[18:08] <heno_> #startmeeting
[18:08] <heno_> sorry
[18:09] <persia> I'd like to request that meetings generally happen here unless there is an overriding reason to do it somewhere else: the bot here helps advertise the meeting, and many interested parties will idle here.
[18:09] <heno_> we are in fact on agenda item #1 now
[18:09] <LaserJock> heno_: perhaps on an as-needed basis based on a felt need in the IRC meeting?
[18:09] <persia> What's the link for the agenda again?
[18:09] <heno_> persia: agreed
[18:09] <LaserJock> persia: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/Meetings
[18:09] <intellectronica> persia: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/Meetings
[18:09] <persia> Thanks :)
[18:09] <intellectronica> LaserJock: high five
[18:10] <heno_> does anyone know what the limit on skype conf calls is ATM? is that 5 or can it be worked around?
[18:10] <intellectronica> iirc it's still 5
[18:10] <nullack> What if we used team speak or something?
[18:11] <heno_> that would probably be better than phone for many
[18:11] <LaserJock> well, realistically having more than 5 people in a voice conversation is going to get messy anyway
[18:11] <heno_> nullack: can you expand on it's features and what's needed to run it?
[18:12] <stgraber> heno_: a teamspeak server and the client, it can have multiple channels and some moderation. But it's non-free
[18:12] <heno_> (I think we used it at UDS once)
[18:12] <nullack> Its used typically in gaming for teams of people = free to use, uses UDP, you can setup security on your chan, multiple servers
[18:12] <stgraber> IIRC it was used at UDS-Paris
[18:12] <heno_> indeed
[18:12] <nullack> There is alternative non free
[18:12] <heno_> skype is non-free too though
[18:13] <intellectronica> actually, skype may allow up to 10 users now (but we'll have to check)
[18:13] <heno_> stgraber: would you be comfortable hosting conversations?
[18:14] <pedro_> intellectronica: indeed -> http://share.skype.com/sites/en/2006/02/we_now_have_10way_conference_c.html
[18:14] <persia> I think that "mumble" is the name of the free teamspeak like thing.
[18:14] <intellectronica> i would give skype a priority (despite being non-free) if it works at all. when it does work, it tends to be simpler to use than oterh solutions. in my team we've tried many different solutions and ended up coming back to skype every time
[18:15] <heno_> I agree
[18:16] <intellectronica> and i have the required hardware for hosting 10 people calls, so i'm happy to host
[18:16] <davmor2> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Ekiga do the list is conference calls it sounds feasible
[18:16] <stgraber> heno_: I'm doing some TS hosting for some game team so I can just add a servr to that host yes
[18:16] <heno_> excellent, thanks
[18:16] <ScottK> FYI the current Skype client does not work well in Hardy Kubuntu.  Dunno about Gnome.
[18:17] <heno_> ScottK: is that the binary from the skype site?
[18:17] <pedro_> ScottK: it works fine for me with in Gnome with Hardy and Intrepid
[18:17] <ScottK> Yes.
[18:17] <intellectronica> ScottK: works fine for me, but on some installations you need to use the portaudio wrapper to make sure it interoperates well with the sound system
[18:18] <ScottK> intellectronica: I'd appreciate some additional info on that outside the meeting.
[18:18] <heno_> it may also have issues on 64 bit systems
[18:18] <ScottK> Mine are all 32bit.
[18:18] <heno_> ok
[18:19] <ScottK> I had more luck with the one for Sid than Ubuntu, but maybe I should try it again.
[18:19] <davmor2> I run skype on my n800 only
[18:19] <heno_> let's try skype for the next LP/Ubuntu meeting
[18:19] <cgregan> Perhaps a naive question, but, we need a free tool for conversations....there are a few out there..why not focus some of the community testing/dev resources attention toward one and get it in shape? Ekiga Week...or something.
[18:19] <heno_> but we should also be on IRC
[18:20] <heno_> that's a point, but the world uses skype, which we also need to support
[18:21] <heno_> on a related topic intellectronica and bdmurray have combined the feedback from the prioritisation discussion
[18:22] <intellectronica> i have passed this to the launchpad mgmt team for consideration, b.t.w
[18:22] <LaserJock> is that available somewhere?
[18:23] <intellectronica> iirc it will be discussed next week
[18:23] <intellectronica> LaserJock: it's in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/LaunchpadBugsFeaturePriorities
[18:24] <LaserJock> hmm, I thought TagDiscipline was much higher on the list
[18:25] <heno_> hm, looks like that doesn't have updated numbers
[18:25] <intellectronica> i may have missed something. i thought that wiki page was updated to reflect the latest discussions, but i may have been wrong
[18:25] <heno_> I'm afraid that's fallen between chairs, sorry
[18:26] <intellectronica> does anyone know where i can find the latest decisions? i'm happy to update this page from the data
[18:26] <bdmurray> I believe some people replied with their opinion to the ubuntu-qa mailing list
[18:26] <heno_> I was meant to but never got to it and though you guys had picked that up
[18:26] <heno_> bdmurray: right but some synthesis work is needed
[18:27] <bdmurray> right
[18:27] <heno_> OK, I'll take that tomorrow then
[18:27] <intellectronica> i don't mind collecting this data from the list, but i think someone from your team will need to ok this before i submit
[18:27] <heno_> I had actually promised to do that 10 days ago
[18:28] <bdmurray> We could add columns for each member perhaps? then heno could synthesize it
[18:28] <LaserJock> related to that, I'm not sure the MOTU column is exactly needed ;-)
[18:29] <heno_> I think I may take a more hand-wavy approach
[18:29] <intellectronica> bdmurray: wouldn't that be overkill? remember also, that we want results fairly quickly, before the end of the week
[18:29] <intellectronica> LaserJock: no, MOTU is done elsewhere
[18:29] <heno_> I'll read the list and meeting log
[18:29] <LaserJock> the meeting log should be pretty good, we were able to thrash things out a bit
[18:29] <heno_> indeed
[18:30] <heno_> if we're done with that, I have a new topic
[18:30] <heno_> QA server
[18:30] <LaserJock> did we cover the first agenda item?
[18:31] <heno_> intellectronica: did you get your questions answered?
[18:31] <intellectronica> heno_: sort of. i think we'll have to make sure that we're sorted well before the next summit meeting
[18:32] <intellectronica> we have two weeks, though, so i'll try to talk to people until then
[18:32] <LaserJock> I haven't seen thekorn around, I was sort of waiting on his reply to my email :/
[18:32] <heno_> right. time and place will be monday in ~10 days in #ubuntu-quality
[18:33] <heno_> what should be the time, 16.00 UTC?
[18:34] <intellectronica> that's the current time, so unless it's inconveninent for someone who wants to participate, let's leave it like that
[18:34] <ara> +1
[18:34] <heno_> let's all make sure we have skype working by then
[18:34] <intellectronica> i'll host the meeting on skype, and try to gather people (up to 10 of them :) in the run up to the meeting
[18:34] <heno_> *cough*
[18:34] <heno_> intellectronica: thanks
[18:35] <heno_> [TOPIC]: QA server
[18:35] <LaserJock> let's have an agenda set prior though :-)
[18:35] <heno_> on the wiki
[18:35] <persia> Wait, what's happening in #ubuntu-quality?  Why not here?
[18:36] <LaserJock> persia: I don't think anything's happening in #ubuntu-quality, it's a voice meeting
[18:36] <heno_> persia: it's primarily a voice meeting
[18:36] <persia> OK.  I just saw "time and place will be monday in ~10 days in #ubuntu-quality" which didn't seem to match what else I was reading.
[18:37] <heno_> with a precense on IRC for those with skype problems ;)
[18:37] <persia> RIght.  No reason not to pass URLs, etc. for a voice meeting in #ubuntu-quality: most of us are likely to be there anyway :)
[18:37] <heno_> persia: my bad
[18:37] <persia> heno_: Or just me having trouble understanding things at this time of night :)
[18:37] <heno_> QA server>
[18:38] <heno_> I understand a new box is now installed and powered up in the DC
[18:38] <ara> that's great news
[18:38] <heno_> where we can move our package info pages, bug helper scripts, graphs etc
[18:39] <heno_> we need to give feedback on what URLs and such we want
[18:39] <bdmurray> Its still missing a dns entry though right?
[18:39] <LaserJock> .... so is it just as tight as usual DC access?
[18:39] <heno_> qa.ubuntu.com is currently the 'portal'
[18:39] <sbeattie> we have cron access, etc?
[18:39] <heno_> bdmurray: right
[18:39] <heno_> sbeattie: we should, yes
[18:40] <ara> is it documented somewhere how to access?
[18:40] <heno_> should we still use *.qa.u.c ut forward the root URL to the drupal box?
[18:40] <ara> or not yet?
[18:41] <bdmurray> ara: I can talk to you about that
[18:41] <ara> bdmurray: ok, thanks
[18:41] <heno_> ara: it's not set up yet, but it will be now when we say what we want on it etc
[18:41] <heno_> Lamont is handling it
[18:42] <heno_> stgraber: do you have strong feelings about the dns handling?
[18:42] <heno_> and where will the package pages live?
[18:42] <heno_> status.qa.u.c/firefox etc?
[18:43] <stgraber> heno_: just let me read the backlog
[18:43] <stgraber> oh, we have a new box. Happy to hear that :)
[18:44] <heno_> stgraber and ogasawara: can you two agree on the namespace for the package pages?
[18:44] <stgraber> *. pointing to Drupal was done with the multiple trackers in mind, now I'd rather like to remove some of them so I guess it's fine to just drop that entry
[18:45] <stgraber> in the devel branch, package status are on : http://pkgstatus.qa.ubuntu.com/<package name>
[18:46] <heno_> ok, cool
[18:46] <LaserJock> heno_: who's gonna have access to this box?
[18:46] <heno_> so we just need to agree on the first part of that URL
[18:46] <heno_> LaserJock: that will be Canonical folks only unfortunately
[18:47] <heno_> that's IS policy for the DC
[18:47] <LaserJock> heno_: ok
[18:47] <heno_> should it be 'status', 'pkgstatus', ...?
[18:47] <bdmurray> maybe status since there will be team pages too
[18:48] <heno_> right
[18:48] <LaserJock> so is this in addition to the qa.ubuntu.com box?
[18:48] <stgraber> well, at least for this box Canonical QA guys can access it, AFAIK they couldn't access kumquat (current qa.ubuntu.com) :)
[18:48] <stgraber> so it's "more open" than what we currently have (need to ask sysadmins for every changes we want to make)
[18:49] <LaserJock> so is the plan to move qa.ubuntu.com to the new box?
[18:49] <heno_> do we have consensus on 'status'?
[18:49] <persia> If we have things that need access of one sort or another, we might be able to ask the Ubuntuwire folk for some hosting, although UWSA has their own set of policies.
[18:50] <heno_> LaserJock: not the portal, as that's drupal
[18:50] <ogasawara> heno_:  'status' is fine with me
[18:50] <stgraber> LaserJock: I guess only python stuff will run on the new box
[18:50] <LaserJock> heno_: ah, I see
[18:50] <LaserJock> stgraber: heh, I see
[18:50] <LaserJock> I think we should maybe have a wiki page for QA resources
[18:51] <LaserJock> that would list the boxen available and what their limitations are
[18:51] <heno_> And this is a php-free box
[18:51] <heno_> the drupal box is php-only
[18:51] <heno_> ok, let's go with that
[18:51] <heno_> any other business?
[18:52] <stgraber> heno_: it's not php-only, we have some python code too (syncronisation with LP)
[18:52] <LaserJock> we could then also list QA-related services that aren't hosted on one of those 3 so people can see where things are at
[18:52] <heno_> stgraber: could you give a list of the URLs that will need forwarding?
[18:52] <heno_> qa.* and iso.qa.*
[18:53] <heno_> for sure
[18:53] <stgraber> brainstorm too
[18:53] <stgraber> blog
[18:53] <heno_> what else do we still need at this point
[18:53] <stgraber> firefox ?
[18:53] <heno_> brainstorm as it's on entry at bs.u.c though
[18:53] <stgraber> right
[18:53] <heno_> right, firefox gets used still
[18:53] <stgraber> wait a second, I'll have a look at the DB
[18:54] <stgraber> firefox.qa.ubuntu.com, iso.qa.ubuntu.com, qa.ubuntu.com, blog.qa.ubuntu.com, status.qa.ubuntu.com
[18:55] <stgraber> and we then drop: kernel.qa.ubuntu.com, server.qa.ubuntu.com, xorg.qa.ubuntu.com
[18:55] <heno_> sounds good
[18:56] <heno_> and we may redirect iso.qa a few weeks after intrepid is out :)
[18:56] <stgraber> yeah
[18:57] <heno_> anything else, shall we wrap up?
[18:57] <stgraber> nothing here
[18:57] <stgraber> except that my home internet is quite broken atm so don't expect me to do much ISO testing or be able to attend a phone call before a few weeks (hopefully days)
[18:58] <davmor2> :(
[18:58] <ara> :(
[18:58] <sbeattie> Just wanted to thank everyone who helped knock down the pending SRU queue, it's looking better.
[18:59] <heno_> right. and I'll still be a bit tricky to contact until Monday
[18:59] <heno_> as I'm still sprinting
[18:59] <heno_> full day of talks still tomorrow and friday
[19:00] <davmor2> stgraber: I might not be around for the next alpha on holiday :(  so please get it fixed :)
[19:00] <stgraber> I'll try :)
[19:00] <nullack> heh
[19:00] <stgraber> connection at work is good though, I may download here and test at home
[19:00] <sbeattie> Oh, were we going to try to do a global bug testing session?
[19:00] <heno_> let me just finish by pointing everyone at http://people.ubuntu.com/~brian/graphs/
[19:00] <stgraber> if I'm lucky I can then use rsync
[19:00] <heno_> look at New bugs over the past 30 days
[19:01] <heno_> it's down by about 2000 bugs!
[19:01] <davmor2> cool :)
[19:01] <heno_> testing Jam> good idea
[19:01] <pedro_> nice ;-)
[19:01] <heno_> I mentioned it for Jono today
[19:01] <ara> cool :-)
[19:02] <heno_> who will ask Daniel to have a look at helping set that up
[19:02] <heno_> based on his work with the bug jam
[19:02] <heno_> should we aim for around beta some time?
[19:03] <bdmurray> I was saying that seemed too late
[19:03] <heno_> should that include both iso and sru testing of some form?
[19:03] <LaserJock> at this point I think the earliest we can feasibly get it organized is best
[19:04] <bdmurray> We want to have it well before kernel freeze as an ISO testing jam would reveal those bugs the most
[19:04] <bdmurray> Since everyone will be testing on different hardware
[19:04] <heno_> bdmurray: because it takes longer to get people trained up to test properly before final or because the bugs are less useful that late?
[19:04] <cr3> heno_: could we take the opportunity of the testing jam to introduce automated testing and encourage people to contribute scripts?
[19:04] <heno_> cr3: indeed, how is that looking btw?
[19:04] <cr3> heno_: should we have the testcases wiki page ready before the testing jam so that they could also contribute manual tests
[19:04] <davmor2> heno_: Yes I think people enabling proposed and not wanting to move to intrepid can hit sru
[19:05] <heno_> perhaps we should run it more like a testing open week with tutorials
[19:06] <davmor2> can I get an extra confirmation on a bug please can someone try and use ekiga to connect to 500@ekiga.net ?
[19:06] <heno_> rather than aiming for testing volume
[19:06] <LaserJock> well, in my mind I was sort of thinking of it like an install fest
[19:06] <cr3> heno_: what do you mean by "how is that looking"? enabling the community to submit results to the certification server?
[19:06] <davmor2> it should just hang straight up :(
[19:06] <LaserJock> except when it breaks, rather than saying "Ubuntu sucks!" people will file bugs :-)
[19:06] <heno_> we would rather build up some good testers than test lots of stuff poorly
[19:07] <cr3> LaserJock: perhaps we should have sucks.ubuntu.com redirect to bugs.launchpad.net
[19:07] <LaserJock> heno_: probably a combination of both would happen
[19:07] <heno_> agreed
[19:07] <LaserJock> good hardware coverage is good, even if the testing quality isn't all that great
[19:08] <LaserJock> basic, does it install? does it boot? is great there
[19:08] <LaserJock> but then we do want to get testing past basically ISO/installation testing I'm guessing
[19:08] <persia> Given the history of the "Global Bug Jam", I'd advocate first getting something like "Test Days" in analog to "Bug Days".  Then, look for LoCo integration with a few pilots, and only after the procedure is well documented, try for a big Global effort.
[19:08] <nullack> Laserjock: especially if good services like apport have good functionality users skill wont be the limiting factor with a wider hardware test
[19:09] <heno_> how should we track testing
[19:09] <heno_> ?
[19:09] <heno_> should we set up a fake milestone in the iso tracker?
[19:09] <LaserJock> persia: yeah, I was hoping we could move fast enough to get a Testing Jam in before Intrepid, but I'm starting to think that's a bit too ambitious
[19:09] <heno_> and how early can we pull one off
[19:10] <ara> we could set up something similar to session based testing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Session-based_testing
[19:10] <heno_> if we down scale it we can do it sooner
[19:10] <LaserJock> I like the idea of having a few Testing Days
[19:10] <heno_> i.e. not use the word global just yet
[19:10] <heno_> I agree with persio that we should build it a bit gradually
[19:10] <LaserJock> to be more tutorial, work on the documentation and tools
[19:10] <persia> My memory was that it took about a year to go from the concept of Bug Jam to the Global Bug Jam.
[19:11] <heno_> but we should aim to do the first 'small' day soon
[19:11] <persia> With concerted effort, this could probably be 5-6 months, but sooner would be hard.
[19:11] <LaserJock> well, I was sort of banking on "standing on the shoulders of giants" and not taking so long ;-)
[19:11] <persia> Maybe announce a special "Testing Day" to coincide with the release of the next Alpha, to be conducted in #ubuntu-testing?
[19:12] <persia> Send lots of mail, and make sure to schedule people to be active and talking about their testing for all 49 hours of the international day.
[19:12] <persia> That's the model that worked to get Bug Days up and running.
[19:12] <LaserJock> +1
[19:12] <persia> (way back in Hoary/Breezy days)
[19:13] <persia> Oh, for the 5-6 month effort, I'll break it down:
[19:13]  * heno_ wait for the release schedule page to load
[19:13] <persia> 2 months to get people adapted to attending regular Testing Days
[19:13] <persia> 1 month to organise the first couple LoCos running a Testing Jam
[19:14] <persia> 1 month to review, discuss, and document the experience and prepare a guide for next time, perhaps including a trial of the updates with a couple other LoCos.
[19:14] <persia> Another month of press blitz to spread the word about the new working process, and let all the LoCos schedule space and prepare for a Global Jam.
[19:15] <persia> That's 5, but I think it's an agressive schedule.
[19:15] <persia> 6 would be having the updated procedure trial in a separate month from review/discussion.
[19:18] <ara> split?
[19:18] <persia> Indeed.
[19:18] <Treenaks> quite
[19:22] <heno__> sorry my wireless dropped out
[19:22] <ara> well, a lot of people dropped
[19:22] <heno__> I was going to suggest Tuesday before Alpha 5 as a testing day
[19:23] <heno__> and perhaps do them for the remaining milestones
[19:23] <persia> I think for the first day, it may be better to be post-Alpha.  While this may not be a core testing day, it would mean that the normal testers are more likely to have time to support the new testers.
=== nizarus_ is now known as nizarus
[19:23] <sbeattie> Hrm, alpha 5 release coincides with the developer week, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDeveloperWeek/Prep
[19:24] <sbeattie> would we want to tie in with that?
[19:24] <persia> Also, the new testers are sure to find a couple minor issues that also need reporting, but will need guidance on using the various trackers, etc.
[19:24] <heno__> but we really need people to get their head around how the test crunch works
[19:24] <persia> Oh.  That's not ideal.  One can rarely get people's attention for more than a couple hours during Developer Week.
[19:24] <davmor2> heno__: beta might be better
[19:24] <heno__> and regular testers will be a bit tired of testing after the release :)
[19:25] <persia> heno__: Sure, people need to understand that, but I think showing them the procedures the first time will make the new testers feel more successful, and you can add the pressure the second time, when you have a larger group that understands what needs doing.
[19:25] <persia> And the regular testers will probably find they are spending time helping the new testers test and report, rather than actually testing (at least this was my experience during the early Bug Days)
[19:26] <nullack> Or dealing with existing issues - the known issues list should probably be expanded
[19:27] <heno__> should it be a weekday (friday after alpha 5 then say)?
[19:28] <heno__> weekend days were quite slow past open week
[19:28] <heno__> AFAIR
[19:28] <heno__> davmor2, sbeattie: are you happy with the Friday?
[19:28] <persia> We ran the first bug days on the weekends, and nobody came.  We switched to weekdays, and got some people, but many of them complained they should have been on the weekends.  I'm really not sure how to interpret that data...
[19:28] <heno__> sept 5th
[19:29] <davmor2> heno__: I will still be on holiday :(
[19:29] <davmor2> I get back sunday 7th
[19:29] <heno__> ok
[19:30] <heno__> ara, stgraber, cr3: any views on the Friday?
[19:30] <sbeattie> heno__: it fits my schedule, I think.
[19:30] <ara> heno__: i will be travelling for the weekend (london) that weekend
=== ubottu changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Calendar: http://fridge.ubuntu.com/event | Logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/ | 21 Aug 12:00: Ubuntu Mobile Team | 26 Aug 15:00: Server Team | 21 Aug 13:00: Desktop Team | 25 Aug 04:00: Arizona LoCo IRC | 21 Aug 14:00: Ubuntu Java Team | 22 Aug 12:00: Ubuntu MOTU
[19:30] <ara> heno__: therefore, i wont be able to stay after 2pm (madrid time)
[19:31] <sbeattie> I'm just concerned about persia's point about it being hard to get people's attention during developer week.
[19:31] <heno__> we should make it clear that the alpha 6 day and beyond will be pre-milestone though
[19:31] <heno__> sbeattie: for a Friday even?
[19:31] <sbeattie> heno__: -ENOCLUE, persia?
[19:32] <persia> Depends on what gets scheduled for Friday.  It's often a full schedule for both Friday and Saturday, by the end of scheduling.
[19:32] <heno__> let's try that and see how it goes
[19:32] <persia> Anyway, despite my preference for having meetings here, we're half an hour overtime, and it doesn't feel like we're still on an agenda: should we be in #ubuntu-quality?
[19:33] <heno__> we're at 90 minutes now, let's wrap up
[19:33] <heno__> indeed
[19:33] <cr3> Friday sounds good
[19:33] <heno__> #endmeeting

MeetingLogs/QATeam/20080820 (last edited 2008-09-11 15:21:14 by 68)