10:33 p.m.
Time for another bumper meeting recap. I should stop sucking and do less
of these!
As always, minutes and IRC transcript available on the wiki at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20121008 ,
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20121015 and
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20121022 .
Next meeting is scheduled for 2012-10-29 at 1500 UTC in
#fedora-meeting.
If you have topics you think we should bring up at the meeting, please
add them to the Wiki page at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20121029 . Thanks!
2012-10-08
----------
TOPIC: Previous meeting follow-up
=======================================================================
* "adamw to propose a criterion covering basic (not advanced)
re-use of /home for Beta" - not done yet, sorry
* "adamw to consider revisions to 'kickstart delivery method'
criterion" - not done yet
* "tflink to ask other interested parties (anaconda team,
fesco...) to look over the beta criteria and see if there's
anything they feel should be dialled down" - not done yet
TOPIC: Release criteria proposals
=======================================================================
* Proposed changes to the upgrade criteria for Beta and Final
were accepted (see log for exact text)
TOPIC: Fedora 18 Beta status / mini blocker review
=======================================================================
* Agreed that we recommended slipping of freeze due to no
currently testable upgrade tool for F18
* Outside of the upgrade tool, install w/ RAID and/or LUKS was
another potential issue that needs re-testing
TOPIC: Open Floor
=======================================================================
N/A
ACTION ITEMS
=======================================================================
* adamw to consider revisions to 'kickstart delivery method'
criterion
* tflink to ask other interested parties (anaconda team,
fesco...) to look over the beta criteria and see if there's
anything they feel should be dialled down
2012-10-15
----------
TOPIC: Previous meeting follow-up
=======================================================================
* "adamw to consider revisions to 'kickstart delivery method'
criterion" - Adam still didn't get enough round tuits, sorry
* "tflink to ask other interested parties (anaconda team,
fesco...) to look over the beta criteria and see if there's
anything they feel should be dialled down" - Tim posted a
thread that got some responses but it went down a detour, we
will try again
TOPIC: Fedora 18 Beta status / mini blocker review
=======================================================================
* F18 Beta TC4 landed Saturday, comes with a regression in
NetworkManager[1]
* New upgrade tool is still not testable so far as we know
* We agreed that as new upgrade tool is still not complete, QA
does not recommend freezing for Beta at this time
* See wiki page for results of mini blocker review
TOPIC: Open Floor
=======================================================================
N/A
ACTION ITEMS
=======================================================================
* tflink try again with asking other teams to review the
updated release criteria
* adamw to update fesco freeze ticket
2012-10-22
----------
TOPIC: Previous meeting follow-up
=======================================================================
* "tflink try again with asking other teams to review the
updated release criteria" - tim forgot about this, he'll do
it now
* "adamw to update fesco freeze ticket" - this was done[2]
TOPIC: Fedora 18 Beta status / mini blocker review
=======================================================================
* The new upgrade tool was still not ready, Will says he will
have it ready this week if all goes well
* Agreed that QA still could not recommend freezing for Beta as
new upgrade tool is still not available for testing: we would
pass this recommendation to FESCo but recognize FESCo may go
against the recommendation due to time pressures
* TC6 seemed a decent build, we would continue with the
validation testing
* See wiki page for results of mini blocker review
TOPIC: Release criteria / test cases
=======================================================================
* Adam was still working on the partitioning criteria, general
agreement at the meeting that requirements for custom
partitioning should not be heavy at beta time
* Many test cases still needed revising for newui, if you feel
like helping out, please do
TOPIC: Open Floor
=======================================================================
N/A
ACTION ITEMS
=======================================================================
* adamw to report recommendation to fesco ticket
1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=866434
2. https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/946#comment:14
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
4:48 a.m.
On 10/24/2012 03:33 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
criterion" - not done yet
* "tflink to ask other interested parties (anaconda team,
fesco...) to look over the beta criteria and see if there's
anything they feel should be dialled down" - not done yet
Since you guys seem to be not confident enough in our own criteria
writing perhaps we should just stop writing them and have FESCO writing
those for us?
JBG
8:18 a.m.
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:48:47 +0000
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/24/2012 03:33 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> criterion" - not done yet
> * "tflink to ask other interested parties (anaconda team,
> fesco...) to look over the beta criteria and see if
> there's anything they feel should be dialled down" - not done yet
Since you guys seem to be not confident enough in our own criteria
writing perhaps we should just stop writing them and have FESCO
writing those for us?
I think there is a difference between confidence and realizing that
we (and by we, I mean Fedora QA) are not omniscient - we can't
possibly know everything about what's reasonable and what makes up
a set of acceptably comprehensive criteria to describe an acceptable
release.
There is wisdom in getting input from other groups - QA is a part of
Fedora as a whole, not some completely isolated group which dictates
the definition of a quality release. There is also wisdom in not setting
the bar too high - that's a great path to irrelevance and having the
criteria ignored.
Tim
1:15 p.m.
On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 07:18 -0600, Tim Flink wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:48:47 +0000
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/24/2012 03:33 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > criterion" - not done yet
> > * "tflink to ask other interested parties (anaconda team,
> > fesco...) to look over the beta criteria and see if
> > there's anything they feel should be dialled down" - not done yet
>
> Since you guys seem to be not confident enough in our own criteria
> writing perhaps we should just stop writing them and have FESCO
> writing those for us?
I think there is a difference between confidence and realizing that
we (and by we, I mean Fedora QA) are not omniscient - we can't
possibly know everything about what's reasonable and what makes up
a set of acceptably comprehensive criteria to describe an acceptable
release.
There is wisdom in getting input from other groups - QA is a part of
Fedora as a whole, not some completely isolated group which dictates
the definition of a quality release. There is also wisdom in not setting
the bar too high - that's a great path to irrelevance and having the
criteria ignored.
Right. I do wish you wouldn't exaggerate things, Johann. The criteria
are a part of Fedora as a whole, they define what the project considers
minimum acceptable functionality for each release point. They are not
solely a QA issue, other teams clearly have input into the question.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
2:02 p.m.
On 10/24/2012 06:15 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Right. I do wish you wouldn't exaggerate things, Johann. The
criteria
are a part of Fedora as a whole, they define what the project considers
minimum acceptable functionality for each release point. They are not
solely a QA issue, other teams clearly have input into the question.
we are the one who create the criteria
we are the ones that follow it
we are the ones that test if the relevant stuff meets the criteria
Yes developers and packagers might do mistakes but in the end it's we (
QA/Releng ) the ones that are ultimately responsible for the overall
quality of the release
we are the last line of defense for the end user and we are the ones
that should handle this ( from my pov. )
Asking the relevant developer group in this case Anaconda if they think
we are setting *our* distribution criteria to high to meet their *own*
software or even the group of individuals that approved the newUI
feature accepted it and allowed it with no better contingency plan than
what was given. An group of people that seem to be incapable of
answering one simply question I have asked on numerous occasion when it
became clear that the newUI installer is no way ready to be released to
the general public. Why the rush? why not push it back a release to
allow it to stabilize a bit more?
And so I quote yourself to FESCO...
"Additionally, RH has asked its staff on the anaconda team to prioritize
work on a pending RHEL release over work on Fedora 18, and that is
happening, which may further delay work on the upgrade tool and the
current blocker list."
Yet another alarm bell ringing and where does this leave us ( the
project ) with the installer?
So excuse me for being skeptical about FESCO decision making and an
development group that no longer has the time to develop the
distributions installer for showing concerns and "exaggerate things.
JBG
2:34 p.m.
On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 19:02 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 10/24/2012 06:15 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Right. I do wish you wouldn't exaggerate things, Johann. The criteria
> are a part of Fedora as a whole, they define what the project considers
> minimum acceptable functionality for each release point. They are not
> solely a QA issue, other teams clearly have input into the question.
we are the one who create the criteria
we are the ones that follow it
we are the ones that test if the relevant stuff meets the criteria
Yes developers and packagers might do mistakes but in the end it's we (
QA/Releng ) the ones that are ultimately responsible for the overall
quality of the release
we are the last line of defense for the end user and we are the ones
that should handle this ( from my pov. )
Asking the relevant developer group in this case Anaconda if they think
we are setting *our* distribution criteria to high to meet their *own*
software or even the group of individuals that approved the newUI
feature accepted it and allowed it with no better contingency plan than
what was given.
I just don't agree with your principles here. 'We', as in QA, are not
the only ones who create the criteria, no. The initial major revision of
the criteria was done with significant input from the development teams.
Changes since have often involved the development teams.
Fundamentally I don't think it's correct to say that it is QA's job and
QA's job alone to define what the requirements are for a Fedora release
to be made. It's QA's job to *check* those requirements. I don't see how
we can say that the best way to *define* the requirements is for QA to
decide what they are and everyone else to butt out. Defining the
requirements involves issues beyond those that are QA specific. It is
more along the lines of the 'what Fedora is supposed to be' question.
You can't draw up criteria without an answer to the questions 'what is a
Fedora Alpha release for?' 'what is a Fedora Beta release for?' 'what is
a Fedora Final release for?', which are questions that go far wider than
QA alone.
An group of people that seem to be incapable of
answering one simply question I have asked on numerous occasion when it
became clear that the newUI installer is no way ready to be released to
the general public. Why the rush? why not push it back a release to
allow it to stabilize a bit more?
And so I quote yourself to FESCO...
"Additionally, RH has asked its staff on the anaconda team to prioritize
work on a pending RHEL release over work on Fedora 18, and that is
happening, which may further delay work on the upgrade tool and the
current blocker list."
Yet another alarm bell ringing and where does this leave us ( the
project ) with the installer?
So excuse me for being skeptical about FESCO decision making and an
development group that no longer has the time to develop the
distributions installer for showing concerns and "exaggerate things.
Now you're just muddying the waters. None of the above really has any
relation to the question of discussing release criteria revisions.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
4211
days inactive
4211
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Adam Williamson -
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson -
Tim Flink