20080910

Log

UTC

[18:03] <heno> #startmeeting
[18:03] <MootBot> Meeting started at 12:03. The chair is heno.
[18:03] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[18:03] <schwuk> Hi all
[18:04] <LaserJock> hi everybody
[18:04] <heno> I didn't see any agenda items, but I've just added some ... https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/Meetings
[18:05] <heno> First let's do a quick round-table of what QA work everyone has been up to this week
[18:05] <heno> [TOPIC] Round table
[18:05] <MootBot> New Topic:  Round table
[18:06] <ara_> ok, I'll start
[18:06] <heno> schwuk and I had a 2-day sprint where we talked about the certification site and reporting from test runs
[18:06]  * stgraber waves
[18:06] <ara_> or not :)
[18:06] <heno> ara_: go ahead
[18:06] <LaserJock> ara_: alphabetical order? :-)
[18:07] <heno> schwuk: can you give a a summary after that?
[18:07] <ara_> ok, last week I have following LDTP 1.3 Feature Freeze exception
[18:07] <ara_> and it was finally accepted
[18:07] <schwuk> heno: sure
[18:07] <ara_> therefore Intrepid will be released with version 1.3 of LDTP which includes a lot of good bug fixes
[18:08] <ara_> apart of that I have been preparing some PPAs (already in my archive) for the testing library and the desktop tests
[18:08] <ara_> you can download them now if you want to give them a try
[18:09] <ara_> as part of the UDW I gave a session on Thursday about the desktop testing library and how to use it
[18:09] <ara_> alpha 5 testing occupied also some time
[18:10] <ara_> schwuk: you can go now if you want
[18:10] <schwuk> ara_: thanks
[18:10] <schwuk> As heno  said we had a 2-day sprint covering a few topics
[18:11] <mark_> This isn't seamonkey :/
[18:11] <schwuk> The primary focus was reporting of the data collected by the checkbox tool, and how we can present/expose it.
[18:12] <cr3> schwuk: fyi, a submission can now consist of >40K results :)
[18:12] <schwuk> We also discussed enchancements to checkbox, and encouraging participation in isotesting, especially for milestone testing.
[18:12] <schwuk> cr3: can or does?
[18:12] <cr3> schwuk: fyi2, including disk information has been committed :)
[18:12] <cr3> schwuk: does, see today's build results
[18:13] <heno> but we urgently need to get those results reported in some form
[18:13] <schwuk> Today I've been recovering from the long drive :), getting some testing hardware setup and the first cut of summary reports as discussed during the sprint.
[18:13] <heno> because X pass Y fail means nothing to observers
[18:14] <heno> I sent a summary to the list just now, but it needs more detail
[18:14] <heno> you can look at the source code of the tests but that's inconvenient :)
[18:15] <schwuk> heno: which is why we need to make them more visible/pretty
[18:15] <heno> schwuk: yep - WIP
[18:15] <cr3> heno: I was planning to add debugging information to each test so that a bug could be reported from a failure, but I was waiting for Launchpad integration beforehand. Adding debugging information is pretty easy though, so we might want to bump the priority.
[18:16] <heno> We'll report back to the list as soon as we have something readable
[18:16] <heno> cr3: it's too early to look at automated bug reporting
[18:17] <heno> ok, let's move along
[18:17] <heno> cr3 - roundtable blurb?
[18:17] <cr3> heno: well, if we introduce debugging information before Launchpad integration, that would imply manual bug reporting... but at least we'd have all the necessary information
[18:17] <cr3> heno: sure
[18:18] <heno> (actually we should prepare these ahead of time if we want this as a regular feature)
[18:18] <cr3> 1. client side queue has been completed in order to support larger submissions, such as the resulting >40K tests from: ltp, lsp and autotest.
[18:18] <davmor2> heno: could be for once a fornight
[18:19] <cr3> 2. various bugs fixed, such as loging in to certification.canonical.com, queue problems, third party test parsing.
[18:19] <heno> ok, thanks
[18:19] <heno> bdmurray: ?
[18:19] <cr3> 3. created production and staging branches for the certification website. the production code is currently online and shared by a single user on the server. staging is almost there.
[18:20] <cr3> 4. worked on alpha-5 testing which has been failing to netinstall because of a bug in dpkg, tried to workaround by reverting to the version from alpha-4 but that didn't work.
[18:20] <bdmurray> I blogged about the needs-packaging reviewer script and set it up as a cronjob on people.ubuntu.com
[18:21] <cr3> 4.1. attempted to workaround alpha-5 problems by testing daily current from today but there's now a problem with dependencies in landscape-client
[18:21] <cr3> 5. currently working on reporting installation failures which are not being reporting, only successful installations are being reported
[18:21] <heno> the landscape issue is currently being discussed in u-devel
[18:21] <bdmurray> Additionally, I need some more tweaking of the xorg validation py-lp-b script and went through a ton of xorg related bugs and validated their configs
[18:22] <bdmurray> s/need/did/
[18:22] <cr3> heno: I thought there was some automated script during the build process to detect dependency issues
[18:22] <davmor2> cr3: http://people.ubuntu.com/~ubuntu-archive/livefs-build-logs/intrepid/
[18:23] <heno> bdmurray, ogasawara: any further feedback on the package pages?
[18:23] <davmor2> cr3 go to ubuntu and then latest
[18:23] <bdmurray> heno: other than our own not much afaik
[18:24] <ogasawara> heno: I've only seen a note mdz posted
[18:24] <cr3> davmor2: only for livecd?
[18:24] <heno> I might need some more pimping :)
[18:24] <heno> ogasawara: any news?
[18:25] <cr3> schwuk: by the way, I'll be sending an email with details from the production server once completed
[18:25] <ogasawara> heno:  I'm planning on making some improvements to the pkg pages per the feature requests so I'll send some more email
[18:25] <ogasawara> heno:  re roundtable - I've just mainly been continuing to follow up with the 2.6.27 feedback from the call for testing as well as Alpha5 - final decision should be made this week re 2.6.27
[18:26] <davmor2> cr3: there are 2 places for alt http://cdimages.ubuntu.com/daily/current/ report.html which show up most but not all and http://people.ubuntu.com/~ubuntu-archive/cd-build-logs/ubuntu/intrepid/ but good luck with that one it's all gibberish to me :)
[18:27] <sbeattie> ogasawara: does it look like we'll stick with 2.6.27?
[18:27] <heno> ogasawara: thanks - hopefully we can get some more automated HW testing in before that
[18:28] <ogasawara> sbeattie: yup, it's looking like we'll go with 2.6.27 barring anything major showing up between now and the 14th
[18:28] <cr3> davmor2: those reports are very interesting, thanks so much for the heads up
[18:28] <heno> sbeattie: your turn :) I know you've been busy with partner QA
[18:29] <heno> we are trying to tigten the raise the quality of the partner packages a bit
[18:30] <sbeattie> Yeah, I've mostly been diverted with some QA on partner packages, and the process around that.
[18:30] <sbeattie> Did iso testing last week as well, and in the background have been trying to write the regression tracking scripts.
[18:30] <heno> sbeattie: I sent an email to the list about the regression testing
[18:31] <heno> please just reply to that when you have something up
[18:31] <sbeattie> heno: yep, very nice, thanks. When I get the script beaten into shape, will followup.
[18:31] <heno> ok, I've expanded https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/RegressionTracking a bit
[18:31] <heno> pedro_: ?
[18:32] <pedro_> well I've mostly doing a lot of triage as always  and ISO testing
[18:32] <pedro_> I've also working with jcastro on revamping the Bugs/* pages
[18:32] <pedro_> so far: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs
[18:32] <pedro_> would be nice if you can give us some feedback on that ;-)
[18:32] <heno> oooh, nice!
[18:33] <pedro_> I've also noticed that a couple of the QA headers page aren't too hot
[18:33] <pedro_> so i did a mockup for example for the bugsquad one
[18:33] <davmor2> ooohhhh pretty
[18:33] <pedro_> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PedroVillavicencio/test
[18:33] <pedro_> what do you guys think about that?
[18:33] <pedro_> do you want me to revamp the QA header also? ;-)
[18:33] <heno> that looks great!
[18:33] <jcastro> I think it all looks awesome
[18:33]  * pedro_ is a wiki guy for this week
[18:34] <heno> yes please :)
[18:34] <pedro_> alright will do that then, and yep that's all from me, yesterday was on leave so that's all ;-)
[18:34] <sbeattie> pedro_: +1, that's great!
[18:34] <pedro_> sbeattie: glad you like it!
[18:34] <LaserJock> pedro_: very nice
[18:35] <heno> anyone else want to report anything? stgraber, LaserJock, davmor2, jcastro ?
[18:35] <pedro_> so if you think we're missing a link or something just add them to the header ;-)
[18:35] <LaserJock> I've been doing a little Edubuntu QA lately and mostly working on my PhD
[18:35] <jcastro> heno: we're almost done with the first cut of the +upstreamreport
[18:35] <jcastro> likely next week I will ask for some feedback from bug people
[18:35] <LaserJock> but this coming week I intend to work on SRU scripts
[18:35] <cr3> I'd like to put my head on the line by saying that checkbox 0.2 better be in intrepid before next meeting :)
[18:36] <ogasawara> schwuk: re the test reports.  let me know when you've got something, I'd be happy to review and try to get the kernel team to review as well.  or you can just send us all an email.
[18:36] <davmor2> I've add this wiki page https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/CDBuildQuickTest cr3 ara may interest you.   It's just a rough but the idea is 2 quick checks will normally tell you if the daily build will install or not
[18:36] <cr3> LaserJock: SRU scripts? what do those do?
[18:36] <heno> cr3: we should really get these things in before FF for next cycle
[18:38] <ara_> davmor2: that's so good
[18:38] <cr3> davmor2: bookmarked :)
[18:38] <davmor2> Thank cjwatson for the info I just put it down for us :)
[18:39] <heno> davmor2: that looks great. We should parse those sources for the weather report, or so
[18:39] <heno> ogasawara: ^ ?
[18:39] <stgraber> heno: not much my side, Brainstorm will soon have a big update that I'm currently testing. The problem is that it requires Hardy and our server is currently on Dapper, a RT ticket has been opened.
[18:39] <cr3> heno: I'll probably want that information when I probe cdimage
[18:39] <ogasawara> heno:  I'll take a look
[18:39] <cr3> fyi, I'm only probing archive and only have stubs for cdimage
[18:40] <heno> ok, let's close the round table session, thanks everyone!
[18:40] <davmor2> Wubi is nackered I confirmed today :( https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/268123
[18:40] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 268123 in wubi "Intrepid: Wubi fails to mount sda1" [High,Confirmed]
[18:40] <heno> We've talked about test reporting
[18:40] <heno> [TOPIC] Release meeting report
[18:40] <MootBot> New Topic:  Release meeting report
[18:40] <heno> Most Fridays there is a release meeting on IRC
[18:41] <heno> the QA team should prepare a brief status report for that
[18:41] <LaserJock> cr3: generating http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/sru/todo.html and http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/sru/qa.html
[18:41] <LaserJock> cr3: sbeattie and I share code
[18:42] <heno> items to include: * serious bugs we've found, not yet on the milestone list
[18:42] <heno> * the state of our testing infrastructure - including blocking bugs for automation, kvm, etc
[18:43] <heno> these may not be blockers for the release as such, but  makes testing difficult
[18:43] <heno> What else should we include?
[18:44] <sbeattie> * new regressions (of some minimum threshold of importance?)
[18:44] <sbeattie> * iso testing results
[18:45] <davmor2> next week I'll start back on smoke testing pre-release could be fun to add those results :)
[18:45] <heno> iso results> should  be a review of iso-tagged bugs and the smoke testing
[18:45] <heno> yep :)
[18:45] <heno> sbeattie: can you set up a wiki page structure for this?
[18:46] <sbeattie> heno: sure
[18:46] <heno> I would guess a root page for these guidelines/template and sub pages for individual report instances
[18:46] <LaserJock> would basic bug stats relevant to release be a good idea?
[18:47] <heno> LaserJock: I think so - I should we slice it though? we often don't know what release a bug is for automatically
[18:48] <heno> we could use apport data and then add an 'unknown' category for unparseable bugs filed after a certain date
[18:49] <LaserJock> can you use /ubuntu/<release>/+bugs lists?
[18:49] <heno> I think we want to highlight bugs not already on that list
[18:51] <davmor2> Would it be useful to highlight regressions in hardy too?
[18:51] <heno> davmor2: from hardy you mean?
[18:51] <ara__> I am back, sorry, my connection went down
[18:52] <heno> the release meetings are focused on intrepid atm
[18:52] <davmor2> heno: no I mean in updates to hardy
[18:52] <sbeattie> LaserJock: that list is a small subset of the actual bugs contained within the development branch.
[18:52] <heno> that would be more appropriate around the next hardy point release
[18:52] <davmor2> okay
[18:53] <heno> davmor2: see my ml post about tracking these generally though
[18:53] <davmor2> seen it interesting :)
[18:53] <LaserJock> well, I don't know what all they want for stats, I was just thinking they'd be interested in some :-)
[18:53] <heno> regressions in updates are arguably among the worst bugs we have
[18:53] <LaserJock> probably need to ask them
[18:54] <heno> right. sbeattie please post a note to the list when you have a page up and we can all add ideas
[18:54] <sbeattie> heno: noted.
[18:54] <heno> and then we can ask for feedback at the meeting
[18:55] <heno> any other business?
[18:55] <heno> we have about 5 min.
[18:56] <bdmurray> When I was looking at bug with xorg.conf files I thought it might be useful to tags bugs w/o a package that have an attachment as has-attachment or something.  Thoughts?
[18:56] <sbeattie> bdmurray: can you just report the attachment in your no-package report?
[18:57] <heno> I agree that would be tidier
[18:57] <bdmurray> sbeattie: yes, I could do that instead.  I thought having them searchable in launchpad would be useful though.  It almost seems like one should be able to search for bugs w/ attachments in lp itself.
[18:59] <sbeattie> bdmurray: hrm, it already lets you search for bugs with patches attached, I wonder why not attachments in general?
[18:59] <bdmurray> sbeattie: indeed
[19:00] <heno> file an LP bug :)
[19:00] <bdmurray> that was my though too, but in the interim we could do something
[19:00] <bdmurray> and I think that something would be most useful for hinting w/ bugs w/o a package
[19:00] <heno> let's wrap up
[19:00] <heno> #endmeeting

MeetingLogs/QATeam/20080910 (last edited 2008-09-11 15:28:37 by 68)