be 18h30 and then will miss the meeting
17:20	stgraber	as I was 1minute away from missing my bus :)
17:20	heno_	perhaps we should consider a community meeting sometimes on the weekend
17:21	heno_	let's see how well attended the QA-related sessions are this weekend
17:21	heno_	(arranged by the LoCo teams I think)
17:22	heno_	[AGREED] Leave the meeting time at 16.00 UTC
17:22	MootBot	AGREED received:  Leave the meeting time at 16.00 UTC
17:22	heno_	can be revisited later
17:22	heno_	ok, let's stop there
17:22	heno_	thanks everyone for attending!
17:23	heno_	#endmeeting
17:23	MootBot	Meeting finished at 17:23.}}}