Fedora 14 test release blocker bugs

[John Poelstra]

Hard to believe, but Fedora QA starts its "Pre-Alpha Rawhide Acceptance 
Test Plan" testing this Thursday (2010-07-08).

We've run out of time and run way to implement a new means of tracking 
blocker bugs for Fedora--previously discussed in the context of using 
flags in Bugzilla.  We'll continue to use the same process we've used 
for past releases.

I've created tracker bugs for the Fedora 14 Alpha and Beta releases:

Fedora 14 Alpha = F14Alpha = 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611990

Fedora 14 Beta = F14Beta = 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611990

Other tracker bugs for Fedora 14 are at: 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Trackers#Fedora_14

The criteria for considering a bug a release blocker is at:
Alpha--http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_14_Alpha_Release_Criteria#Alp...

Beta--http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_14_Beta_Release_Criteria#Beta_...

John

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 17:10 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
>  Hard to believe, but Fedora QA starts its "Pre-Alpha Rawhide
> Acceptance 
>  Test Plan" testing this Thursday (2010-07-08).
>  
>  We've run out of time and run way to implement a new means of tracking 
>  blocker bugs for Fedora--previously discussed in the context of using 
>  flags in Bugzilla.  We'll continue to use the same process we've used 
>  for past releases. 
Erm, really? We could throw the existing proposal in in an afternoon if
we wanted to. I was fine with it. Jesse, what was your plan here?
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

[James Laska]

On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 17:22 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 17:10 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
>  > Hard to believe, but Fedora QA starts its "Pre-Alpha Rawhide Acceptance 
>  > Test Plan" testing this Thursday (2010-07-08).
>  > 
>  > We've run out of time and run way to implement a new means of tracking 
>  > blocker bugs for Fedora--previously discussed in the context of using 
>  > flags in Bugzilla.  We'll continue to use the same process we've used 
>  > for past releases.
>  
>  Erm, really? We could throw the existing proposal in in an afternoon if
>  we wanted to. I was fine with it. Jesse, what was your plan here? 
If there is a solution that addresses the problems identified during
F-13, and it can be implemented in *short* time.  It would be
compelling.  I'm a fan of solving problems with tooling, but I'm not
convinced that is where our big investment should be for the upcoming
release, or that it fully addresses the problems encountered during
F-13.

I outlined 3 basic blocker bug process recommendations that are
attainable+sustainable and address the problems we had during F-13 [1].
If someone feels flags are the better solution, and can develop a
proposal for creating bugzilla flags, the policy for managing them, and
bot automation to enforce them, I'm sure we'd all be happy to provide
feedback.

However, I left that out of the F-14 QA recommendations because I'm not
convinced that's the best use of our time.  If you are looking for
something to work on to improve F-14 QA, check out (or add to)
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/milestone/Fedora%2014.

Thanks,
James

Thanks,
James

[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_QA_Retrospective#Blocker_Review

[John Poelstra]

James Laska said the following on 07/07/2010 05:43 AM Pacific Time:
>  On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 17:22 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 17:10 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
> >> Hard to believe, but Fedora QA starts its "Pre-Alpha Rawhide Acceptance
> >> Test Plan" testing this Thursday (2010-07-08).
> >>
> >> We've run out of time and run way to implement a new means of tracking
> >> blocker bugs for Fedora--previously discussed in the context of using
> >> flags in Bugzilla.  We'll continue to use the same process we've used
> >> for past releases.
> >
> > Erm, really? We could throw the existing proposal in in an afternoon if
> > we wanted to. I was fine with it. Jesse, what was your plan here?
>
>  If there is a solution that addresses the problems identified during
>  F-13, and it can be implemented in *short* time.  It would be
>  compelling.  I'm a fan of solving problems with tooling, but I'm not
>  convinced that is where our big investment should be for the upcoming
>  release, or that it fully addresses the problems encountered during
>  F-13.
>
>  I outlined 3 basic blocker bug process recommendations that are
>  attainable+sustainable and address the problems we had during F-13 [1].
>  If someone feels flags are the better solution, and can develop a
>  proposal for creating bugzilla flags, the policy for managing them, and
>  bot automation to enforce them, I'm sure we'd all be happy to provide
>  feedback.
>  
Long term I think flags will help streamline our process.  With the 
first Alpha blocker bug meetings starting next Friday it doesn't make 
sense for Fedora 14.  I agree there is probably enough time to write a 
proposal for how it could all work, but not enough time to get feedback 
on the proposal and definitely not enough time to implement and test 
everything before using it.

We can get better near term impact by addressing the recommendations 
from the QA retrospective around bugzilla.  I'm working on two of the 
tickets.

John

[Jesse Keating]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 7/7/10 5:43 AM, James Laska wrote:
>  If there is a solution that addresses the problems identified during
>  F-13, and it can be implemented in *short* time.  It would be
>  compelling.  I'm a fan of solving problems with tooling, but I'm not
>  convinced that is where our big investment should be for the upcoming
>  release, or that it fully addresses the problems encountered during
>  F-13. 
I can think of one quick and simple way of doing this.

When we review a bug and accept it on the blocker list, we use a keyword
of "ACCEPTED" or some such.  That way any bug without the word is
assumed to just be proposed and not yet accepted.  A bit more manual
work and a bit harder to query, but it still nets the result of
differentiating between bugs that are proposed and bugs that are
accepted blockers.

Thoughts?

- -- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkw03RsACgkQ4v2HLvE71NVWKwCfWjUTB7DAFNAAwbbPzOrho13y
> iFYAnR+BdzdmoYpmzD1/1BMzz/7W7HSH
> =Ddz/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Jesse Keating]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 7/7/10 1:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>  I can think of one quick and simple way of doing this.
>  
>  When we review a bug and accept it on the blocker list, we use a keyword
>  of "ACCEPTED" or some such.  That way any bug without the word is
>  assumed to just be proposed and not yet accepted.  A bit more manual
>  work and a bit harder to query, but it still nets the result of
>  differentiating between bugs that are proposed and bugs that are
>  accepted blockers.
>  
>  Thoughts? 
And I see that this was one of the suggestions, which I didn't read
before firing off this email.  Sorry.

- -- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkw03ZcACgkQ4v2HLvE71NUnmACfZfHcc435nKibFsni7foi5IwO
> PlkAn3pk28KEpca/WZnQ4HGCaqhHAjRN
> =sIAu
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[James Laska]

On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 13:03 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>  
>  On 7/7/10 1:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>  > I can think of one quick and simple way of doing this.
>  > 
>  > When we review a bug and accept it on the blocker list, we use a keyword
>  > of "ACCEPTED" or some such.  That way any bug without the word is
>  > assumed to just be proposed and not yet accepted.  A bit more manual
>  > work and a bit harder to query, but it still nets the result of
>  > differentiating between bugs that are proposed and bugs that are
>  > accepted blockers.
>  > 
>  > Thoughts?
>  
>  And I see that this was one of the suggestions, which I didn't read
>  before firing off this email.  Sorry. 
No worries!  IMO that reinforces that such a solution might not be a
horrible option for F-14.

Thanks,
James

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 13:01 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>  
>  On 7/7/10 5:43 AM, James Laska wrote:
>  > If there is a solution that addresses the problems identified during
>  > F-13, and it can be implemented in *short* time.  It would be
>  > compelling.  I'm a fan of solving problems with tooling, but I'm not
>  > convinced that is where our big investment should be for the upcoming
>  > release, or that it fully addresses the problems encountered during
>  > F-13.
>  
>  I can think of one quick and simple way of doing this.
>  
>  When we review a bug and accept it on the blocker list, we use a keyword
>  of "ACCEPTED" or some such.  That way any bug without the word is
>  assumed to just be proposed and not yet accepted.  A bit more manual
>  work and a bit harder to query, but it still nets the result of
>  differentiating between bugs that are proposed and bugs that are
>  accepted blockers.
>  
>  Thoughts? 
keywords we have to ask to be added to the system, I'm not keen on doing
that as a temp hack. Whiteboard space is freeform, though. We could just
pick a word to use in the whiteboard space - AcceptedBlocker, for e.g. -
and go with that.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

[Jesse Keating]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 7/7/10 1:08 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  keywords we have to ask to be added to the system, I'm not keen
> on doing
>  that as a temp hack. Whiteboard space is freeform, though. We could just
>  pick a word to use in the whiteboard space - AcceptedBlocker, for e.g. -
>  and go with that. 
Yeah, that's fine by me.

- -- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkw0388ACgkQ4v2HLvE71NUK7gCgoe/dUREqwurGHRbDm8DBKq9G
> FG0An3u7LrZMAN7ZjCtDtbaRzdiIkAJ5
> =c2ch
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 13:13 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>  
>  On 7/7/10 1:08 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  > keywords we have to ask to be added to the system, I'm not keen on doing
>  > that as a temp hack. Whiteboard space is freeform, though. We could just
>  > pick a word to use in the whiteboard space - AcceptedBlocker, for e.g. -
>  > and go with that.
>  
>  Yeah, that's fine by me. 
okay, so let's just go with that? I'll update the wiki page.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

[Jesse Keating]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 7/6/10 5:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 17:10 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
> > Hard to believe, but Fedora QA starts its "Pre-Alpha Rawhide Acceptance 
> > Test Plan" testing this Thursday (2010-07-08).
> >
> > We've run out of time and run way to implement a new means of tracking 
> > blocker bugs for Fedora--previously discussed in the context of using 
> > flags in Bugzilla.  We'll continue to use the same process we've used 
> > for past releases.
>  
>  Erm, really? We could throw the existing proposal in in an afternoon if
>  we wanted to. I was fine with it. Jesse, what was your plan here? 
My plan was to plant the seed of the idea, and let somebody else take
over (delegation and all).  I don't have the bandwidth to work on it
while I try to get dist-git in place.  I had asked Dennis Gilmore to
take it up, and he started doing some investigation, and then he got
busy with other things.  So now it's on John's plate.

- -- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkw02EcACgkQ4v2HLvE71NVZxACglStXEtMQX5U+2RCZx7V1xXrM
> iToAoLrsXXxOtWhKTRHXAvBN/57N8+Ex
> =NYr2
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 12:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>  
>  On 7/6/10 5:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>  > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 17:10 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
>  >> Hard to believe, but Fedora QA starts its "Pre-Alpha Rawhide Acceptance 
>  >> Test Plan" testing this Thursday (2010-07-08).
>  >>
>  >> We've run out of time and run way to implement a new means of tracking 
>  >> blocker bugs for Fedora--previously discussed in the context of using 
>  >> flags in Bugzilla.  We'll continue to use the same process we've used 
>  >> for past releases.
>  > 
>  > Erm, really? We could throw the existing proposal in in an afternoon if
>  > we wanted to. I was fine with it. Jesse, what was your plan here?
>  
>  My plan was to plant the seed of the idea, and let somebody else take
>  over (delegation and all).  I don't have the bandwidth to work on it
>  while I try to get dist-git in place.  I had asked Dennis Gilmore to
>  take it up, and he started doing some investigation, and then he got
>  busy with other things.  So now it's on John's plate. 
Ah, I see. Seems sensible to postpone it now, then.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net