Meeting started by roadmr at 16:01:02 UTC. The full logs are available at http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-01-09-16.01.log.html .
- Checkbox (Ubuntu Friendly, System Testing) -proposed version status - roadmr
- Fixing papercuts in the test suite - brendand
- AOB - Any other business
Meeting ended at 16:33:47 UTC.
People present (lines said)
- roadmr (65)
- cr3 (13)
- ara (12)
- brendand (10)
- mlegris (6)
- bladernr_ (6)
- meetingology (3)
- ubottu (2)
16:01:02 <roadmr> #startmeeting Ubuntu Friendly meeting
16:01:02 <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
16:01:10 <roadmr> Hi everyone, welcome to the Ubuntu Friendly meeting!
16:01:19 <roadmr> First meeting of the year!
16:01:24 <roadmr> I hope you had a great end-of-year and that this year is awesome for you.
16:01:58 <roadmr> We're already hard at work on improving Ubuntu Friendly! Today we have the following topics to talk about:
16:02:18 <roadmr> * Checkbox (Ubuntu Friendly, System Testing) -proposed version status -
16:02:18 <roadmr> roadmr
16:02:18 <roadmr> * Fixing papercuts in the test suite - brendand
16:02:24 <roadmr> * Any Other Business
16:02:43 <roadmr> As usual, you're welcome to participate, indicate you want to speak by raising your hand (o/). Don't forget to also signal when you're done using ..
16:03:18 <roadmr> Let's get started with the agenda!
16:03:38 <roadmr> [TOPIC] Checkbox (Ubuntu Friendly, System Testing) -proposed version status - roadmr
16:03:47 <roadmr> hey that's me heheh
16:03:58 <roadmr> As you know, last year (sounds like a long time ago) we submitted a few bug fixes for checkbox, to be made available as an SRU for Ubuntu 11.10.
16:04:40 <roadmr> Unfortunately two of those bugs failed verification. We updated our update (so to speak) and I resubmitted the SRU request which should be OK this time around.
16:05:05 <cr3> o/
16:05:31 <roadmr> Right now we're awaiting a re-updated checkbox in -proposed. Once it's available I'll notify the mailing list and I'd appreciate, once again, your valuable help in verifying that the bugs are fixed as advertised.
16:05:53 <ara> o/
16:06:08 <roadmr> all bugs should verify just as they did the last time, except for:
16:06:21 <roadmr> bug 862322 (this failed the last time around, but should pass in the new SRU)
16:06:23 <ubottu> Launchpad bug 862322 in checkbox (Ubuntu Oneiric) "bluetooth/detect shouldn't run on a system with no Bluetooth device" [Undecided,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/862322
16:06:42 <roadmr> bug 877752 (this failed the last time around, and will NOT be included in the new SRU, so can be just ignored this time)
16:06:43 <ubottu> Launchpad bug 877752 in checkbox (Ubuntu Oneiric) "connect_wireless can unintentionally choose a non-wireless connection to connect to" [Undecided,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/877752
16:07:13 <roadmr> so that's it for the SRU, I'll let everyone know once the update is in -proposed awaiting testing. Thanks!
16:07:21 <roadmr> ara, hey! go ahead!
16:07:31 <ara> cr3 was first
16:07:34 <cr3> why did those bugs fail verification? any lesson to be learned for next time?
16:07:37 <cr3> ..
16:07:45 <ara> and I had the same question
16:08:39 <roadmr> cr3: yes, the lesson is to be more careful :P the first failed because I neglected to actually include the fixing code, which happened because I omnibus'd the changelog, and then I forgot to include the actual code fixes
16:09:07 <roadmr> lesson 1: preferrably merge each change and its changelog together, rather than omnibusing the changelog
16:09:15 <cr3> roadmr: backporting across different branch roots using patch is error prone indeed. I blame bzr, not you
16:09:49 <roadmr> the second failed because the fix introduced *another* bug which we didn't catch (just as we didn't catch the original problem ourselves) because the problem doesn't happen in our lab setup
16:09:49 <ara> I blame it on the boogie
16:10:10 <roadmr> so since the original bug is still in development, we can't SRU those changes- so I had to revert them altogether
16:10:52 <roadmr> the lesson here is to be very careful in trying to replicate the failing environment to make 100% sure that the fix works - this one looked good at first glance but there was a subtlety in field ordering that caused things to fail
16:10:57 <cr3> ara: don't blame it on the sunshine
16:10:57 <roadmr> there
16:10:59 <roadmr> ..
16:11:15 <ara> nice explanation!
16:11:26 <bladernr_> o/
16:11:32 <roadmr> bladernr_: go ahead!
16:12:01 <bladernr_> Just thought I'd point out that the second item seems to be a good case for why we need/love community testing...
16:12:03 <bladernr_> that's all...
16:12:06 <bladernr_> ..
16:12:50 <roadmr> bladernr_: yep! I'm not entirely sure the community person who reported the bug did verify it, I think he didn't - so we just assumed it worked because the code looked fine
16:13:14 <roadmr> bladernr_: ideally we'd wait until all the original reporters verify the bugs
16:13:31 <cr3> roadmr: that's a common problem with drive-by bug reporting where the community disappears when comes time to reproduce
16:13:46 <roadmr> bladernr_: but it's not always possible, so once a reasonable time has elapsed, we are somewhat forced to verify ourselves to move things forward
16:13:55 <cr3> roadmr: I think this is too common to block bug fixes on being able to reach the community
16:13:57 <bladernr_> right
16:14:10 <roadmr> which is why we have to be extra diligent in replicating the error conditions
16:14:44 <roadmr> cr3: yep, well in this case it was bad to "gate" 6 fixes on a 7th one that wasn't getting any attention
16:15:30 <roadmr> so we just need to be more careful when we don't have community verification (unlike the 0.9.2 SRU where we had a lot of help from Chad Davis)
16:16:05 <roadmr> anything else on this topic?
16:16:48 <roadmr> OK let's move on then
16:17:03 <roadmr> [TOPIC] Fixing papercuts in the test suite - brendand
16:17:14 <roadmr> brendand, you have the stage
16:17:20 <brendand> hi
16:18:33 <brendand> we'd like to hear from people about problems they have with the ubuntu friendly tests. anything from test failing to changes that would make a test easier to understand are welcome
16:18:48 <brendand> you can put your comments on this spreadsheet next to the test name: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApQ2JshzVOLydF8waXotcXZueGc3MlB1am1jUEgwTHc
16:19:22 <ara> o/
16:19:23 <brendand> note that the spreadsheet contains a lot of tests not run in ubuntu-friendly
16:19:37 <roadmr> o/
16:20:34 <brendand> ideally, base your comments on what you see in the precise version of Checkbox, since many changes have been made from Oneiric
16:20:40 <brendand> ...
16:21:15 <roadmr> ara, you're first this time!
16:21:48 <ara> I was wondering how do we know which items from that list are already being taken care by someone else
16:21:56 <ara> or which ones have been already fixed
16:21:59 <ara> ..
16:22:55 <brendand> ara - i guess it might be good to add a column for 'status'
16:23:56 <brendand> ... 16:24:02 * brendand adds one
16:24:14 <roadmr> my turn..
16:24:27 <roadmr> is the spreadsheet open to the public at-large?
16:24:55 <mlegris> I think so
16:25:00 <brendand> well. you need to use the link i just pasted, which i will also send to the mailing list i guess
16:25:06 <roadmr> if not, would it be wortwhile doing so? perhaps not as directly as just sharing the document with the world, but creating a "public" version that people can comment on via, say, google docs forms (that way we reduce the chance of people messing up the spreadsheet)
16:25:10 <roadmr> ..
16:25:11 <cr3> "anyone who has the link can edit"
16:25:40 <cr3> so, you have to attend this meeting to get the link
16:26:24 <roadmr> ok great
16:26:32 <roadmr> anyone else on the test papercuts topic?
16:27:31 <roadmr> nope? let's move on then
16:27:37 <roadmr> to everyone's favorite topic!
16:27:46 <roadmr> [TOPIC] AOB - Any other business
16:27:59 <roadmr> Now's your chance to discuss anything you didn't have time to add to the agenda! any takers?
16:28:01 <mlegris> o/
16:28:07 <roadmr> mlegris: go ahead
16:28:27 <mlegris> At the end of a testing run, does the button still say next rather then exit?
16:28:38 <mlegris> I find that rather odd if it is
16:28:39 <mlegris> ..
16:29:12 <roadmr> good point, though it doesn't "exit" as such, so something else may be better - "see results" ?
16:29:14 <mlegris> nm, its say finished :P
16:29:22 <roadmr> oh ok
16:29:41 <cr3> that's wrong, it should say "I like turtles"
16:29:55 <ara> or boogie, to be able to blame it on it
16:29:57 <roadmr> that's more of a l10n concern I think
16:30:11 <cr3> export LANGUAGE=cr3
16:30:40 <roadmr> heh
16:31:00 <roadmr> anything else?
16:32:04 <roadmr> "speak now or forever (until next monday) hold your peace" :P
16:32:21 <roadmr> going once...
16:32:36 <roadmr> going twice...
16:32:36 <cr3> roadmr: trust me, you don't want me to speak... only nonsense comes out
16:32:57 <roadmr> and it's all publicly logged
16:33:05 <cr3> going thrice...
16:33:11 <roadmr> gone!
16:33:13 <roadmr> Well I guess this wraps things up for today. Thanks for attending! please remember to help with the Checkbox verification if you can. And remember the mailing list is open to all your UF-related comments and inquiries.
16:33:30 <ara> thanks roadmr!
16:33:33 <roadmr> Thanks all! have a good day!
16:33:47 <roadmr> #endmeeting