2009-11-30 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting Recap

James Laska jlaska at redhat.com
Mon Nov 30 21:01:33 UTC 2009

Full IRC transcript available at

= Attendees =

People present (lines said)

* jlaska (115)
* adamw (53)
* wwoods (27)
* poelcat (25)
* kparal (15)
* nirik (14)
* skvidal (14)
* Oxf13 (10)
* Viking-Ice (7)
* zodbot (3)
* tk009 (2)

* [[User:Liam|Liam]]
* [[User:Rhe|Hurry]]

= Agenda =

[https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-November/msg01223.html Proposed meeting agenda]
[http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-11-30/qa.2009-11-30-16.00.html meetbot summary]

== Previous meeting follow-up ==

* adamw - initiate security policy discussion on
fedora-{devel,security}-list (see

Initiated discussion on fedora-devel-list (see
[https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-November/msg01745.html thread]).  See below for further discussion.

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

Initiated discussion on fedora-devel-list (see
[https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-November/msg01126.html thread]).  See below for further discussion.

== Enhancing Release Criteria ==

John Poelstra offered thanks to those who provided feedback on the
[https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-November/msg00926.html updated Fedora release criteria] and asked for
guidance on next steps.

Next steps include:
* Updating the wiki content with feedback from mailing list and :Talk
pages. Jlaska indicated that most of the :Talk content had been
incorporated already
* Send another feedback reminder to the list by ... tomorrow
* Wrap-up with an in-person review (aka hackfest) @ FUDCon

Jlaska noted he was still unclear how to on how best to account for
hardware-specific and local site configuration specific issue that Adamw
raised.  John wondered if this would be easier if we quantified the
failures (e.g. ''5 or more systems'').  Adamw offered to write-up a
paragraph to better outline the problem. 

== Security Policy / Test Plan ==

In response to Spot's blog post (see
http://spot.livejournal.com/312216.html), Adamw offered to initiate
discussion on defining a security policy.  Adamw gave an update on his
efforts to
[https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-November/msg01745.html build consensus around a security policy].  The discussion started and there was consensus that a policy would be a good thing, but activity has since petered-out.  John Poelstra asked whether the request had been submited to FESCO yet.

Highlights of the discussion include:
* there's vague consensus that we should have package defaults that are
'very secure' and then per-spin  customization for less security (if
* No one has stepped up and said, ''Yeah, there's a plan and we are
doing it here''
* Skvidal drafted a change policy and sent to FESCO mailing list for

AdamW agreed to raise this issue with FESCO for guidance in defining a
security policy for fedora

== Fedora 12 QA retrospective ==

* See announcement -
* See wiki page - [[Fedora_12_QA_Retrospective]]

Jlaska thanked all who contributed feedback on the mailing list or
directly to
the wiki pages.  Jlaska noted he was planning to migrate the mailing
feedback into the wiki.

Next steps involve
* Organize feedback into related groups
* Discuss recommendations the group would like to focus on for Fedora 13
* Divide and conquer

== AutoQA update ==

=== kparal updates ===

Kparal noted he has a few autoqa patches out for review to the
autoqa-devel list.
* adding --help and --dry-run options to all watchers
* keep control files around when using --dry-run

Next steps ...
* Some work was done on rpmguard this past week, but more effort is
needed to fully integrate it.
* Kparal plans to adjust the ''Getting started'' use case this week once
changes are accepted.

=== wwoods updates ===

Last week, wwoods adapted kparal's autoqa local patch and commited to
git.  So
tests can now be launched on your local system.  This should aid with
development and integration.  Kparal noted he tested the changes and
everything looked good.

Some general updates to the watcher scripts, including running autoqa
once for
each repo/build that's updated.  This will make running 'noarch' tests
possible in the future for tests that don't require arch-specific test

Wwoods is doing some FUDCon prep work this week and plans to assist
with any integration issues with rpmguard.

=== Misc ===

* Support for ''autoqa --local'' -
https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/52 - ''DONE''
* Convert israwhidebroken to WSGI -
https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/91 - ''POST'' - awaiting review
** Thanks to help from Toshio, autoqa-israwhidebroken is now packaged
and being tested
* Use cases - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AutoQA_Use_Cases -

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

=== Glögg as the official drink of QA ===

Adamw recommended that glogg be adopted as the new official drink of QA
(see http://loupgaroublond.blogspot.com/2009/11/glogg.html).  It
involves wine, port and whiskey, and has an awesome name.  i see no


=== FUDCon travel Plans ===

Jkeating asked who would be on the Boston -> Toronto FUDBus.

= Upcoming QA events =

* NA

= Action items =

* adamw to offer some guidance on how to handle
hardware/local_configuration specific bugs
* adamw will reach out to FESCO for guidance on defining a security
* jlaska to post recommendations on F-12 QA retrospective
-------------- 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/20091130/d7ef0435/attachment.sig>

More information about the fedora-test-list mailing list