Ubuntu Wiki

Log

TZ UTC-4

(03:00:15 PM) heno: #startmeeting
(03:00:34 PM) heno: meh, no bot
(03:00:49 PM) heno: ok, agenda at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/Meetings
(03:01:20 PM) heno: TOPIC - Setting up virtual images of standard upstream software for upstream bug testing
(03:01:46 PM) heno: I played a bit with this yesterday in vbox
(03:02:03 PM) heno: basically installed Debian testing
(03:02:27 PM) heno: anyone know how much debian changs Gnome and OOo?
(03:02:52 PM) heno: they obviously rebrand firefox
(03:03:21 PM) stgraber: I don't think they patch gnome a lot, you probably can take a quick look at their .diff.gz though
(03:03:34 PM) heno: the idea here is to make it easy to teat whether a bug exists upstream
(03:03:42 PM) pedro_: there's no a good way to determine that i think
(03:03:50 PM) pedro_: that's why i prefer to use jhbuild of trunk instead
(03:04:32 PM) heno: So: is offering Debian unstable images a good enough way to do this or should it be pure upstream?
(03:05:01 PM) heno: latest head builds
(03:05:17 PM) Crazyguy: if possible, latest gnome build definitely
(03:05:29 PM) bdmurray: I think pure upstream for OOo, firefox, and Gnome.  Having a debian image would be good for a lot of bugs though.
(03:06:15 PM) pedro_: yep it would be good for all the other software we have
(03:06:34 PM) davmor2: I think if you asking general public to test in vm then debian unstable is probably a good call
(03:06:36 PM) heno: firefox and OOo are fairly easy to install from upstream binaries I guess, what about Gnome?
(03:06:53 PM) pedro_: ouch
(03:06:57 PM) heno: heh
(03:07:21 PM) pedro_: is a bit complicated but not a lot
(03:07:31 PM) pedro_: and it will use a lot of space
(03:07:35 PM) RoAkSoAx: @schedule
(03:07:41 PM) heno: ok, so perhaps we can start with Debian unstable and see if we run into issues of it not being pure upstream enough
(03:07:59 PM) pedro_: ~750 only of source code
(03:08:12 PM) pedro_: ok
(03:09:27 PM) heno: It would be great if someone could take this on, but we'll get to that on agenda item 3
(03:09:34 PM) heno: TOPIC - Creating a test-control team to lead various test efforts with similar privileges as bug-control
(03:09:53 PM) pedro_: btw does debian have something like patches.ubuntu.com?
(03:10:51 PM) heno: This would include people who can admin the test tracker, who generally edit test cases, etc.
(03:11:04 PM) heno: perhaps also set priority of bugs
(03:11:22 PM) heno: it would be a restricted team like bug-control
(03:11:32 PM) heno: pedro_: don't know
(03:12:01 PM) heno: there is the ubuntu->debian project, utnubu or something
(03:12:27 PM) pedro_: ok will try to see what can i find out there, thanks
(03:13:02 PM) heno: thoughts on test-control? do we need this? will it be useful?
(03:13:28 PM) ogasawara: heno: is there a list of initial members for the test-control team that don't already have the above mentioned privileges?
(03:14:07 PM) heno: davmor2: are you in bug-control?
(03:14:23 PM) davmor2: No bug-squad
(03:14:30 PM) heno: there are the Xubuntu and Studio test people also
(03:15:00 PM) bdmurray: the test cases are just in the wiki though at the moment right?
(03:15:06 PM) heno: it's also a way to encourage people to do ore structured testing
(03:15:12 PM) cgregan: I think a defined group to manage these type of actions is a good idea. Especially as we grow. That being said, it would have to be managed so it did not become a bottleneck
(03:15:15 PM) stgraber: Won't that require to have that test-control team as a member of bug-control ?
(03:15:18 PM) heno: and learn more advanced techniques
(03:15:38 PM) heno: like setting up re-flashable disk images
(03:16:51 PM) heno: bdmurray: right, I'm not suggesting we limit access to editing them, just that it would be a typical task for team members
(03:17:08 PM) james_w: pedro_: no, they don't have patches.debian.org, but if they use a patch system patches.ubuntu.com can provide the individual patches in http://patches.ubuntu.com/by-release/extracted/debian/ which is probably quite useful for gnome
(03:17:09 PM) bdmurray: stgraber: for setting bug priority yes and I think the bug-control team requires some special knowledge that testers might not need
(03:17:14 PM) heno: stgraber: why, to set importance?
(03:17:20 PM) stgraber: heno: yep
(03:17:38 PM) pedro_: james_w: great, thanks!
(03:18:22 PM) bdmurray: I think setting bug importance could wait a while
(03:18:47 PM) heno: we can leave the right to set importance out, but it should be a restricted team
(03:19:04 PM) zul: @schedule montreal
(03:19:11 PM) stgraber: well, it has to be restricted, otherwise you are just describing our existing : "Ubuntu Testing Team" :)
(03:19:24 PM) stgraber: (that's currently AFAIK not used at all)
(03:19:27 PM) heno: the test tracker could get the info from LP in the future
(03:19:38 PM) heno: stgraber: right :)
(03:20:44 PM) heno: Sounds like we should define the purpose and scope a bit better before proceeding
(03:20:53 PM) stgraber: indeed
(03:20:58 PM) heno: I'll take it to the mailing list
(03:21:19 PM) heno: TOPIC - Additional QA team roles
(03:21:41 PM) davmor2: I think it is important for people to have a sense of motivation.  You see now across the whole spectrum of teams.  You get the base level team that anyone can join and then the elite who help the other and have more privileges
(03:21:41 PM) heno: see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/Roles for my proposal
(03:21:50 PM) stgraber: I'm all for a restricted team showing that its members have been actively helping testing Ubuntu
(03:22:45 PM) stgraber: the "Ubuntu Testing Team" was useless mainly because it was opened to everyone and didn't give any additional privilege.
(03:23:03 PM) stgraber: davmor2: +1
(03:24:23 PM) heno: ok, so we are agreed on the principle, just need to settle the details :)
(03:24:31 PM) davmor2: :)
(03:24:37 PM) davmor2: sounds good :)
(03:24:58 PM) heno: davmor2's point is really also the motivation for the QA roles
(03:25:28 PM) heno: defining clear areas of responsibility that we ask people step up to
(03:25:37 PM) pedro_: mmm we need a KDE/Kubuntu guy
(03:25:43 PM) ***pedro_ will ask yuriy about that
(03:25:51 PM) davmor2: heno: I think in the roles you missed asac for FF
(03:25:59 PM) stgraber: that Roles page looks really good, will be useful to redirect people asking who to contact regarding a specific area of QA
(03:26:01 PM) davmor2: Riddell
(03:26:26 PM) davmor2: he tends to sit in on the testing channel anyway
(03:26:27 PM) bdmurray: When I heard role I was thinking bug forwarder, bug triager, etc...
(03:26:44 PM) heno: I should link to the bug roles page - there is some overlap
(03:26:52 PM) stgraber: Installer bug contact would also be a good thing
(03:26:59 PM) stgraber: for debian-installer/ubiquity issues
(03:27:06 PM) heno: bdmurray: should we use a different term?
(03:27:31 PM) bdmurray: Nothing great comes to mind other than "lead"?
(03:27:41 PM) asac: i would love to give away the "mozilla bug role" to someone else who is more dedicated to bug work.
(03:27:43 PM) bdmurray: Well, that's not great
(03:27:45 PM) heno: I'm sure asac would love someone *else* to step up as FF QA lead :)
(03:27:51 PM) asac:  \o/
(03:27:53 PM) heno: ...
(03:28:06 PM) asac: i can provide the input and procedures, but doing the QA of my own stuff doesn't sound right
(03:28:13 PM) davmor2: stgraber: that would be evand
(03:28:41 PM) heno: davmor2: but as with asac he is the lead dev
(03:28:58 PM) heno: the QA lead should be a different person
(03:30:17 PM) heno: shall we decide on these one at a time and move them up to open positions/roles?
(03:30:30 PM) davmor2: Well myself evand and  xivulon (Agostino Russo) are all on pretty good terms, so I can probably take that on too.
(03:31:35 PM) heno: davmor2: ok, just note that we are trying to involve new people with this, so don't take them all :)
(03:31:57 PM) heno: So, in order:
(03:32:01 PM) heno: Kernel bug first-response
(03:32:30 PM) heno: ogasawara: please add whatever further role description is needed
(03:32:36 PM) ogasawara: sounds good to me :)  I'll beef up the description more
(03:32:58 PM) heno: the more detail about what it involves the better
(03:33:02 PM) ***ogasawara nods
(03:33:30 PM) heno: * Test VM maintainer
(03:33:49 PM) heno: based on debian I think we decided
(03:34:11 PM) heno: I can flesh that one out
(03:34:49 PM) stgraber: what about some kind of Forum <-> QA team contact ?
(03:35:28 PM) heno: what would they do?
(03:36:06 PM) heno: sounds useful, but specifically
(03:36:23 PM) stgraber: make sure people reporting bugs or test results on the forums are either redirected to the proper ressource (Launchpad) or at least forward the bug/result to the right developper or open a report himself
(03:37:17 PM) heno: that sounds concrete enough
(03:37:43 PM) heno: and could request testing in the forum when needed
(03:37:56 PM) stgraber: yes, that too
(03:38:26 PM) heno: stgraber: will you flesh out the description for that?
(03:39:00 PM) heno: * Derivatives test coordinator (Xubuntu, Ubuntu Studio, etc.)
(03:39:13 PM) stgraber: sure
(03:39:42 PM) heno: perhaps we should hold off on the derivatives one as ISO testing season is now over
(03:40:00 PM) heno: we can't post them all at once anyway
(03:40:29 PM) stgraber: oh, about that, who's the project leader for Mythbuntu ?
(03:40:32 PM) heno: And let's add FF and perhaps OOo
(03:40:46 PM) stgraber: we don't have them on the tracker and I think it'd be a good idea to add them
(03:40:55 PM) bdmurray: asac: are getting Firefox 3.0 bugs upstream important now? and how time sensitive is it?
(03:40:59 PM) bdmurray: stgraber: superm1
(03:41:11 PM) stgraber: bdmurray: thanks, I'll ping him later
(03:41:18 PM) heno: the installer can perhaps wait as it's out of season now :)
(03:43:30 PM) heno: let's aim to have 2-3 of these posted before next week's meeting
(03:43:43 PM) heno: any other topics today?
(03:44:28 PM) stgraber: We can probably start with : test-vm, kernel bug and forum
(03:44:45 PM) stgraber: those aren't linked to ISO testing
(03:45:14 PM) stgraber: (not directly)
(03:45:20 PM) heno: ok
(03:45:55 PM) heno: 3
(03:46:01 PM) heno: 2
(03:46:06 PM) heno: 1
(03:46:12 PM) heno: #endmeeting
(03:46:24 PM) davmor2: still no bot :)
(03:46:58 PM) heno: Yeah, I'm still compelled to write that though :)