20080723

Differences between revisions 1 and 2
Revision 1 as of 2008-07-28 18:23:47
Size: 20318
Editor: 12
Comment:
Revision 2 as of 2008-07-28 19:38:15
Size: 259
Editor: 12
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 1: Line 1:
== Log ==
UTC
{{{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 (StéphaneGraber)
18:15 MootBot New Topic: : Ubuntu testing teams (StéphaneGraber)
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,}}}
=== Agenda - 2008-07-23 ===

 * Alpha 3 testing status
 * Searching for upstream Debian bugs (bdmurray)
 * Ubuntu testing teams (StéphaneGraber)
 * QA liaison to Launchpad (LaserJock)
 * Intrepid Roadmap (LaserJock)
 * [:MeetingLogs/QATeam/20080723]

Agenda - 2008-07-23

  • Alpha 3 testing status
  • Searching for upstream Debian bugs (bdmurray)
  • Ubuntu testing teams (StéphaneGraber)

  • QA liaison to Launchpad (LaserJock)

  • Intrepid Roadmap (LaserJock)

  • [:MeetingLogs/QATeam/20080723]

QATeam/Meetings/20080723 (last edited 2008-08-06 16:25:59 by localhost)