Meeting started by ara at 16:02:22 UTC. The full logs are available at http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2011/ubuntu-meeting.2011-11-14-16.02.log.html .
- Moving this meeting to bi-weekly? -- ara
ACTION: ara to send an email to the mailing list about the cadence of the meeting (ara, 16:15:19)
- Checkbox Oneiric SRU -- roadmr
LINK: https://launchpad.net/checkbox/+milestone/0.12.9 (roadmr, 16:16:55) LINK: https://launchpad.net/checkbox/+milestone/0.12.9 (ara, 16:17:05) ACTION: roadmr to talk to the SRU team about the string changes + creating 0.12.10 milestone (ara, 16:25:23)
- Ubuntu Friendly next deployment -- jedimike
ACTION: brendan to open a bug about the usability bug on the selection of tests (for Ubuntu Friendly, only) and milestone it for checkbox 0.13 (ara, 16:34:06)
- Any Other Business?
ACTION: ara to file a bug about the usability bug on UF + checkbox relation (ara, 17:00:42)
Meeting ended at 17:01:30 UTC.
- ara to send an email to the mailing list about the cadence of the meeting
- roadmr to talk to the SRU team about the string changes + creating 0.12.10 milestone
- brendan to open a bug about the usability bug on the selection of tests (for Ubuntu Friendly, only) and milestone it for checkbox 0.13
- ara to file a bug about the usability bug on UF + checkbox relation
Action items, by person
- * ara to send an email to the mailing list about the cadence of the meeting
- * ara to file a bug about the usability bug on UF + checkbox relation
- * roadmr to talk to the SRU team about the string changes + creating 0.12.10 milestone
People present (lines said)
- ara (84)
- roadmr (40)
- brendand (33)
- cr3 (20)
- jedimike (19)
- alourie (17)
- meetingology (7)
- bladernr (6)
16:02:22 <ara> #startmeeting
16:02:22 <meetingology> Available commands: #accept #accepted #action #agree #agreed #chair #commands #endmeeting #endvote #halp #help #idea #info #link #lurk #meetingname #meetingtopic #nick #progress #rejected #replay #restrictlogs #save #startmeeting #subtopic #topic #unchair #undo #unlurk #vote #voters #votesrequired
16:02:31 <ara> Agenda:
16:02:33 <ara> Moving this meeting to bi-weekly? -- ara
16:02:34 <ara> Checkbox Oneiric SRU -- roadmr
16:02:34 <ara> Ubuntu Friendly next deployment -- jedimike
16:02:34 <ara> AOB
16:02:44 * ara have put items for other people there
16:02:56 <ara> #topic Moving this meeting to bi-weekly? -- ara
16:03:17 <ara> OK, so I have been wondering if it'd make sense to move this meeting to a biweekly cadence
16:03:38 <ara> It made sense to have them weekly when we were rushing to get the beta release out
16:03:46 <jedimike> o/
16:03:49 <brendand> o/
16:04:07 <ara> now that everything is moving to a more normal pace, shall we move to a biweekly one?
16:04:08 <ara> ..
16:04:13 <ara> jedimike, go ahead
16:04:16 <roadmr> o/
16:04:22 <jedimike> i agree
16:04:23 <jedimike> ..
16:04:42 <ara> brendand?
16:05:20 <brendand> we should, unless we find in future that we are getting to many items to discuss in one meeting. but the chances of this happening are very low
16:05:23 <brendand> ...
16:05:51 <ara> roadmr?
16:06:05 <roadmr> Do consider that things slowed down because of a) the release and b) UDS. I'd probably prefer to wait a couple of weeks to see what "normal" attendance looks like
16:06:42 <roadmr> but if we're bringing this to a vote, I'm sure the 2-weekers will prevail, and I'm not vehemently opposed, we can just as easily go 2-week and then switch back to weekly if it's too long
16:06:45 <roadmr> ..
16:07:52 <ara> It is just not a matter of attendance in my opinion, but of development pace
16:07:59 <ara> ..
16:08:04 <brendand> o/
16:08:28 <ara> brendand, yes
16:09:09 <brendand> attendance isn't really the factor so much as agenda length. apart from this item we have only two agenda items and two weeks ago we had one
16:09:11 <cr3> o/
16:09:45 <brendand> ...
16:09:51 <ara> cr3, go ahead, please
16:10:36 <cr3> won't making the meetings bi-weekly affect attendance negatively by lack of mementum?
16:10:39 <cr3> ..
16:11:19 <ara> o/
16:11:34 <roadmr> ara go ahead
16:11:45 <ara> I guess that's the risk, but lack of content can affect negatively as well
16:11:54 <ara> ..
16:12:46 <ara> shall we defer this to the mailing list?
16:13:01 <roadmr> o/
16:13:07 <bladernr> o/
16:13:10 <ara> roadmr
16:13:19 <roadmr> I'd like to see this discussed on the mailing list,
16:13:29 <roadmr> that way we also get the ML moving a bit
16:13:30 <roadmr> ..
16:13:37 <ara> bladernr, your turn
16:13:53 <cr3> roadmr: any excuse to generate traffic on the mailing list is all good
16:13:57 <bladernr> I'm just +1-ing the mailing list... I'd imagine there are more people there that may not have been able to make this meeting who'd want to have input on this
16:14:00 <bladernr> ..
16:14:53 <ara> brendand, jedimike: fine with discussing this at the ml?
16:14:59 <jedimike> ara: yup 16:15:01 * brendand is
16:15:19 <ara> #action ara to send an email to the mailing list about the cadence of the meeting 16:15:19 * meetingology ara to send an email to the mailing list about the cadence of the meeting
16:15:48 <ara> cool! let's move on to a non meta-topic
16:15:56 <ara> #topic Checkbox Oneiric SRU -- roadmr
16:16:15 <ara> roadmr, all yours :P
16:16:27 <roadmr> thanks!
16:16:33 <roadmr> In order to take care of the most painful checkbox issues in Oneiric, an SRU will be published. It's preferable to do this soon, to avoid a lot of fixes piling up, which can slow things down.
16:16:46 <roadmr> The list of bugs scheduled for the 0.12.9 release of checkbox is here:
16:16:55 <roadmr> https://launchpad.net/checkbox/+milestone/0.12.9
16:17:02 <roadmr> If you can take a look at the unfixed bugs and propose a solution that would be appreciated.
16:17:05 <ara> #link https://launchpad.net/checkbox/+milestone/0.12.9
16:17:16 <roadmr> Also keep in mind that per SRU procedure, the fixes have to be *published* (i.e. Fix Released) on Precise - so we need to take into account the time it takes to publish checkbox 0.13 on P and then backport the SRUable fixes to 0.12.
16:17:28 <roadmr> Ideally we should have a cutoff date for the 0.12.9 fixes
16:17:45 <roadmr> after which we'd publish 0.13 to P and get it tested
16:18:05 <roadmr> and then after a reasonable testing time, backport the SRUable bugs and get the SRU process rolling
16:18:27 <ara> o/
16:18:30 <brendand> o/
16:18:43 <roadmr> hopefully I'm not missing anything here, so any ideas or proposals on the dates, or stuff I may be missing?
16:18:46 <roadmr> ..
16:19:22 <roadmr> ara go
16:19:57 <ara> OK, so I think the list is complete enough for a first SRU in Oneiric
16:20:13 <ara> So I would go for it, and try to get as many as possible in trunk
16:20:27 <ara> unless you guys know any other high/critical bug that we should be adding
16:20:28 <ara> ..
16:20:41 <roadmr> brendand your turn
16:21:44 <brendand> strictly speaking, SRUs should be for issues which affect the stability of the application, so i'm concerned about getting some of the test wording fixes in
16:21:49 <brendand> i guess we can try
16:21:54 <brendand> as for dates
16:22:43 <brendand> i think in terms of adding bugs to the list, we should aim for tomorrow (i.e. i think it's complete but just incase we missed any)
16:22:50 <brendand> ...
16:23:15 <roadmr> o/
16:23:19 <ara> roadmr, go!
16:23:38 <roadmr> hehe well I think we could take today to ask about the string fixes
16:23:45 <roadmr> instead of just trying to sneak it in
16:24:02 <ara> o/
16:24:05 <roadmr> ..
16:24:20 <roadmr> ara, go ahead
16:24:54 <ara> OK, sounds good. roadmr, can you take the action of talking to the SRU team about the string changes + creating 0.12.10 milestone tomorrow? (for fixes that we might fix in the next SRU)
16:25:06 <roadmr> will do
16:25:23 <ara> #action roadmr to talk to the SRU team about the string changes + creating 0.12.10 milestone 16:25:23 * meetingology roadmr to talk to the SRU team about the string changes + creating 0.12.10 milestone
16:26:02 <ara> anything else on this topic? 16:26:13 * roadmr has nothing more
16:26:46 <ara> cool! let's move on
16:26:58 <ara> #topic Ubuntu Friendly next deployment -- jedimike
16:27:19 <ara> jedimike, can you give us an update on what we can expect on the next deployment of UF?
16:27:29 <jedimike> The next deployment of UF has been given a deadline of this thursday (17th)
16:27:50 <jedimike> we will see updated help for the participate page to make it clearer what test we require run
16:28:06 <jedimike> help for people who are having trouble finding their submissions on the site
16:28:27 <jedimike> an updated "report a problem" page which will direct people to the right place for different types of feedback
16:28:55 <jedimike> a stricter policy on skipping tests, if any test we require run is skipped, we reject the submission
16:29:04 <brendand> o/
16:29:20 <jedimike> on the backend, we have a faster way of finding individual submissions to help answer bugs, some stats reporting
16:29:32 <jedimike> and a way to refresh all site data without taking the site down
16:29:38 <jedimike> brendand, go ahead
16:30:42 <brendand> about the 'no skipping' policy. it's a really wide misconception that you should uncheck tests in the test selection screen which you can't run. see e.g. : http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/ubuntu-friendly-usersubmitted-database-computers-work-ubuntu/
16:31:17 <brendand> also when helping someone at the UF session at UDS they tried to do that
16:31:35 <ara> o/
16:31:37 <brendand> ...
16:31:39 <jedimike> brendand: yes, those instructions have been corrected in the upcoming release
16:31:46 <jedimike> ara, go!
16:31:51 <ara> thanks!
16:32:44 <ara> definitely, for Precise, we should really pay attention on how we present that information
16:33:04 <ara> actually, we should open a bug about it and milestone it for Precise
16:33:08 <ara> so we keep track of it
16:33:17 <ara> on the client side, I mean
16:33:20 <ara> .. 16:33:26 * brendand will take that action
16:33:28 <brendand> o/
16:33:35 <jedimike> brendand, go!
16:34:06 <ara> #action brendan to open a bug about the usability bug on the selection of tests (for Ubuntu Friendly, only) and milestone it for checkbox 0.13 16:34:06 * meetingology brendan to open a bug about the usability bug on the selection of tests (for Ubuntu Friendly, only) and milestone it for checkbox 0.13
16:34:07 <brendand> do we distinguish between not run altogether and skipped?
16:34:15 <brendand> if so, why?
16:34:17 <brendand> ...
16:34:57 <ara> o/
16:35:00 <jedimike> no, if an entire test category is unselected, it will be reported as skipped. If an individual test is skipped, that is reported as skipped to, and we check if it's a skippable test.
16:35:03 <jedimike> ara: go
16:35:21 <ara> that's a good point
16:35:38 <ara> jedimike, if bluetooth is unselect it at the beginning, that's reported as Untested
16:35:44 <ara> what would happen in that case?
16:35:45 <ara> ..
16:36:07 <ara> (obviously that would work only for categories where all tests are skippable)
16:36:21 <jedimike> ara: Untested in UF speak is Skipped we need a translator heh
16:36:36 <brendand> o/
16:36:40 <ara> brendand, go
16:37:15 <brendand> so maybe not too much to worry about from the technical side (deselecting bluetooth is the same as skipping every bluetooth test)
16:38:00 <brendand> however it's still a good idea to communicate that tests should only be skipped individually and only where you really can't run them
16:38:12 <brendand> so no change in the action items
16:38:14 <brendand> ...
16:38:53 <ara> cool, thanks jedimike for the clarification and brendand for taking the action item
16:39:06 <ara> anything else on the topic?
16:40:21 <jedimike> not from me
16:40:29 <ara> OK, let's move on
16:40:42 <ara> #topic Any Other Business?
16:40:50 <ara> anything else?
16:41:29 * roadmr has nothing else
16:41:50 <alourie> may I?
16:41:58 <ara> alourie, sure, go ahead
16:42:33 <alourie> I find it strange that running Checkbox seemingly has nothing to do with Friendl
16:42:34 <alourie> y
16:43:06 <ara> o/
16:43:08 <alourie> so I think that at least at the end, where the results are being uploaded, it should be mentioned instead of Launchpad
16:43:15 <alourie> such as:
16:43:30 <alourie> "provide an email address to upload results to Ubuntu Friendly"
16:43:38 <alourie> or something like that
16:44:14 <brendand> o/
16:44:39 <ara> I agree that we need to give a better experience for UF users on the client side, but we have to make sure that we don't lose the "System Testing" goal of checkbox
16:44:53 <alourie> sure
16:45:05 <alourie> and what "Launchpad" has to do with it?
16:45:06 <ara> for Precise, when building the UI, we will try to come up with something that fits both
16:45:10 <cr3> o/
16:45:15 <alourie> ok
16:45:15 <ara> ..
16:45:19 <ara> brendand, go ahead
16:46:04 <brendand> for alourie, the results in ubuntu friendly are taken from launchpad. this is just an architectural detail.
16:47:05 <brendand> as for the original comment. i don't see the harm.
16:47:30 <brendand> people using Checkbox for 'not Ubuntu Friendly' are already well aware of what it does
16:47:48 <brendand> ..
16:48:04 <ara> cr3, your turn
16:48:09 <alourie> brendand: sure, but why would I, as user, knwo that?
16:48:14 <bladernr> o/
16:48:28 <cr3> might the problem be that UF seemlingly has nothing to do with Launchpad? 16:48:57 * brendand is agreeing with alourie, to be clear
16:48:58 <bladernr> nevermind ..
16:49:12 <cr3> I think Checkbox should remain agnostic of Ubuntu Friendly in order to encourage others to build services similar to UF, I don't see how Checkbox could know about every other project using results from testing in Launchpad
16:49:15 <alourie> bladernr: thank you
16:49:16 <cr3> ..
16:49:38 <ara> thanks cr3
16:49:48 <ara> anything else?
16:50:14 <alourie> cr3: but what if I, as user, run it as UF, and then have no mention of it in the tool? Doesn't it confuse a little?
16:51:05 <cr3> alourie: perhaps there should be a UF client that would Depend on Checkbox
16:51:16 <alourie> I'm just thinking about a clean and clear experience...
16:51:31 <roadmr> o/
16:51:36 <ara> roadmr, go ahead, please
16:51:47 <roadmr> first thanks to alourie for mentioning this usability problem!
16:51:48 <cr3> Checkbox is infinitely extensible, both good and bad, but this would be an opportunity to use this extensibility for good rather than evil
16:52:06 <roadmr> second, maybe we could have as cr3 says some way to parameterize checkbox so it shows customized information
16:52:23 <roadmr> say checkbox-gtk --for="Ubuntu Friendly" would instruct checkbox to mention UF at key points during the test run
16:52:41 <cr3> o/
16:52:50 <roadmr> and for instance checkbox-gtk --for="Desktop Application Testing" would show that instead
16:52:57 <roadmr> ..
16:53:19 <ara> cr3, your turn
16:54:07 <alourie> roadmr: wow
16:54:09 <cr3> roadmr: if someone in the community develops an Ubuntu Unfriendly program, which is perfectly possible since the information is freely available, should Checkbox know about that project as well?
16:54:13 <alourie> I was afraid to offer that
16:54:27 <roadmr> o/
16:54:49 <cr3> roadmr: why not develop an ubuntu-friendly project with its own intro_prompt plugin, for example, that would be specifically for Ubuntu Friendly?
16:55:26 <cr3> it could even have an Ubuntu Friendly logo people could identify with...
16:55:26 <cr3> ..
16:55:48 <bladernr> cr3: to avoid a rash of checkbox-* packages?
16:55:56 <ara> roadmr, go ahead
16:56:03 <cr3> bladernr: this is a ubuntu-friendly package, not a checkbox-* package
16:56:05 <ara> (and we should be wrapping up this conversation soon)
16:56:35 <roadmr> well it's implementation discussion at this point, my idea is very simplistic but the fact is, we can probably find a way to extend checkbox to show more customized information
16:56:57 <roadmr> as unobtrusively as possible (i.e. not introducing project-specific stuff in checkbox itself)
16:57:00 <roadmr> ..
16:57:10 <cr3> o/
16:57:17 <ara> cr3, go ahead (if it is quick)
16:57:50 <cr3> roadmr: indeed, if other projects could extend checkbox by adding files under a .d directory, like /etc/checkbox.d/ubuntu-friendly, which could be accessed from the checkbox-gtk command line, that would work
16:57:54 <cr3> ..
16:59:03 <ara> OK, I think we have been discussed this for a long time now. I guess the summary of it is: people coming to checkbox to test for UF find no relation between the two and any solution to this problem should take care of not putting checkbox too uf specific
17:00:42 <ara> #action ara to file a bug about the usability bug on UF + checkbox relation 17:00:42 * meetingology ara to file a bug about the usability bug on UF + checkbox relation
17:00:51 <cr3> ara: don't forget that people coming to UF find no relation with Launchpad
17:00:51 <alourie> I agree
17:01:11 <ara> cr3, cool, thanks for the reminder
17:01:25 <ara> OK, we run out of time
17:01:28 <ara> so...
17:01:30 <ara> #endmeeting