2009-11-23 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting Recap

James Laska jlaska at redhat.com
Mon Nov 23 19:21:09 UTC 2009

Full IRC transcript available at

= Attendees =

People present (lines said)

* jlaska (140)
* adamw (73)
* wwoods (68)
* Oxf13 (39)
* poelcat (26)
* Viking-Ice (21)
* kparal (20)
* spot (7)
* tibbs (2)
* zodbot (2)
* jwb (2)
* buggbot (1)
* tk009 (1)
* pjones (1)
* jeff_hann (1)

* [[User:Liam]]
* [[User:rhe]]

= Agenda =

[https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-November/msg00989.html Proposed meeting agenda]
[http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-11-23/fedora-meeting.2009-11-23-16.00.html meetbot summary]

== Previous meeting follow-up ==

* jlaska will propose Common_F12_Bugs after meeting for bug#530541

Added to the list with help from [[User:wwoods]] and [[User:adamw]] (See
[[Common_F12_bugs#preupgrade-boot]]).  Also reorganized
[[How_to_use_PreUpgrade]] and we've had several additional contributions
to the troubleshooting section from [[User:Toshio]] and [[User:Mccann]].

* preupgrade test updates

Per last weeks FESCO meeting on preupgrade, QA team took an action item
to update the preupgrade test cases ([[QA:Testcase Preupgrade]] and
[[QA:Testcase Preupgrade from older release]]).  Fedora QA trac
[https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/30 ticket#30] is tracking
this update.  [[User:rhe]] and [[User:Kparal]] have adding their
thoughts to the issue.

* jlaska to send request for retrospective feedback to fedora-test-list@

No action this past week.  Will prioritize for this week and discuss
next week.

== Security Test Plan ==

Spot posted some great points around non-root user security expectations
in his blog last week (see http://spot.livejournal.com/312216.html).
This seems to me like an interesting project worth pursuing for Fedora

The team discussed at length, highlights include:

* Spot updated his blog with the latest feedback from his blog -- see
* part#1 - Should involve defining a security policy ... instead of
making one up
** This policy may take into account a method for each spin SIG to add
spin-specific security policy.
* part#2 - The QA team can support a security policy by creating test
documentation (plans/cases) and providing test results

AdamW agreed to take the first step by initiating discussion with
fedora-devel-list and fedora-security-list to begin the process of
reaching consensus on a security policy.  

== Enhancing Release Criteria ==

John Poelstra has been thinking about enhancements to the current Fedora
release criteria and has
[https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-November/msg00926.html organized his thoughts] into several wiki pages, starting with [[Fedora_Release_Criteria]].  There aren't intentions that this list will be the end-all be-all of checklists for the list.  I know we've all experienced some of the subjective nature of identifying blocker bugs and assessing release impact.  

Please take a few moments to review the criteria, along with the
following pages, and offer your suggestions/corrections.

Fedora 13 release criteria
* [[Fedora_13_Alpha_Release_Criteria]]
* [[Fedora_13_Beta_Release_Criteria]]
* [[Fedora_13_Final_Release_Criteria]]

General FAQ around escalating blocker bugs - [[Blocker_Bug_FAQ]]

[[User:poelstra]] joined the meeting and recommended reading the
[https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-November/msg00926.html email announcement] first.  John also indicated he was hoping this would set a better stage for more info that might come from the target audience discussion.  The plan was to host healthy discussion on the mailing list until FUDCon.  Then, at FUDCon, hammer out the dents and formalize something we can use for Fedora 13.  John asked the team if this was realistic.  Adamw and jlaska felt it was.

Wwoods noted that the [[QA/ReleaseCriteria|original release criteria]]
was started by writing down whatever unwritten common-sense tests and
policies we already had, and maybe a couple "it'd be nice if.." ones.
John thanked Will for starting the release criteria process, as many of
the points raised in the original page are included in the new
release-specific pages.

== AutoQA update ==

=== wwoods updates ===

autoqa-0.3 merged into the master branch (see
http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=autoqa.git;a=commit;h=a27a03f527a76af24bac46dd3872efc9fd4e3984).  This branch adds:
* a new autoqa python library
* which includes, shared repoinfo code for the watcher scripts and
utility functions/classes for tests
* the new post-koji-build hook.  Which is still fairly experimental, but
we have it running a simple 'rpmlint' test on every new build that comes
out of koji

Wwoods outlined several FUDCon plans, including:
* An info session on current and future plans
* A hackfest on a solid depcheck test
** Work to solidify the post-koji-build hook
** Think of some possible ways to make it easy for package maintainers
to add post-build tests
** Get rpmguard up and running

kparal asked how work was proceed with running autoqa locally (see
[https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/52 ticket#52]).  Wwoods
indicated that was a prerequisite for maintainers to be able to work on
post-build tests
=== kparal updates ===

While waiting for wwoods' big merge (52 commits ahead), I was trying to
improve wiki documentation. So I created a new AutoQA front page (see
[[AutoQA]]), which should work as a guidepost - different kinds of user
can choose interesting stuff for them and go to a link for details.  The
previous content was moved to "AutoQA architecture" page. there's the
https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/autoqa-devel/2009-November/000023.html.  Kamil advised ... not to look at the front page much in detail, it's going to change soon.  Jlaska proposed an improved version for review at [[User:Jlaska/Draft]] which may replace the current version soon.

Kamil's plan for this week includes working on integration of rpmguard
into autoqa.  Wwoods noted that they'd need to figure out what to do
with the output of the test (mail it to package owners/autoqa-results?)
and what to do when there's a change that should block the package.  But
that can wait until after the test is working.

=== Misc ===

* Use cases - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AutoQA_Use_Cases -
* Packaging autotest - https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/9 -
* Packaging autoqa - https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/3 -
* Convert israwhidebroken to WSGI -
https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/91 - ''INPROGRESS''

== Open discussion - <Your topic here> ==

=== FUDCon - Oxf13 ===

Jkeating announced plans to host a talk around the future of Fedora
development.  This talk would include outlining
[[No_Frozen_Rawhide_Proposal]], [[AutoQA]], auto-signing, new
milestones, and how all these puzzle pieces are supposed to fit

Jwb asked if the discussion could be recorded for those who would not be
in attendance.

=== Target audience for DVD.iso - Viking-Ice  ===

In reference to the Fedora target audience discussion, Viking-Ice asked,
''Who's the dvd img target audience.  sysadmins [ or ] end users?''

Jlaska pointed to the
[http://docs.fedoraproject.org/install-guide/f12/en-US/html/ch-new-users.html#sn-which-files install guide] which states:
  If you have plenty of time, a fast Internet connection, and wish a
broader choice of 
  software on the install media, download the full DVD version

Wwoods provided a link to the fedora-advisory-board discussion -

Discussion followed around whether DVD/CD optical media was still
required.  The recommendation was to take any updates or discussion on
this topic to the fedora-advisory-board list.

= Upcoming QA events =

* NA

= Action items =

* adamw - initiate security policy discussion on
* jlaska to send request for retrospective feedback to fedora-test-list@
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/attachments/20091123/93aaaae9/attachment.sig>

More information about the fedora-test-list mailing list