18:01   MootBot Meeting started at 12:04. The chair is heno.
18:01   MootBot Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
18:02   heno    Agenda: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/Meetings
18:02   davmor2 hello
18:02   bobbo   hey
18:02   cody-somerville hi
18:02   schwuk  hi
18:02   stgraber        lot of people tonight
18:02   heno    I've moved the technical items to the top of the list to make sure we get to them
18:03   heno    great to see lots of new people!
18:03   heno    [TOPIC]: Alpha 3 testing status
18:03   MootBot New Topic: : Alpha 3 testing status
18:03   heno    sbeattie, davmor2, stgraber ^ your views?
18:04   heno    I understand ubiquity is a bit broken still
18:04   stgraber        Server looks good except a weird conflict between LAMP and Mail server, I pinged #ubuntu-server about it
18:04   stgraber        ubiquity is a bit broken and we have a kernel/usplash bug making usplash to display a black screen
18:04   davmor2 there aren't that many things to test till the ubiquity issues get fixed and kubuntu has a number of post install issues
18:04   davmor2 thank god it's an alpha
18:04   Riddell fixed ubiquity is being uploaded now
18:05   Riddell davmor2: post install issues?
18:05   LaserJock       after Alpha2 I wonder if we need like an ISO testing twitter feed :-)
18:05   davmor2 kdesudo, printing, adept, etc
18:05   Riddell ah well, details details :)
18:05   stgraber        testing in kvm is still more or less broken for Desktop so I won't be able to help much there. I'll work on Edubuntu and Server images testing for today.
18:06   davmor2 As I say post install the install on alternative is fine
18:06   ara     have anyone tried virtualbox? is still broken as well?
18:06   heno    cr3 will be piloting some more automated install testing for this alpha - Ubuntu/Kubuntu i386/amd64
18:06   LaserJock       heno: can we get details of that sent to ubuntu-qa?
18:06   stgraber        ara: I tried to install virtualbox and it's still not using dkms on Intrepid so I can't get it to build the kernel module
18:07   heno    vbox worked for me about two weeks ago but was broken yesterday
18:07   davmor2 I test on hw mostly so pass :)
18:07   heno    LaserJock: yes, we'll post the test results and an overview of what we are doing
=== ubottu changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Current meeting: Test Event | Calendar: http://fridge.ubuntu.com/event | Logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/ | 07 Dec 19:00 UTC: Mozilla Team | 02 Nov 19:00 UTC: Mozilla Team | 14 Sep 18:00 UTC: Mozilla Team | 03 Aug 18:00 UTC: Mozilla Team | 23 Aug 13:00 UTC: Xubuntu Community
18:08   LaserJock       heno: awesome, thanks
18:08   heno    basically we are opening up the Canonical certification infrastructure to also be useful to the wider Ubuntu project
18:08   heno    stgraber, cr3 and schwuk are working on that
18:09   LaserJock       good news
18:09   heno    so it looks like testing will continue most of tomorrow
18:09   heno    [TOPIC]: Searching for upstream Debian bugs (bdmurray)
18:09   MootBot New Topic: : Searching for upstream Debian bugs (bdmurray)
18:10   bdmurray        I found out that the debian bug tracking system has a SOAP interface somewhat recently and I've written a script for searching package bugs for a string with it.
18:10   bdmurray        It's called debian-bug-search and I've added it to the ubuntu-qa-tools project
18:11   ara     useful, thanks
18:11   bdmurray        I've had some success using it and thought it might be handy for the Hug Day tomorrow with apt
18:11   heno    that will be excellent!
18:12   heno    is there any documentation available?
18:12   LaserJock       bdmurray: do you have some other tools that would be helpful for Hug Days or triaging in general?
18:12   davmor2 bdmurray: so is the idea behind it to help confirm upstream issues or to tag the ubuntu bug with the upstream bug?
18:12   LaserJock       seems like you do
18:12   bdmurray        The idea is to link upstream bugs to Ubuntu bugs
18:13   LaserJock       especially with a package like apt it's very helpful information
18:13   davmor2 Sounds like a plan
18:13   bdmurray        heno: I put a wee bit of documentation in the README for the project but its really straight forward
18:13   heno    perhaps we need a tools page under the hug day pages - we could move the 5-a-day and editmoin text  there
18:14   heno    they currently take up a fair bit of space on each hug day page
18:14   LaserJock       heno: I was actually thinking about having a Hug Day .deb
18:14   heno    LaserJock: or at least a bugsquad .deb
18:14   LaserJock       or more generally a bugsquader .deb
18:14   LaserJock       lol
18:14   ara     one question, if we find an upstream bug, let's say, for gedit, that it is already filed in debian bug tracking system, which one should we link?
18:14   heno    :)
18:15   ara     the gnome bug tracker or the debian?
18:15   ara     both?
18:15   greg-g  LaserJock/ heno: ++
18:15   LaserJock       ara:  both seems reasonable to me
18:15   heno    So: Try the new debian bugs tool!
18:15   bdmurray        I'd definitely link the Launchpad bug to the debian bug
18:15   ara     ok, thanks bdmurray
18:15   heno    [TOPIC]: Ubuntu testing teams (St├ęphaneGraber)
18:15   MootBot New Topic: : Ubuntu testing teams (St├ęphaneGraber)
18:16   bdmurray        The other way might be less useful and you have to use an e-mail interface to work with debian bugs
18:16   stgraber        ok, so we currently have basically one team of testers for each derivatives
18:16   LaserJock       cody-somerville: ping?
18:16   cody-somerville LaserJock, pong
18:16   LaserJock       ah, there you are
18:16   stgraber        that's over 400 members counting for all testing teams we have
18:17   stgraber        unfortunately we only see a very small part of those participating in ISO testing
18:17   stgraber        I don't know if that's better with SRU testing but those team doesn't seem very useful to me as they currently are
18:18   stgraber        because people join them and forget about them some weeks later, we don't have a way to contact those testers and don't have (AFAIK) any kind of structure in place at the moment
18:18   stgraber        if we take ISO testing as an example, I'd say that for Hardy final testing we had only like 15-20 testers most of them testing distributions they don't use usually
18:18   LaserJock       not being able to contact people is particularly difficult
18:18   heno    so you're suggesting a restricted testing team like bug-control?
18:19   heno    that would let us track it better and might instil more commitment
18:19   stgraber        no, I don't think having a restricted team is a good idea but we clearly need to document what the team is for and maybe setup a team mailinglist on LP so we can send call for testing a week before an Alpha
18:20   persia  Given the nature of testing, and the desire for more testers, it may be best to have clearly inviting language for any such restricted team "Anyone can join, just ask.  Renewals every three months.  Members are expected to participate in x% of testing targets for the team".
* persia retracts the comment, seeing that it won't be a restricted team
18:20   LaserJock       stgraber: are there expirations on memebrship?
18:20   sbeattie        is there a reason not to encourage subscription to the ubuntu-qa@ list and announce testing there?
18:20   LaserJock       sbeattie: yeah :-)
18:21   heno    or we could have two levels, modelled on bugsquad/bug-control
18:21   stgraber        there is 6 months expiry IIRC
18:21   LaserJock       well, what if a  LP team list is created
18:21   LaserJock       and that were to be used extensively for testing announcments
18:22   LaserJock       not just "heah, Alpha3 is coming up" but "2008XXXX is invalidated, standby"
=== ubottu changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Calendar: http://fridge.ubuntu.com/event | Logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/ | 07 Dec 19:00 UTC: Mozilla Team | 02 Nov 19:00 UTC: Mozilla Team | 14 Sep 18:00 UTC: Mozilla Team | 03 Aug 18:00 UTC: Mozilla Team | 23 Aug 13:00 UTC: Xubuntu Community | 31 Jul 16:00 UTC: Ubuntu Mobile
18:22   LaserJock       I'm not particularly eager to see all that on ubuntu-qa, but on a testing team list it'd maybe make sense
18:23   heno    I'm wondering how well the current email notification is working
18:23   stgraber        what I'd propose as a start is: reduce expiry to 3 months, create a mailing-list
18:23   persia  I thought having LP lists for Ubuntu teams was discouraged.
18:23   stgraber        heno: not well as it's opt-in and people don't generally enable it
18:23   LaserJock       persia: it is, but in this case it might be a good idea
18:23   heno    it's not very good at differentiating between alphas and major milestones where we need more testing
18:24   heno    stgraber: sounds good
18:24   LaserJock       persia: in the sense of using it specifically to contact members of the team
18:24   LaserJock       not for general discussion
18:25   heno    we should then look at posting tracker updates automatically to that list
18:25   stgraber        we currently have 81 users with e-mail notification turned on
18:25   heno    and make sure it's easy for people to filter
18:25   heno    by having rich header info
18:25   LaserJock       stgraber: you can get email notification from iso.qa.ubuntu.com?
18:25   stgraber        heno: we just have to create an account on the tracker and subscribe it to all the testcases
18:25   stgraber        LaserJock: yep
18:25   davmor2 LaserJock: yes
18:26   heno    I'm guessing half of them or more ignore mails for alphas
18:26   LaserJock       stgraber: didn't know that, interesting :-)
18:26   heno    I'm happy for stgraber to reduce expiry to 3 months, create a mailing-list - any objections?
18:27   davmor2 go for it :)
18:27   LaserJock       I would just add that I think we could also clarify some of the pages
18:27   stgraber        heno: btw, can you also make me a team administrator ? pochu wanted to when he left the team but only the owner can do that :)
18:27   stgraber        LaserJock: +1
18:27   LaserJock       like the team page and perhaps the wiki page
18:27   heno    stgraber: will do
=== ubottu changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Calendar: http://fridge.ubuntu.com/event | Logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/ | 24 Jul 14:00 UTC: Java Team | 24 Jul 16:00 UTC: Ubuntu Mobile | 25 Jul 20:00 UTC: MOTU | 31 Jul 16:00 UTC: Ubuntu Mobile | 02 Aug 13:00 UTC: Xubuntu Community | 03 Aug 18:00 UTC: Mozilla Team
18:27   heno    ok, next
18:28   heno    [TOPIC]: QA liaison to Launchpad (LaserJock)
18:28   MootBot New Topic: : QA liaison to Launchpad (LaserJock)
18:28   LaserJock       heno: are we talking about a @lists.ubuntu.com mailing list?
18:28   heno    LaserJock: an LP one I think
18:28   LaserJock       heno: we may need to discuss that later, lets move on for now
18:29   LaserJock       ok, so in #ubuntu-quality the other day we were discussing some possible improvements to Launchpad that would help in QA efforts
18:29   heno    ok, I don't have strong feelings about where the list sits
18:29   LaserJock       and thekorn, greg-g and some others were talking about having a QA Liaison to Launchpad
18:29   LaserJock       similar to what the MOTU have
18:30   ara     can anyone give a some background on this, please?
18:30   LaserJock       there was also some discussion about possibly teaming the liaisons together to form a "Launchpad Advisory board" or some such
18:30   bdmurray        Would a Canonical employee be okay in this role?  We meet with them fairly regularly
18:30   LaserJock       bdmurray: I'd really rather not
18:31   heno    I think that makes sense - several Canonical folks already have good connections with the LP team, but a community voice would be valuable as well
18:31   LaserJock       nothing personal about Canonical employees, but part of the issues that come up is that Launchpad developers communicate with other Canonical employees more often then they do with community people
18:32   bdmurray        I thought this was a liason role though
18:32   LaserJock       so I think it'd probably be better to get an "outside" person
18:32   LaserJock       it is
18:32   LaserJock       but it's not a Canonical-Canonical liaison role, if you know what I  mean
18:32   greg-g  Canonical-CommunityMemeber-Community, Canonical-Canonical-Community
18:33   greg-g  but a "not" between those two
18:33   greg-g  s/but/put
* greg-g grrs
* persia suspects that some Canonical people may be able to balance the difference, but that a non-Canonical person may be more approachable
18:33   LaserJock       ara: the background is that it's difficult for Launchpad developers to prioritize or even figure out what needs to be done when there are hundreds of voices in their ear
18:34   LaserJock       ara: so having a person appointed as a go-between helps Launchpad developers and our team get things we need done
18:35   heno    I'm wondering what form the liasing would take - maintaing a wiki page of QA team wishlist items would be good
18:35   LaserJock       persia: agreed, very much so
18:35   bdmurray        LaserJock: and I think there is a fair bit of overlap between what I want and what the rest of the team wants - subsequently some points may become redudant
18:35   greg-g  heno: we kinda have a starting of that now: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/IdeaPool
18:35   heno    and be in contact with the LP team on IRC and at UDSes
18:36   LaserJock       heno: for instance, the MOTU liaison uses a "motu" tag, which is a recognized Launchpad tag to prioritize bugs
18:36   bdmurray        LaserJock: there already is an ubuntu-qa tag
18:36   LaserJock       heno: they also work with LP people on upcoming specs that are relevant to MOTU
18:36   heno    greg-g: thanks, we could tighten that and ask the LP team to look at it
18:36   LaserJock       bdmurray: yes, I'm aware of that
18:37   greg-g  heno: it is most certainly a work in progress, fyi :)
18:37   LaserJock       anyway, this is really part of a larger effort to create a team of people who LP dev/management can go to
18:38   LaserJock       and the community can work through
18:38   heno    If the LP team is open to an additional contact point, I'd be happy to see someone like thekorn in this role
18:39   davmor2 need to go I'll catch up on the rest :)
18:39   LaserJock       heno: they are indeed
18:40   heno    the person should know LP from a few angles and should ideally have met LP bugs members already at a UDS or so
=== mdz_ is now known as mdz
18:40   LaserJock       sure
18:41   LaserJock       I was just going to throw out a "who all wants to do it" email to ubuntu-qa and go from there
18:41   heno    perhaps we should post a request for applications ...
18:41   bdmurray        Somebody already checked with the launchpad team then?
18:42   LaserJock       bdmurray: yes, I did
18:42   heno    The LP team have some say in the selection of the MOTU liason, is that right?
18:42   LaserJock       heno: well, yes, and no
18:43   LaserJock       they don't technically but it'd be odd to have somebody do it that the LP people don't want to work with
18:43   LaserJock       so generally you want somebody who has a good working relationship with them
18:44   LaserJock       I can work up a job description, etc. and post it with my email to ubuntu-qa
18:44   heno    I don't remember what the selection process was like
18:45   LaserJock       I was the MOTU liaison for a long time (it's now siretart)
18:45   persia  For MOTU, we've always accepted volunteers.  If someone was unsuitable (which has yet to happen), MOTU would likely call for replacement.
18:45   heno    We should work out how this person collaborates with the Canonical QA team members who already have close connections with the LP team though
18:45   LaserJock       heno: well, there is that
18:46   bdmurray        I really think there is a risk of a lot of duplication of effort
18:46   LaserJock       to a fairly large extent what Canonical QA wants to do is up to them :-)
18:46   ara     duplication or overlapping
18:46   heno    In reality our requirements are generally the same
18:46   ara     communication between this person and Canonical QA is also important
18:46   persia  overlapping can be good, if supportive and collaborative
18:47   bdmurray        It doesn't seem efficient to me though
18:47   heno    the Canonical Ubuntu QA team works in the open, apart from a few support cases
18:47   LaserJock       also keep in mind, this is hopefully a part of a larger liaison team
18:47   heno    where we have to preserve customer privacy
18:47   LaserJock       I would like to see QA representation there
18:48   heno    we are building a lot of teams here ;)
18:48   LaserJock       heno: hopefully only good and useful ones ;-)
18:49   LaserJock       I definatelly see where bdmurray is coming from
18:49   heno    We discussed some feature additions to LP bugs at the sprint in London last week - I suggest we flesh out the notes in the ubuntu wiki and discuss it at next weeks meeting
18:50   LaserJock       but my guess is that duplication shouldn't be an issue
18:50   heno    we can then add requests from this group and see whether there is a need for a new team to represent that list
18:51   heno    I think we would be able to agree on the whole list in this meeting format and present that to the LP team as a common list
18:51   heno    then we need to follow that up as LP makes their releases
18:52   heno    with the items in the open wiki we can all follow along
18:52   LaserJock       well, there is a lot more than wiki pages
18:52   heno    such as?
18:52   LaserJock       filing bugs, following up, getting information on upcoming changes in LP
18:53   LaserJock       talking with the LP devs to see what things can be done, etc.
18:53   LaserJock       it's not mearly just presenting them with a wishlist
18:53   LaserJock       as that will almost certainly be largly ignored
18:54   heno    not if we present it as our common feature request list
18:54   LaserJock       lol
18:54   LaserJock       alright, we can try that then, if you think it will work
18:55   heno    let's see how that looks next week, and then reconsider posting the role
18:55   LaserJock       ok
18:55   heno    [TOPIC]: Intrepid Roadmap (LaserJock)
18:56   LaserJock       ok
18:56   LaserJock       so there's the great spec list at QATeam/Specs
18:57   LaserJock       but as we're building the Ubuntu QA team mid-release I wondered if it would be useful to combine Intrepid specs with community efforts into an Intrepid roadmap page
18:58   LaserJock       for Intrepid+1 it should flow much more naturally, but currently there's not a Roadmap for non-spec tasks
18:58   LaserJock       so the question is, does that seem like a fruitful thing to do?
18:59   heno    Roadmaps are good - should some of these things be written up as specs though?
18:59   LaserJock       heno: some yeah
18:59   LaserJock       I just didn't want to interfer with the existing material
19:00   heno    LaserJock: what are the non-spec items you have in mind?
19:01   LaserJock       well, more like bitesized tasks, people can get kind of turned off by "specs" as to large of a process to go through
19:01   LaserJock       I'm more interested in track what people in the team are doing
19:01   ara     LaserJock: can we get some examples?
19:01   LaserJock       ara: simple tools
19:02   heno    we already have todo lists for the bugs team
19:02   ara     like the ones at ubuntu-qa-tools ??
19:02   heno    (and for testing?)
19:02   LaserJock       or community projects, or things that are just not "big" enough to warrant a full on spec
19:03   heno    https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad/TODO
19:03   LaserJock       heno: yeah, so I'd like to have an roadmap that indicates what we as a group want to accomplish for Intrepid
19:03   heno    LaserJock: fine with me - feel free to start a page
19:03   LaserJock       heno: yeah, that's good stuff
19:04   heno    let's review it next week
19:04   persia  It may also be good to use un-spec'd Roadmap items as "future" when completing them within the current release cycle is likely infeasible.
19:04   LaserJock       I just don't want people to *not* do work because they think they need a full-on spec to do it
19:04   heno    right
19:04   LaserJock       if it needs a spec go for it
19:04   LaserJock       but I'm more interested in tracking work
19:05   heno    we should in fact review such a list every 4 weeks or so
19:05   LaserJock       we've collected a pretty significant team in Ubuntu QA, more than I had hoped for
19:05   LaserJock       but it needs to be doing stuff ;-)
19:06   heno    right, we should wrap up this meeting and do some ISO testing!
19:06   stgraber        +1
19:06   heno    any further topics?
19:06   stgraber        yes, a short one
19:06   stgraber        has anyone taken note last week ?
19:06   heno    not me unfortunately
19:07   heno    #endmeeting
19:07   MootBot Meeting finished at 13:09.
19:07   heno    thanks everyone! good meeting :)
19:07   schwuk  thanks heno
19:07   stgraber        thanks
19:07   sbeattie        sorry, I didn't take notes last week, either.
19:08   stgraber        if someone did, please update the meeting page on the wiki. It currently only contains the agenda.
19:08   ara     well, thanks everybody
19:08   ara     bye,

MeetingLogs/QATeam/20080723 (last edited 2008-08-06 17:00:37 by localhost)