20080723
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,}}}