Re: Schedule concern next week: holidays ahead!
> > Given the urgency of the situation, please schedule a blocker meeting for > today (formally or informally). I'll be ready to run a meeting at the usual 1600 UTC time in #fedora-blocker-review. ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Self-introduction: suiwenfeng
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 12:50:18PM +, ? ?? wrote: > Hi guys, > > > > I'm very glad to request to join Fedora QA Work Group. Now I have 2 years > work experience on Hadoop/Storm/Kafka. I am familiar with Java/Scala/Python, > and interested in Fedora Cloud. Hope I can start from QA and take part in > some works of Fedora Cloud. > > > > It`s about 5 years ago, I am start using Fedora 16. And when I come back, > it`s 27 now... Anyway, it is really a fancy work. When I have no idea how to > contribute to it, Mike Ruckman`s comment guides me to the place. > > > > My name is suiwenfeng, I'm 24 years old and live at Shanghai. I have more > than 8 hours per weeks to make some contributions. Below is my contacts. > > > > Github: https://github.com/suiwenfeng > > IRC: suiwenfeng AT chat.freenode.net > > FAS/Bugzilla: suiwenf...@live.cn > > > > Thanks > > suiwenfeng Welcome Suiwenfeng! Looking forward to working in both QA and Cloud with you! Please let me know via IRC or email if you have any questions! // Mike -- Fedora QA ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [Test-Announce] Proposal to CANCEL: 2017-06-12 Fedora QA Meeting
On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:23:02PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the QA meeting on Monday. We did a > pretty good job of checking in this week, and I don't think there's > anything pressing that needs a meeting this week. The status of Beta is > a bit of a mess with the remaining libdb issues, but that needs to be > discussed at a different level than the QA team. > > If anyone does want to have a meeting and is willing to run it, please > just go ahead and say so (and send out an agenda). > > Mike will be sending out a blocker review meeting announcement for > Tuesday, I believe. > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net > http://www.happyassassin.net I sent out an email on Friday proposing we cancel the Blocker Review next week :) // Mike -- Fedora QA ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:52:05PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > I don't really understand this, and I haven't read the meeting log, so I > apologize if my questions are dumb. I was in the meeting, and I was confused - so your questions aren't dumb. :) > Why would we dictate that Editions/Spins can't use different software on > different architectures? It might make perfect sense to use browser X on > x86_64 because it's very good, but use browser Y on i386 because of memory > limitations of i386 arch (browser Y needing much less memory than browser > X). Similarly, if shell A no longer supports i386, why would be ban it from > being preinstalled on x86_64? i386 would have shell B instead. Those are > random examples, but it seems to me that they can be completely valid. If > there's such requirement that Editions/Spins can't install different > software on different arches, I think that should be established by FESCo, > not us. I concur with Kamil on this one, I think there's valid reasons a package set might be different based on the arch. If this is indeed the direction we want to go, I think FESCo needs to make that call. > For this particular Firefox example, what is the core problem that you're > trying to fix here? Is it the fact that Firefox excluded many arches from > builds? From my QA POV, since it excluded arm, it's a blocker, since arm is > primary. If it hadn't excluded arm, it would not be a blocker, and > alternate arches would need to find a way (fix the bug or use a different > browser). If you still think this should not happen, you could ask FESCo to > present some rules saying when Fedora packagers can exclude other arches > from the build and when they can't. We could then enforce that (instead of > prohibiting different package sets). As I think I said in the meeting, I thought the bug as filed was the blocker and didn't see the need for the shadow bug created to track blockeriness. It was a secondary affect, sure; but we deal with that all the time. I concur that it might be a good idea to keep a list (FESCo generated probably?) of "key" packages that need to be available on all arches, or what arches they're allowed to not use. // Mike -- Fedora QA ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Validation proposal: separate out artwork / release identification checks to their own test case
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:38:00PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi folks! Time for another proposal :) > > We currently kinda bundle the checks for correct artwork and 'release > identification' (stuff that identifies the release, like 'Welcome to > Fedora 26!' etc.) into two test cases that also include functionality > testing: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_base_startup > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_base_initial_setup > > This is a bit awkward, and also is a bit of a problem for automation. > We could actually automate the functional parts of those tests in > openQA (I've just finished adding openQA tests that install without a > user account and check gnome-initial-setup and initial-setup work OK), > but we can't really automate the 'release identification' / artwork > checks. So we can't have openQA report wiki passes for these tests, so > long as they're combined like this. > > So I'm proposing we separate out a new 'artwork and release > identification' test case. I've written a draft of it: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_Testcase_artwork_release_identification > > We would remove the relevant bits from the other two test cases. > > I'm a bit in two minds about what to do with the matrices. I'm thinking > we could either add this test case to the Server, Cloud and Desktop > pages, or we could put it in the Base page (as the current tests are). > Looking at this, it occurs to me that not just these checks but most of > the other Base tests would actually be relevant to things beyond the > 'environments' currently in the Base page (Workstation, Server, KDE, > ARM and Cloud). I'm thinking perhaps we could rejig the page a bit, and > add another table with non-blocking columns for other desktops and > stuff. > > Thoughts? Thanks! > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net > http://www.happyassassin.net Sounds good to me. // Mike -- Fedora QA ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Criteria proposal: move "No broken packages" requirement to Final
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 11:17:27AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > So, at the Alpha go/no-go we discussed this bug: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1437299 > > and agreed that with current behaviour of anaconda and dnf, blocking > Alpha release on it didn't make sense. > > The relevant criterion here is > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Alpha_Release_Criteria#No_broken_packages > : > > "There must be no errors in any package on the release-blocking images > which cause the package to fail to install." > > In practice, this criterion is only relevant to DVD images. AFAIK, it's > not possible for the other image types to contain packages they can't > install, because they all wind up deploying the bits they're actually > built *from* - they don't act as 'package repositories'. > > At the time we wrote the criterion, we had a generic DVD image with > many different packages and package groups on it. The installer GUI > allowed you to select 'optional' packages from the groups included on > the image for installation. And if any package selected had dependency > issues, the install would fail with an error. > > Quite a lot has changed since. We no longer have a generic DVD image, > only the Server DVD image, which contains only a handful of Server- > related package groups. The installer GUI no longer lets you select > optional packages; you can only select the 'environments' and 'option > groups' that are present on the DVD, and only 'mandatory' and 'default' > packages from those groups will be selected for install. And if a > selected package has dependency issues, the install will simply proceed > with that package (and anything else that requires it) omitted. > > Given all of these considerations, I propose we move the criterion to > Final. > > For the record, I'm also looking at the dnf/anaconda behaviour. It > turns out there's a few wrinkles, but I do think we should switch it > back to 'strict' mode (where any listed package not being found or > being non-installable for some reason causes an error) by default. But > it's not entirely straightforward. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427365 is the place to > follow that. I do still think that moving the criterion to Final would > be OK even if we changed dnf behaviour; I think for Alpha and Beta it's > enough if the default Server DVD package set installs OK, we should > make sure that the other package sets available from the Server DVD > install OK for Final. > > Thoughts? Notes? Concerns? Thanks! > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net > http://www.happyassassin.net I'm +1 to the movement to Final. // Mike -- Fedora QA ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Criteria proposal: virt guest at Alpha
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 05:39:20PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi folks! > > At the Go/No-Go meeting today, we agreed in principle that major bugs > in virt guest functionality should come under the Alpha criteria, not > the Beta criteria as before. When we established the virt criteria, use > of virtual machines for pre-release testing wasn't as widespread as it > is now. > > Having looked at the criteria, I think a simple change can achieve > this. We simply move this single criterion from Beta to Alpha: > > "The release must install and boot successfully as a virtual guest in a > situation where the virtual host is running the current stable Fedora > release." > > The other criterion would remain at Beta: > > "The release must be able host virtual guest instances of the same > release." > > I believe just this change should suffice to implement the intent: that > virt guest functionality block Alpha, but virt host functionality block > Beta. > > Does this sound good to everyone? Thanks! > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net > http://www.happyassassin.net That sounds good to me. I think both of those make sense and get where we're trying to go. // Mike -- Fedora QA ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Release validation testers: a question
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 12:02:14PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi folks! I've got a question for everyone who helps out with release > validation testing. It's related to the project to build a new system > for submitting those results. We have a ticket for designing that > system: > > https://pagure.io/design/issue/483 > > and as part of the discussion there, we're wondering something. Given > that it's part of the new design that there's some kind of step where > you specify which particular image you're testing, does it make more > sense to you if you choose things in this order: > > 1. Pick a test to run > 2. Pick an image to run the test on > > Or this order: > > 1. Pick an image to test > 2. Pick a test to run on the image > > ? It's pretty important to the design approach. Thanks! > > (Please do feel free to read the ticket and mention any other thoughts > you have on the design, too.) > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net > http://www.happyassassin.net I also pick an image and then run tests against it. // Mike -- Fedora QA ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: criterion adjustment proposal: demote optical media support
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 08:41:57AM -0500, Kamil Paral wrote: > Hi, > > as discussed in "future of official optical media support in Fedora" thread > in devel list [1], we agreed to decrease the importance and testing of > optical media support for Fedora release composes, and block on just several > specific images. This is a concrete proposal to adjust our release criteria > to match the outcome of the discussion. The outcome is that we will not block > on broken optical support for any Alpha/Beta composes, and we will block on > optical support for Final composes only for Workstation Live and Everything > netinst image (please note that I didn't receive much feedback for my last > point where I suggested Everything netinst is made release blocking [2] - if > you have something to add, there's still time). > > > == Don't block on Alpha/Beta adjustment == > > 1. On page > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Alpha_Release_Criteria#Release-blocking_images_must_boot > the first sentence under "Supported media types" section changes from: > > Release-blocking live and dedicated installer images must boot when written > > to optical media of an appropriate size (if applicable) and when written to > > a USB stick with at least one of the officially supported methods. > to > > Release-blocking live and dedicated installer images must boot when written > > to a USB stick with at least one of the officially supported methods. > > 2. On page > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Beta_Release_Criteria#Release-blocking_images_must_boot > the first sentence under "Supported media types" section changes from: > > Release-blocking live and dedicated installer images must boot when written > > to optical media of an appropriate size (if applicable) and when written to > > a USB stick with any of the officially supported methods. > to > > Release-blocking live and dedicated installer images must boot when written > > to a USB stick with any of the officially supported methods. > > 3. On page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Final_Release_Criteria we > add "Initialization requirements" header with "Release-blocking images must > boot" sub-header (same as in Alpha/Beta) with text: > > All release-blocking images must boot in their supported configurations. > > Supported media types [hide] > > Release-blocking live and dedicated installer images must boot when written > > to optical media of an appropriate size (if applicable) and when written to > > a USB stick with any of the officially supported methods. > > Difference from Beta [hide] > > This criterion differs from the similar Beta criterion only in that it > > requires all supported images to work when written also to an optical > > media, not just USB sticks. > > > == Block only on Workstation Live and Everything netinst change == > > 1. On page > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/ReleaseBlocking/Fedora26 > we add another column to the all the tables called "optical boot is release > blocking". The cells will have value "yes" for Workstation Live x86_64 and > Everything netinst x86_64, value "no" for all other rows containing "release > blocking = yes", and will be grayed out for rows containing "release blocking > = no". > > (We link to this page from Alpha/Beta/Final release criteria pages from the > last sentence in the description in the top of the page.) > > > == Wiki adjustments == > > 1. On page > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Template:Installation_test_matrix#Default_boot_and_install_.28x86_64.29 > we change "Expected coverage" box from: > > For Alpha and Beta, we expect a reasonable sampling of tests across the > > table, with at least some testing for all three media types, both firmware > > types, and each major class of deliverable (netinst, live and DVD). For > > Final, we expect full coverage for all the Alpha / Final rows. > to > > For Alpha and Beta, we expect a reasonable sampling of tests across the > > table, with at least some testing for VM and USB boot method, both firmware > > types, and each major class of deliverable (netinst, live and DVD). Optical > > boot testing is optional at this stage. For Final, we expect full coverage > > for the Alpha / Final rows with VM and USB boot method. Optical boot > > testing in Final is mandatory for > > [[Fedora_Program_Management/ReleaseBlocking/Fedora26|supported images]]. > > > Wording improvements or any other feedback welcome. > > Thanks, > Kamil > > [1] > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/KICRVUS3YHNTLHY47O5A2XL2C5YMCFIH/ > [2] > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/VQQXMJ7QMTLNRFRI5VYIKGIU5IV2W6KB/ +1 for those changes. Thanks Kamil! -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org T
Re: First Bug Report
> - Original Message - > From: "Allan Mwenda" > To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016 12:54:35 AM > Subject: First Bug Report > Hell everyone, > So I posted my first bug on bugzilla, not sure if i did it exactly right > but i gave it my best shot. Still learning, cheers. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1408323 Welcome to Fedora QA, Allan! Thanks for the bug report; it looks like you have a good handle on things. Have you read the Join page on the wiki [0]? It has a good list of other places to get involved with as well. [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Join // Mike -- Fedora QA ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hiatus
Greetings list! I wanted to give a heads up to the list that due to some personal stuff, I will be taking a hiatus from my regularly scheduled activities. I'll still be filing test results and sporadically responding to emails - but you won't be likely to find me in our usual meetings and whatnot. Rest assured, everything is fine and I will get back into things; I just have to take care of some stuff. Thanks! -- // Mike -- Fedora QA -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Test-Announce] 2015-10-26 @ 1600 ** Fedora 23 Blocker Review
# F23 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2015-10-26 # Time: 1600 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net It looks like we get to have at least one more F23 blocker review meeting before release (isn't that exciting!?). We have 2 newly proposed blockers to look at, and several accepted blockers to keep tabs on before the next Go/No-Go on Thursday. If you have time this weekend, to take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers before the meeting - the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F23 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting Have a good weekend and see you Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [F24 Criteria Change] Cockpit Release Criteria
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 02:35:11PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Recently, we discovered a bug in gnutls that caused Cockpit to be > unreachable by recent versions of Google Chrome. It was ambiguous what > the release criteria actually means, since it didn't specify which > browser applications were blocking. I'd like to propose the following > additional wording for Cockpit criteria: > > * All Cockpit functional criteria must be satisfied when the user is > running any of the following blocking browsers: > - Mozilla Firefox as shipped in the same Fedora release > - Mozilla Firefox of the latest available version on Windows at >compose time. > - Mozilla Firefox of the latest available version on OSX at compose >time. > - Google Chrome of the latest available version on Fedora at compose >time. > - Google Chrome of the latest available version on Windows at compose >time. > - Google Chrome of the latest available version on OSX at compose time. > > > Alternately, we could decide that it's only *blocking* if the above > browsers work with Cockpit when the browser is running on Fedora, but > that is somewhat at odds with our reasoning for having a management > console as a web UI in the first place: that it is accessible > regardless of the client system. > > Comments welcome, but please keep replies on the > test@lists.fedoraproject.org list, as that's where criteria decisions > are made. > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v2 > > iEYEARECAAYFAlYpLFwACgkQeiVVYja6o6NF/wCgg6iot1JKOfmAbTZMboBcPvs5 > ZIIAnA+YxRAjPMt69lqv2nOR7qXnCYnV > =PIuy > -END PGP SIGNATURE- I'm +1 in general to these criteria. As Dennis said, we just need to make sure we have access to Windows/OSX in order to actually do the testing. -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [F24 Criteria Change] Cockpit Release Criteria
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 07:41:56AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > On Thursday, October 22, 2015 02:35:11 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > Recently, we discovered a bug in gnutls that caused Cockpit to be > > unreachable by recent versions of Google Chrome. It was ambiguous what > > the release criteria actually means, since it didn't specify which > > browser applications were blocking. I'd like to propose the following > > additional wording for Cockpit criteria: > > > > * All Cockpit functional criteria must be satisfied when the user is > > running any of the following blocking browsers: > > - Mozilla Firefox as shipped in the same Fedora release > > - Mozilla Firefox of the latest available version on Windows at > >compose time. > > - Mozilla Firefox of the latest available version on OSX at compose > >time. > > - Google Chrome of the latest available version on Fedora at compose > >time. > > - Google Chrome of the latest available version on Windows at compose > >time. > > - Google Chrome of the latest available version on OSX at compose time. > > > > > > Alternately, we could decide that it's only *blocking* if the above > > browsers work with Cockpit when the browser is running on Fedora, but > > that is somewhat at odds with our reasoning for having a management > > console as a web UI in the first place: that it is accessible > > regardless of the client system. > > I think that it is fine. But you need to make sure you have resources > available to test on Windows and OS X. I wonder what can be done to do > automated testing on the platforms to ensure things work. I would like to > have > us try and automate most if not all of the validation, at least in a basic > level. > > Dennis FWIW, I'm willing to help write some selenium [0] tests for validating cockpit. Depending on if we can get licenses for the different OSs we want to validate against, we could also set up a grid [1] for that. It's been a while since I've worked with selenium, but I don't think it'd take me long to get back up to speed. [0] http://www.seleniumhq.org/ [1] https://github.com/SeleniumHQ/selenium/wiki/Grid2 -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] 2015-10-19 @ 16:00 UTC ** Fedora 23 Blocker Review
# F23 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2015-10-19 # Time: 1600 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Last week we did an out-of-sync blocker review because bugs were stacking up and Go/No-Go is coming up. Even though we cleaned out the list, we're already back up to 6 proposed blockers and 7 proposed FEs. Needless to say, we'll be having our usual blocker review meeting tomorrow. If you have time tonight or tomorrow, to take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers before the meeting - the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F23 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting Have a good weekend and see you Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Proposed new blocking criterion for Fedora Server: GSSAPI SSO via SSH
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 03:05:42PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Currently, we have a number of blocking criterion in Fedora Server > around domain membership that the machine must be able to join a > domain and that a user must be able to log into the machine using > standard login mechanisms (console, GDM, etc.). > > What we are lacking is a criterion specifying single-sign-on > functionality, which is a key part of the domain experience. I'd like > to propose that the following functionality be added as a Beta > criterion from here forth: > > == Server Product Requirements == > > === Remote Authentication === > * A user who signs in locally or via SSH to a Fedora Server joined to > a FreeIPA or Active Directory domain using a supported domain-joining > mechanism[1] must be capable of connecting via SSH to any other Fedora > Server of the same version to which they have appropriate access > privileges without being required to re-enter their password.[2] > (Note: this assumes an "online" login; if the user logs in while > disconnected from the authentication server, they may not be able to > use SSO features without manual intervention.) > > * Single-sign-on capabilities must be available without any additional > configuration by the user except the initial join to the domain. > > > > [1] This means realmd in the current implementation, which is the > mechanism used under the hood by Cockpit. I'd recommend leaving out > more manual methods like ipa-client-install, adcli and 'net ads'. > > [2] Under the hood, this means that the authentication negotiation > should happen via GSSAPI. > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v2 > > iEYEARECAAYFAlYSygMACgkQeiVVYja6o6NUMwCgkNjoXxlGB6cyCZC3bkVJ1pNX > +K4AoJn6Yg24djVWofsN5qr9AhGoBdDn > =vY35 +1 That seems to be clear and make sense to me. -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] 2015-10-05 @ 1600 UTC ** F23 Blocker Review Meeting
# F23 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2015-10-05 # Time: 1600 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net It's that time of the week again: blocker review time! There's currently 11 proposed blockers we need to look through. We'll be meeting at our usual time and location. If you have time today, to take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers before the meeting - the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F23 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting Have a good weekend and see you Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] 2015-09-28 @ 1600 UTC ** Fedora Blocker Review
# F23 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2015-09-28 # Time: 1600 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net It's that time again: Blocker review time! We currently have 4 proposed blockers for Final. It'd be good to meet and knock them out. Should be a short meeting. If you have time this weekend, to take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers before the meeting - the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F23 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting Have a good weekend and see you Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] 2015-09-21 @ 1600 UTC ** [Moved] F23 Blocker Review
Well, it appears that Bugzilla is currently experiencing some issues, so we had to move today's blocker review to tomorrow. Providing that Bugzilla is up and working by 1600 UTC tomorrow (2015-09-22), we'll be having the blocker review then. Thanks! -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] 2015-09-21 @ 1600 UTC ** Blocker Review Meeting
# F23 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2015-09-21 # Time: 1600 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net We're getting down to the final stretch for Fedora 23 with the Beta release happening this Tuesday. Great work! To make sure we stay on schedule, we'll be having a blocker review meeting to go over the 4 Final proposals we have. Should be a short meeting. If you have time tomorrow, to take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers before the meeting - the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F23 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting Have a good weekend and see you tomorrow! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] 2015-09-14 @ 1600 UTC ** F23 Blocker Review Meeting
# F23 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2015-09-14 # Time: 1600 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Earlier this week we knocked out a bunch of blocker proposals, and come Monday we'll need to do the same. Luckily though, there's currently only 1/1 proposed blocker for Beta/Final. Also, with freeze in effect, we'll need to take a look at those as well. If you have time this weekend, to take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers before the meeting - the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ Make sure to click through the milestones to see how many we have before the meeting! We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F23 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting Have a good weekend and see you Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] 2015-09-07 @ 1600 UTC ** Proposal to CANCEL: Blocker Review
With this coming Monday being a US holiday, I propose that we cancel the Blocker review meeting. We're currently sitting at 3/1 proposals for Beta and Final - so I don't think it'll put us too far behind. Of course, if someone else wants to run the meeting in my stead, that's also fine. Otherwise, enjoy having your Monday morning back! Thanks! -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] 2015-08-31 @ 1600 UTC ** Fedora 23 Blocker Review
# F23 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2015-08-31 # Time: 1600 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net It's that time of week again - Blocker Review! This time around we have 1/3 proposed blockers for Beta/Final. We'll meet up at our regular time after the QA meeting to go through them. It'll likely be a short meeting. If you have time tomorrow, to take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers before the meeting - the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ Make sure to click through the milestones to see how many we have before the meeting! We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F23 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting Have a good weekend and see you Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] 2015-08-24 @ 1600 UTC ** F23 Blocker Review Meeting
# F23 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2015-08-24 # Time: 1600 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net This week we had an out of band blocker review where we plowed through a bunch of proposals. Next week we'll be having another meeting (at the usual day and time) to finish the rest off. We currently have 1/1 proposals for Beta/Final - so it should be a shorter meeting. If you have time this weekend, to take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers before the meeting - the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ Make sure to click through the milestones to see how many we have before the meeting! We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F23 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting Have a good weekend and see you Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] Rescheduling this weeks Blocker review meeting
Hey all, It seems the lack of sleep from Flock caught up with me Sunday night and I didn't wake up in time to run the blocker review scheduled for Monday morning. We currently have 6/7 proposed blockers for Beta and Final, so I think it will still be good to have a Blocker review this week. Does this Thursday (2015-08-20) at 16:00 UTC work for people? If there's a better time, please respond to the test list and we can find a better window to run the review. Thanks! Mike Ruckman ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] 2015-08-10 @ 1600 UTC ** PROPOSAL TO CANCEL Fedora 23 Blocker Review
With the recent decision to ship Alpha, Flock being next week and people traveling, I propose that we cancel the next Blocker Review meeting. Currently there are 2/4 proposals for Beta/Final - so if someone wants to run the meeting, go for it. Otherwise, enjoy your blocker review free time :) -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] 2015-08-03 @ 1600 UTC ** F23 Blocker Review
# F23 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2015-08-03 # Time: 1600 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Hey, look at me sending out an announcement this time! Next week we only have a couple proposed blockers to go through: 1/2/1 (Alpha/Beta/Final). Also, we have 5 proposed FEs to look at for Alpha. Take some time over the weekend to check out the proposals if you get a chance - it'll help us get finished quickly. If you want to take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers, the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ Make sure to click through the milestones to see how many we have before the meeting! We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F22 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting See you Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] 2015-07-13 @ 1600 ** Fedora 23 Blocker Review
# F22 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2015-07-13 # Time: 1600 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net With branch almost here (this Tuesday), and freeze a couple weeks after that (2015-07-28), I think it's time we started getting back into regular blocker review meetings. This week we only have 2 blockers to look at, so it should be a short meeting. If you have time tomorrow, to take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers before the meeting - the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ Make sure to click through the milestones to see how many we have before the meeting! We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F23 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting Have a good weekend and see you Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] Proposal to Cancel: 2015-07-06 Fedora Blocker Review
Greetings fellow testers! As we only have one blocker proposed, [0] I propose we cancel tomorrow's blocker review meeting. Everyone can vote in ticket as their time allows. If someone thinks it'd be better to have the meeting, please ping in IRC and we'll go ahead and have the meeting. Thanks! [0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1236937 -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] Call for Fedora 23 Test Days
F23 is about to branch [0] and it's time we started thinking about what we'd want to have a test day for. There are several changes accepted already for F23, and more that have yet to be decided [1]. You can find the list here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/23/ChangeSet Please take some time and look through the list and see if there's anything you'd be interested in testing - or if there's something you think should get some testing that isn't in the ChangeSet! For those of you not familiar with test days, a test day is an online event aimed at testing a specific feature of an upcoming Fedora Release. By utilizing IRC for organization/coordination and a Wiki page for instructions and results, test days are easy to organize. Anyone can request to host a test day or request that the QA team help you out with the organization of the test day. A test day can be ran for any feature or area of a distribution that focused testing would be useful for. More information on test days can be found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days . To propose a test day, file a ticket on the QA Trac. A full explanation can be found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days/Create . The SOP for hosting a test day is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/SOP_Test_Day_management . Traditionally test days have been held on Thursdays, but if you'd prefer to have it on another day that's fine too. We're pretty flexible, but having plenty of lead time helps to get the word out. Just put in your ticket the date or time-frame you'd like, and we'll figure it out from there. If you have any questions about test days or the process, please don't hesitate to contact me or any other QA Team member in #fedora-qa on Freenode or respond on the test list. Thanks and happy testing! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/23/Schedule [1] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1445 -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Fedora Council report
On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 01:33:19PM -0600, Mike Ruckman wrote: > Since we decided right after the QA meeting that I'd be filling in as > the QA rep for this meeting - I figured I'd ping the list to see if > anyone had anything else they wanted to include? > > Kamil will be sending out his additions (probably tomorrow), and then > I'll be making a slide deck for the hangout. It would also be good if we > all watched the meeting as it was taking place; I'm sure the council > will have questions for us as a group. > > Thanks! > Thanks for the feedback! I've created and uploaded a slide deck for the report on the wiki [0]. It doesn't go into much detail in the slides, but please let me know if it looks like I missed anything. Thanks! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Roshi/QA/CouncilReportSlides -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Fedora Council report
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 08:57:26AM -0400, Kamil Paral wrote: > > Hi, folks! So I'm following up again on the request from the Council > > that we send someone to report on the QA project's status. The proposed > > date was 2015-06-08. > > > > At the last QA meeting (on 2015-05-04) I volunteered to do it, then > > realized I won't be able to on 2015-06-08 as I'll be on a plane. So, we > > have two choices: either someone else volunteers to do the report, or > > we ask the Council if we can change the date. Is anyone else interested > > in doing the report? Please reply if so! > > Thanks, Adam, for looking into this. You'll probably already on vacation, so > I assume you won't be reading this until the actual council meeting. But if > you did... > > If needed, I'm happy to fill in for you. But if you wanted to be actively > part of the discussion, I can also ask the council to move the date. You seem > to have given quite some thought into those issues. I won't be able to look > into it properly before we push F22 out of the door, but that should > hopefully happen way before the council meeting, so then I can try to expand > the points you mentioned below. > > If there are some other volunteers to take care of this, I'm even more happy > to pass this onto you :-) > > Kamil > Since we decided right after the QA meeting that I'd be filling in as the QA rep for this meeting - I figured I'd ping the list to see if anyone had anything else they wanted to include? Kamil will be sending out his additions (probably tomorrow), and then I'll be making a slide deck for the hangout. It would also be good if we all watched the meeting as it was taking place; I'm sure the council will have questions for us as a group. Thanks! -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] Fedora 22 Final Release Candidate 2 (RC2) Available Now!
As per the Fedora 22 schedule [1], Fedora 22 Final Release Candidate 2 (RC2) is now available for testing. Content information, including changes, can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6166#comment:12. Please see the following pages for download links and testing instructions. Normally dl.fedoraproject.org should provide the fastest download, but download-ib01.fedoraproject.org is available as a mirror (with an approximately 1 hour lag) in case of trouble. To use it, just replace "dl" with "download-ib01" in the download URL. Installation: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test Base: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Base_Test Workstation and Desktop: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Desktop_Test Server: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Server_Test Cloud: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Cloud_Test Summary: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Summary All Final priority test cases for each of these test pages [2] must pass in order to meet the Final Release Criteria [3]. Help is available on #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net [4], or on the test list [5]. Create Fedora 22 Final test compose (TC) and release candidate (RC) https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6166 Current Blocker and Freeze Exception bugs: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current [1] http://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-22/f-22-quality-tasks.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Final_Release_Criteria [4] irc://irc.freenode.net/fedora-qa [5] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
2015-05-18 @ 1600 UTC ** Blocker Review Minutes
The minutes to this meeting can be found here: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2015-05-18/f22-blocker-review.2015-05-18-16.00.html Thanks! -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
2015-04-06 @ 1600 UTC ** F22 Blocker Review Minutes
== #fedora-blocker-review: F22-blocker-review == Meeting started by roshi at 16:00:03 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2015-04-06/f22-blocker-review.2015-04-06-16.00.log.html . Meeting summary --- * Roll Call (roshi, 16:00:03) * Introduction (roshi, 16:03:28) * Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs. (roshi, 16:03:28) * We'll be following the process outlined at: (roshi, 16:03:32) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting (roshi, 16:03:35) * The bugs up for review today are available at: (roshi, 16:03:37) * LINK: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current (roshi, 16:03:40) * The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: (roshi, 16:03:42) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Alpha_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:03:45) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Beta_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:03:48) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Final_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:03:51) * (1185117) Custom partitioning does not allow convenient removal of volume including snapshots (btrfs, LVM) (roshi, 16:04:27) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185117 (roshi, 16:04:30) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW (roshi, 16:04:32) * AGREED: - 1185117 - RejectedBlocker Beta - This is a conditional violation of the criterion "must be able to remove volumes", but it is an uncommon situation and too technically complex to resolve in Fedora 22 (sgallagh, 16:26:10) * (1206472) AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'set_focus_vadjustment' (roshi, 16:26:30) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206472 (roshi, 16:26:34) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST (roshi, 16:26:36) * AGREED: - 1206472 - AcceptedBlocker Beta - This bug is a clear violation of the following criteria when using a proxy: "When using the dedicated installer images, the installer must be able to use HTTP, FTP and NFS repositories as package sources." (roshi, 16:30:20) * (1208979) LUKSError: luks device not configured (roshi, 16:30:28) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208979 (roshi, 16:30:28) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW (roshi, 16:30:28) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Beta_Release_Criteria#Custom_partitioning (nirik, 16:33:10) * AGREED: - 1208979 - AcceptedFreezeException Beta AcceptedBlocker Final - This bug conditionally violates the custom partition criterion for final but we would accept a fix for Beta during freeze. (roshi, 16:37:47) * (1209140) Upgrades from Fedora 21 break tomcat service (roshi, 16:37:53) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1209140 (roshi, 16:37:53) * Proposed Blocker, dogtag-pki, NEW (roshi, 16:37:54) * AGREED: - This bug isn't a blocker any more, nomination withdrawn. (roshi, 16:39:42) * (1164492) Please drop libvirt 'default' network dependency for F22 (roshi, 16:39:45) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164492 (roshi, 16:39:48) * Proposed Blocker, gnome-boxes, NEW (roshi, 16:39:51) * AGREED: - 1164492 - AcceptedBlocker Beta - We're reaffirming this bugs status from F21 to F22. The end result of this bug is bad enough that it warrants blocker status to get the fix in for beta. (roshi, 16:44:24) * (1205534) gnome-initial-setup crashes upon selecting language (roshi, 16:44:45) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205534 (roshi, 16:44:49) * Proposed Blocker, gnome-initial-setup, NEW (roshi, 16:44:51) * AGREED: - 1205534 - Punt - Waiting until someone can reproduce and then will discuss in comments. (roshi, 16:50:08) * (1146232) No network connection in virtual guest when libvirt in the guest tries to use the same IP address range as the host (still can occur when live image used to deploy both host and guest) (roshi, 16:50:22) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146232 (roshi, 16:50:26) * Proposed Blocker, libvirt, NEW (roshi, 16:50:29) * AGREED: - 1146232 - RejectedBlocker Beta - This bug is already covered under RHBZ#1164492 and doesn't need to be listed as another blocker. (roshi, 16:57:33) * (1208536) Problems recognizing BIOS RAID devices (roshi, 16:57:43) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208536 (roshi, 16:57:43) * Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, POST (roshi, 16:57:43) * AGREED: - 1208536 - AcceptedBlocker Beta - This bug is a clear violation of the Beta raid criterion: "The installer must be able to d
[Test-Announce] 2015-04-06 @ 1600 UTC ** F22 Blocker Review Meeting
# F22 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2015-04-06 # Time: 1700 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Greetings testers! Tomorrow we'll be having another blocker review directly after the QA meeting. Currently we have 7 proposed blockers for Beta and none proposed for Final. If you want to take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers, the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ Make sure to click through the milestones to see how many we have before the meeting! We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F22 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting See you Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
2015-03-30 @ 1600 UTC ** Blocker Review Minutes
== #fedora-blocker-review: F22-blocker-review == Meeting started by roshi at 16:04:24 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2015-03-30/f22-blocker-review.2015-03-30-16.04.log.html . Meeting summary --- * Roll Call (roshi, 16:04:24) * Introduction (roshi, 16:07:59) * Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs. (roshi, 16:07:59) * We'll be following the process outlined at: (roshi, 16:08:03) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting (roshi, 16:08:05) * The bugs up for review today are available at: (roshi, 16:08:08) * LINK: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current (roshi, 16:08:10) * The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: (roshi, 16:08:13) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Alpha_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:08:16) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Beta_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:08:18) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Final_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:08:22) * (1206760) KDE desktop doesn't notify for available updates (roshi, 16:08:32) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206760 (roshi, 16:08:33) * Proposed Blocker, apper, VERIFIED (roshi, 16:08:33) * AGREED: - 1206760 - AcceptedBlocker Beta - This bug is a clear violation of the beta criterion: "Release-blocking desktops must notify the user of available updates, but must not do so when running as a live image." (roshi, 16:11:54) * (1206420) docker missing from 22 Beta TC5 x86_64 trees (roshi, 16:13:03) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206420 (roshi, 16:13:03) * Proposed Blocker, distribution, ON_QA (roshi, 16:13:04) * AGREED: - 1206420 - AcceptedBlocker Beta - This bug is a clear violation of the following criterion: "When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, the installer must be able to install the default package set." (roshi, 16:16:46) * (1207251) Fedup fail to decrypt disk (roshi, 16:16:56) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207251 (roshi, 16:16:57) * Proposed Blocker, fedup, NEW (roshi, 16:16:57) * AGREED: - 1207251 - AcceptedBlocker Beta - This bug is a clear violation of the following beta criterion: "For each one of the release-blocking package sets, it must be possible to successfully complete an upgrade from a fully updated installation of the previous stable Fedora release with that package set installed" (roshi, 16:19:55) * (1206404) Crash on transition from g-i-s to GNOME on 'basic graphics' install (nomodeset) (roshi, 16:20:09) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206404 (roshi, 16:20:12) * Proposed Blocker, gdm, NEW (roshi, 16:20:14) * AGREED: - 1206404 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException Beta - This bug doesn't quite violate the criterion (gdm/g-i-s runs, and a user gets created) and appears to be only reproducible with a specific setup. If this is found to be more widespread, please repropose. (roshi, 16:30:50) * (1205534) gnome-initial-setup crashes upon selecting language (roshi, 16:31:08) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205534 (roshi, 16:31:11) * Proposed Blocker, gnome-initial-setup, NEW (roshi, 16:31:13) * AGREED: - 1105534 - Punt - We need more information about this bug before we can determine it's blocker status. (roshi, 16:35:48) * (864198) grubby fatal error updating grub.cfg when /boot is btrfs (roshi, 16:36:02) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864198 (roshi, 16:36:05) * Proposed Blocker, grubby, ASSIGNED (roshi, 16:36:08) * AGREED: - 864198 - AcceptedBlocker Beta - This bug is a clear violation of the criterion: "The installed system must be able to download and install updates with the default console package manager." when /boot is on btrfs. (roshi, 16:45:17) * (1206394) Error: g-bd-md-error-quark: Failed to parse mdexamine data (0) (roshi, 16:45:36) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206394 (roshi, 16:45:39) * Proposed Blocker, libblockdev, MODIFIED (roshi, 16:45:41) * AGREED: - 1206394 - AcceptedBlocker Beta - This bug is a clear violation of the beta RAID criterion: "The installer must be able to detect and install to hardware or firmware RAID storage devices" (roshi, 16:49:49) * (1200901) invisible mouse cursor in wayland login-screen when in VM (roshi, 16:50:14) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200901 (roshi, 16:50:17) * Proposed Blocker, gdm, NEW (roshi, 16:50:19)
[Test-Announce] 2015-03-30 @ 1600 UTC ** Fedora 22 Blocker Review
# F22 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2015-03-30 # Time: 1600 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Well, this email is going out a bit late, but I'm sure you all know it's that time of the week again! We've had a few more proposals since our meeting last week. We currently have 5 beta and 2 final proposals to review. If you want to take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers, the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ Make sure to click through the milestones to see how many we have before the meeting! We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F22 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting See you tomorrow! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
2015-03-23 @ 1600 UTC ** Blocker Review Meeting Minutes
== #fedora-blocker-review: F22-blocker-review == Meeting started by roshi at 16:02:18 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2015-03-23/f22-blocker-review.2015-03-23-16.02.log.html . Meeting summary --- * Roll Call (roshi, 16:02:19) * Introduction (roshi, 16:03:35) * Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs. (roshi, 16:03:36) * We'll be following the process outlined at: (roshi, 16:03:39) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting (roshi, 16:03:42) * The bugs up for review today are available at: (roshi, 16:03:45) * LINK: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current (roshi, 16:03:47) * The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: (roshi, 16:03:49) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Alpha_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:03:52) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Beta_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:03:55) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Final_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:03:58) * (1160917) fedora-release-(product) conflicts when installing environment groups which specify a different product to the currently-installed one (roshi, 16:05:17) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160917 (roshi, 16:05:20) * Proposed Blocker, distribution, NEW (roshi, 16:05:23) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=1160917&hide_resolved=1 (kparal, 16:08:43) * This bug (1160917) wasn't actually proposed as a blocker, skipping (roshi, 16:19:33) * (1204739) Installing Fedora Server netinst ends up with blocked Cockpit port (roshi, 16:19:36) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204739 (roshi, 16:19:39) * Proposed Blocker, fedora-release, ASSIGNED (roshi, 16:19:43) * AGREED: - 1204739 - AcceptedBlocker Beta - This bug is a clear violation of the criterion: "After system installation without explicit firewall configuration, the system firewall must be active on all non-loopback interfaces. The only ports which may be open to incoming traffic are port 22 (ssh), port 9090 (Cockpit web interface)" (roshi, 16:27:34) * (864198) grubby fatal error updating grub.cfg when /boot is btrfs (roshi, 16:27:59) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864198 (roshi, 16:28:02) * Proposed Blocker, grubby, ASSIGNED (roshi, 16:28:04) * LINK: https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/41 is the recent pr for this (adamw, 16:31:16) * AGREED: - 864198 - Punt - We're going to delay making a decision on this bug until it can be clarified by the reporter as to what exactly is desired. (roshi, 16:42:14) * (1204612) eth0 is going missing in the cloud images (roshi, 16:42:17) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204612 (roshi, 16:42:19) * Proposed Blocker, initscripts, NEW (roshi, 16:42:22) * AGREED: - 1204612 - AcceptedBlocker Beta - This bug violates the alpha criterion: "The installed system must be able to download and install updates with the default console package manager." (roshi, 16:50:26) * (1201897) SIGSEGV in libedit call in installer (roshi, 16:50:36) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201897 (roshi, 16:50:36) * Proposed Blocker, libedit, NEW (roshi, 16:50:37) * AGREED: - 1201897 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the following criterion: "When using a dedicated installer image, the installer must be able to complete an installation using the text, graphical and VNC installation interfaces." (roshi, 16:58:43) * (1204031) 22 Beta TC3 install images do not bring up network (unless updates image or kickstart used) (roshi, 16:58:59) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204031 (roshi, 16:59:02) * Proposed Blocker, lorax, ON_QA (roshi, 16:59:05) * AGREED: - 1204031 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the following criterion: "When using a release-blocking dedicated installer image, the installer must be able to use either HTTP or FTP repositories (or both) as package sources. Release-blocking network install images must default to a valid publicly-accessible package source." (roshi, 17:04:13) * (1201120) DeviceTreeError: could not find parent for subvol (roshi, 17:04:34) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201120 (roshi, 17:04:37) * Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, ASSIGNED (roshi, 17:04:40) * AGREED: - 1201120 - AcceptedBlocker Beta - This bug violates the following criterion: "When using the custom partitioning flow, the instal
[Test-Announce] 2015-03-16 @ 1600 UTC ** Fedora Blocker Review Meeting
# F22 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2015-03-16 # Time: 1600 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net It's coming up to that time of the week again: Blocker Review! Currently we have 5/1 proposed blockers for Beta and Final. Again, we're meeting at 1600 UTC right after the QA meeting. If you have some time this weekend, take a look at the bugs. Or, if you won't be able to make it to the review, go ahead and vote in the comments. The full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ Make sure to click through the milestones to see how many we have before the meeting! We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F22 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting Have a good weekend and see you Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
2015-03-09 @ 1600 UTC ** Blocker Review Minutes
==
#fedora-blocker-review: F22-blocker-review
==
Meeting started by roshi at 16:05:01 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2015-03-09/f22-blocker-review.2015-03-09-16.05.log.html
.
Meeting summary
---
* Roll Call (roshi, 16:05:02)
* Introduction (roshi, 16:11:32)
* Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and
nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor
the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have
bugs. (roshi, 16:11:32)
* We'll be following the process outlined at: (roshi, 16:11:36)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
(roshi, 16:11:38)
* The bugs up for review today are available at: (roshi, 16:11:41)
* LINK: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current (roshi,
16:11:43)
* The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: (roshi,
16:11:46)
* LINK:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Alpha_Release_Criteria
(roshi, 16:11:49)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Beta_Release_Criteria
(roshi, 16:11:52)
* LINK:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Final_Release_Criteria
(roshi, 16:11:55)
* (1196397) FormatCreateError: ('invalid device specification',
'/dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00') (roshi, 16:13:07)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196397 (roshi,
16:13:10)
* Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW (roshi, 16:13:13)
* AGREED: - 1196397 - AcceptedBlocker Beta - This bug is a clear
violation of the Beta criterion: "When using the custom partitioning
flow, the installer must be able to: Assign mount points to existing
storage volumes" (roshi, 16:18:36)
* (1197894) growpart: sfdisk dropped --show-pt-geometry option (roshi,
16:19:57)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197894 (roshi,
16:20:00)
* Proposed Blocker, cloud-utils, NEW (roshi, 16:20:03)
* AGREED: - 1197894 - AcceptedBlocker Beta - This bug is a clear
violation of the beta criterion: "Release blocking cloud images must
be able to automatically utilize all available space on a supported
volume." (roshi, 16:23:21)
* (1197380) Booting kvm guests hang on smpboot on kernel 4.0rc1 on AMD
Athlon(tm) II P340 CPU (roshi, 16:23:44)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197380 (roshi,
16:23:47)
* Proposed Blocker, kernel, NEW (roshi, 16:23:50)
* AGREED: - 1197380 - Punt - We don't have enough information about
how common this bug is so we're going to defer it until more testing
is done. (roshi, 16:31:56)
* (1184173) dhclient fails to renew lease, results in dropped IPv4
network connection (roshi, 16:32:15)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184173 (roshi,
16:32:18)
* Proposed Blocker, bind, ASSIGNED (roshi, 16:32:21)
* AGREED: - 1184173 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a conditional
violation of the Alpha updates criterion: "The installed system must
be able to download and install updates with the default console
package manager." (roshi, 16:37:13)
* (1199270) Missing high contrast icons (roshi, 16:37:55)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199270 (roshi,
16:37:58)
* Proposed Blocker, gnome-themes-standard, NEW (roshi, 16:38:00)
* AGREED: - 1199270 - AcceptedBlocker Final - This bug is a clear
violation of Final workstation requirements: All applications
installed by default in Fedora Workstation should have a high
contrast icon. (roshi, 16:43:50)
* Open Floor (roshi, 16:46:31)
Meeting ended at 16:48:35 UTC.
Action Items
Action Items, by person
---
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---
* roshi (82)
* adamw (22)
* jreznik (12)
* pschindl (10)
* tflink (9)
* kraulain (6)
* zodbot (3)
* kushal (1)
* randomuser (1)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
--
// Mike
--
Fedora QA
freenode: roshi
http://roshi.fedorapeople.org
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: DNF Migration Tasks
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 04:36:51PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Mike Ruckman wrote: > > Greetings fellow testers! At the last QA meeting [0] we decided to break > > the bits from the migration overview [1] into manageable chunks. So I > > did that, and they live here [2] on our trac instance. If you have some > > time, take a look at the tickets and assign it to yourself if you're so > > inclined. > > > > I just split out the relevant bits of the overview into tasks, and it > > would be good to look over the resources we have for testing and mark > > those in the ticket (that way others can help out with the ticket). > > > > Let me know if you have any questions either here on the list or in the > > #fedora-qa channel on freenode. > > Is any of this made less urgent considering dnf-yum is pushed to Fedora 23? > > -- > Chris Murphy > -- It takes some of the load off for sure, but the migration is still going to happen for F23 - and it'll give us more time for testing before the dnf-yum change lands. But all the other tools that are aiming to move to dnf for F22 will still need testing. So, yeah, I think it does make things a bit less urgent. But I don't know exactly what that translates to in "testing time" saved. If that makes sense. -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
DNF Migration Tasks
Greetings fellow testers! At the last QA meeting [0] we decided to break the bits from the migration overview [1] into manageable chunks. So I did that, and they live here [2] on our trac instance. If you have some time, take a look at the tickets and assign it to yourself if you're so inclined. I just split out the relevant bits of the overview into tasks, and it would be good to look over the resources we have for testing and mark those in the ticket (that way others can help out with the ticket). Let me know if you have any questions either here on the list or in the #fedora-qa channel on freenode. Thanks! [0] http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2015-03-02/fedora-qa.2015-03-02-16.00.html [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2015-February/125166.html [2] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/query?keywords=~dnf_migration&status=!closed -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Enlightenment default option with KDE Plasma
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 12:58:29PM +, Alexander Bisogianis wrote: > Hi, > > I just installed the latest nightly alpha, selecting KDE Plasma as the > desktop. > After installation, in KDM, for some reason Enlightenment is the default DE. > > Why is Enlightenment installed in the first place and why is it the default? > :) > > Abis. Hey Alexander, When you say "nightly alpha" which image do you mean? The current build for testing the alpha release is TC8, which is found here [0]. From your brief description, it sounds similar to this bug [1]. Could you give some more details and perhaps comment in the bug if it seems relevant? Once I know what image you used I'll try to reproduce and either get a bug filed or comments submitted for an existing bug. Thanks! [0] http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/22_Alpha_TC8/ [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197135 -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
2015-03-02 @ 1700 ** Blocker Review Meeting Minutes
== #fedora-blocker-review: F22-blocker-review == Meeting started by roshi at 17:16:09 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2015-03-02/f22-blocker-review.2015-03-02-17.16.log.html . Meeting summary --- * Roll Call (roshi, 17:16:09) * Introduction (roshi, 17:18:16) * Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs. (roshi, 17:18:16) * We'll be following the process outlined at: (roshi, 17:18:20) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting (roshi, 17:18:23) * The bugs up for review today are available at: (roshi, 17:18:25) * LINK: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current (roshi, 17:18:28) * The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: (roshi, 17:18:30) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Alpha_Release_Criteria (roshi, 17:18:33) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Beta_Release_Criteria (roshi, 17:18:36) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Final_Release_Criteria (roshi, 17:18:39) * (1183807) network spoke listed as not connected despite having assigned IP and hostname (roshi, 17:21:13) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183807 (roshi, 17:21:16) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW (roshi, 17:21:18) * AGREED: - 1183807 - AcceptedBlocker Alpha - This but is a clear violation of the Alpha criterion: "When using a dedicated installer image, the installer must be able to complete an installation using the text, graphical and VNC installation interfaces." (roshi, 17:26:26) * (1197290) realm crash during kickstart (roshi, 17:26:35) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197290 (roshi, 17:26:35) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST (roshi, 17:26:35) * AGREED: - 1197290 - AcceptedBlocker Alpha - This bug is a clear violation of the Alpha criterion: "It must be possible to join the system to a FreeIPA or Active Directory domain at install time and post-install, and the system must respect the identity, authentication and access control configuration provided by the domain." (roshi, 17:34:03) * realm crash during kickstart (roshi, 17:34:21) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197838 (roshi, 17:34:28) * Proposed blocker, sssd, NEW (roshi, 17:34:53) * ACTION: roshi to file a ticket for the secretarializor badge (roshi, 17:40:56) * ACTION: adamw to file a ticket for the secretarializer badge, and fire roshi for spelling it wrong (adamw, 17:41:28) * AGREED: - 1197838 - AcceptedBlocker Alpha - This bug is a clear violation of the Alpha criterion: "It must be possible to join the system to a FreeIPA or Active Directory domain at install time and post-install, and the system must respect the identity, authentication and access control configuration provided by the domain." (roshi, 17:42:24) * (1197218) - Add missing dependencies into freeipa packages (roshi, 17:45:46) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197218 (roshi, 17:45:54) * Proposed Blocker, freeipa, ASSIGNED (roshi, 17:46:08) * AGREED: - 1197218 - AcceptedBlocker Alpha - This bug is a clear violation of the Alpha criterion: "It must be possible to join the system to a FreeIPA or Active Directory domain at install time and post-install, and the system must respect the identity, authentication and access control configuration provided by the domain." (roshi, 17:48:51) * (1194682) Qt plugins fail to load or crash when built with gcc5 (roshi, 17:48:57) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194682 (roshi, 17:48:59) * Proposed Blocker, gcc, MODIFIED (roshi, 17:49:02) * punting this to the end of blocker discussion (roshi, 17:57:53) * (1195485) cannot start user session (gdm returns back to the login page) (roshi, 17:57:54) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195485 (roshi, 17:57:57) * Proposed Blocker, gdm, NEW (roshi, 17:58:00) * AGREED: - 1195485 - RejectedBlocker Alpha - This bug doesn't seem to be reproducible. If more information comes to the surface, please repropose with steps to reproduce. (roshi, 18:11:15) * (1197224) System sometimes gets stuck during gdm init when autologin is enabled (e.g. live images) (roshi, 18:11:25) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197224 (roshi, 18:11:28) * Proposed Blocker, gdm, ON_QA (roshi, 18:11:30) * AGREED: - 1197224 - AcceptedBlocker Alpha - This bug is a conditional violation of the following alpha criterion: "Release-blocking live images must boot to the expecte
[Test-Announce] 2015-03-02 @ 1700 UTC ** Fedora 22 Blocker Review Meeting
# F22 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2015-03-02 # Time: 1700 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Another week and a couple TCs later, it's time for some blocker review goodness! Also, as an added bonus, Alpha Freeze is upon us so we get to look over FE bugs as well. Currently we have 8/1/0 for blockers and 10/0/0 FE's to look at. It'll likely be a longer meeting than what we've grown accustomed to, so take some time this weekend to check out the proposals (you can even vote in the bug comments if you like). If you want to take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers, the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F22 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting See you Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] 2015-02-23 @ 1700 UTC ** Blocker Review Meeting
# F22 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2015-02-23 # Time: 1700 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net It's that time of the week again! After another week of testing we have 4 proposed Alpha blockers and 2 proposed for final. If you want to take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers, the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ Make sure to click through the milestones to see how many we have before the meeting! We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F22 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting See you Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
DNF Migration testing overview
Greetings Testers! With the F22 switch from yum to dnf as a package manager, there was a need to figure out what the scope would be for QA testing. Naturally, to define the scope for a subset, I had to figure out (at least in a general sense) how large the complete set is. There's a multitude of complication vectors with a switch like this - especially since dnf is specifically designed to not be a drop in replacement for yum. First question: Who/what all uses yum? -- Swapping out yum is the equivalent of someone coming up with a new form of hemoglobin, then trying to figure out what all could go wrong when you make the swap (tl;dr: Everything). The first to come to mind is anyone who installs packages from the CLI. But then you have all the GUI front-ends (PackageKit and Apper) and all the build tools - not to mention the installer. Some places yum touches: - Oz/ImageFactory (Building Cloud images) - koji (RPM-based build system) - pungi (Build installation trees and isos) - ABRT (Automatic Bug Reporting Tool) - Anaconda (Fedora installer) - liveimage-creator (tool for creating live images) - cloud-init (tool for configuring freshly launched cloud images) - FedUp (tool for updating Fedora between releases) - Software Center and Apper (Default software installers) - rolekit (tool to easily deploy roles to a Server installation) - virt-builder and friends (tools for manipulating virtualized environments) All of those make up a large portion of the Fedora ecosystem - everything from composing images to users being able to update their software packages, and this doesn't even touch the different ways each of the above actually *uses* yum functionality - just that yum somehow impacts these tools. Second question: What's QA responsible for? --- According to the QA wiki page: "Fedora QA is the project which covers all testing of the software that makes up Fedora. It's our goal to continually improve the quality of Fedora releases and updates." A more literal translation of that passage would indicate that QA is responsible for all the testing, but a more nuanced interpretation says that QA is responsible for releases and updates to those releases. Luckily for us in QA, we seem to operate from the more nuanced interpretation. So, out of that list above, which things would QA need to test? - Anaconda (which we already test heavily) - ABRT - FedUp - Software Center/Apper - rolekit While those are the things easily placed directly under QA for testing, other teams would likely appreciate help in testing their tools. This doesn't necessarily equate to more work for QA, since a lot of the feedback the other teams (Release Engineering, Infra) get is from QA testing the output their tools create - releases and updates. Also, those 5 things aren't trivial to test either. Here's the partial breakdown: Anaconda: - GUI installation - Do all the offered mechanisms work? - Package selection (installing all the packages selected) - Remote repositories - text based installation - kickstart installation - This is non-trivial to test ABRT: This tool uses a bunch of yum tricks and workarounds to get the needed information (AIUI) - We have 36 testcases for this (some will need updated) FedUp: - F20-F22 upgrades - How to handle migrating existing systems from yum to dnf. Each will have different installed package sets due to utilizing different depsolvers. - This will require more testing during the F23 cycle than during the F22 cycle Software Center and Apper: These tools aren't just a front-end for yum/dnf, but tie into the libraries dnf uses. For the switch to dnf, this is hawkey and libsolv. It could be argued that this doesn't need to be tested as part of the migration, but they for sure fall under the Default application functionality Final criterion. rolekit: We get a small pass for this one, since there's currently only two supported roles: Domain Controller and Database. rolekit relies on yum for installing package sets for the role, so it'll have to be ported and tested. Hopefully this requires minimal extra testing. Third question: What do we currently have to work with? --- Our wiki has a plethora of testcases and documentation we can utilize throughout this transition. We should be able to use/re-purpose large portions of our existing testcases to get good test coverage of the change. We might also have to take a look at the Release criteria going forward to make sure there aren't any yum-isms left over. All this means is that we don't have to start from scratch when it comes to testing this. Testcases: I count 54 testcases currently available to test ABRT, FedUp, Yum, Installation Repos, and kickstarts. Many of these will likely need revised and more will likely need added to get the coverage we need. Matrix Changes: For the image san
2015-02-16 @ 1700 UTC ** Blocker Review Meeting Minutes
== #fedora-blocker-review: F22-blocker-review == Meeting started by roshi at 17:30:53 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2015-02-16/f22-blocker-review.2015-02-16-17.30.log.html . Meeting summary --- * Roll Call (roshi, 17:30:58) * Introduction (roshi, 17:34:31) * Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs. (roshi, 17:34:32) * We'll be following the process outlined at: (roshi, 17:34:36) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting (roshi, 17:34:38) * The bugs up for review today are available at: (roshi, 17:34:41) * LINK: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current (roshi, 17:34:43) * The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: (roshi, 17:34:46) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Alpha_Release_Criteria (roshi, 17:34:48) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Beta_Release_Criteria (roshi, 17:34:51) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Final_Release_Criteria (roshi, 17:34:54) * (1192702) ImportError: cannot import name storageInitialize (roshi, 17:35:09) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1192702 (roshi, 17:35:12) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, MODIFIED (roshi, 17:35:15) * AGREED: - 1192702 - AcceptedBlocker Alpha - This bug is a clear violation of the Alpha criterion: "The installer must run when launched normally from the release-blocking images" (roshi, 17:39:16) * (1190610) imsettings NVR is lower in rawhide/F22 (roshi, 17:40:15) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190610 (roshi, 17:40:16) * Proposed Blocker, imsettings, NEW (roshi, 17:40:16) * (1191171) "Could not sync environment to dbus." (startkde) (roshi, 17:42:20) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191171 (roshi, 17:42:20) * Proposed Blocker, plasma-workspace, NEW (roshi, 17:42:20) * AGREED: - 1191171 - AcceptedBlocker Alpha - This bug is a clear violation of the Alpha criterion: "A system installed with a release-blocking desktop must boot to a log in screen where it is possible to log in to a working desktop using a user account created during installation or a 'first boot' utility." (roshi, 17:45:54) * ACTION: roshi to test 1191171 in a VM (roshi, 17:47:45) * (1192259) Anaconda text install doesn't update spoke status (roshi, 17:48:12) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1192259 (roshi, 17:48:15) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW (roshi, 17:48:17) * AGREED: - 1192259 - AcceptedBlocker Final - This bug is a clear violation of the Final criterion: "The installer must be able to complete an installation using all supported interfaces." (roshi, 17:52:22) * (1190377) SELinux is preventing polkitd from 'read' accesses on the lnk_file localtime. (roshi, 17:52:31) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190377 (roshi, 17:52:34) * Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy, NEW (roshi, 17:52:37) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190377#c2 (danofsatx, 17:52:59) * Open Floor (roshi, 17:54:03) Meeting ended at 17:58:56 UTC. Action Items * roshi to test 1191171 in a VM Action Items, by person --- * roshi * roshi to test 1191171 in a VM * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --- * roshi (86) * kparal (22) * danofsatx (21) * Corey84 (16) * adamw (15) * zodbot (5) * pschindl (4) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] 2015-02-16 @ 1700 UTC ** Fedora Blocker Review Meeting
# F22 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2015-02-16 # Time: 1700 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net It's Blocker Review time again! While we don't yet have an Alpha TC to test, testing against rawhide has continued. The results have yielded a couple proposed blockers: 3 Alpha and 2 Final. If you want to take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers, the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ Make sure to click through the milestones to see how many we have before the meeting! We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F22 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting Have a good weekend and see you Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
2014-02-09 @ 1700 UTC ** F22 Blocker Review Minutes
== #fedora-blocker-review: F22 Blocker Review == Meeting started by roshi at 17:00:30 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2015-02-09/fedora-blocker-review.2015-02-09-17.00.log.html . Meeting summary --- * Roll Call (roshi, 17:00:38) * Introduction (roshi, 17:05:22) * Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs. (roshi, 17:05:22) * We'll be following the process outlined at: (roshi, 17:05:26) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting (roshi, 17:05:29) * The bugs up for review today are available at: (roshi, 17:05:31) * LINK: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current (roshi, 17:05:34) * The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: (roshi, 17:05:36) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Alpha_Release_Criteria (roshi, 17:05:39) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Beta_Release_Criteria (roshi, 17:05:42) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Final_Release_Criteria (roshi, 17:05:45) * (1190243) g++ internal compiler error on arm (roshi, 17:06:04) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190243 (roshi, 17:06:04) * Proposed Blocker, gcc, NEW (roshi, 17:06:05) * (1190610) imsettings NVR is lower in rawhide/F22 (roshi, 17:15:06) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190610 (roshi, 17:15:07) * Proposed Blocker, imsettings, NEW (roshi, 17:15:07) * AGREED: - 1190610 - RejectedBlocker - This bug doesn't violate any Alpha criterion. (roshi, 17:22:29) * (1190243) g++ internal compiler error on arm (roshi, 17:22:41) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190243 (roshi, 17:22:41) * Proposed Blocker, gcc, NEW (roshi, 17:22:42) * AGREED: - 1190243 - RejectedBlocker - This bug doesn't violate any of the Alpha criteria, but has the potential to affect more. If it turns out this bug manifests itself in a larger way to affect upgrades or building a TC/RC, please repropose. (roshi, 17:28:28) * (1190415) fedup from updated 21 Workstation to Rawhide 2015-02-07 fails after upgrade-prep.sh (roshi, 17:28:55) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190415 (roshi, 17:28:59) * Proposed Blocker, fedup, NEW (roshi, 17:29:01) * AGREED: - 1190415 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the Beta upgrade requirements criterion: "For each one of the release-blocking package sets, it must be possible to successfully complete an upgrade from a fully updated installation of the previous stable Fedora release with that package set installed. The user must be made to specify which Product (or none) they wish to have running when upgrade is complete." (roshi, 17:34:28) * (1182640) SELinux is preventing /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-journald from 'getattr' accesses on the netlink_audit_socket netlink_audit_socket. (roshi, 17:34:40) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182640 (roshi, 17:34:42) * Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy, NEW (roshi, 17:34:45) * AGREED: - 1182640 - CloseFixed (roshi, 17:39:53) * (118) SELinux is preventing chronyd from 'read' accesses on the file resolv.conf. (roshi, 17:40:10) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=118 (roshi, 17:40:13) * Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy, MODIFIED (roshi, 17:40:15) * (119) SELinux is preventing geoclue from 'getattr' accesses on the file /run/NetworkManager/resolv.conf. (roshi, 17:41:56) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=119 (roshi, 17:41:59) * Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy, MODIFIED (roshi, 17:42:02) * (1190377) SELinux is preventing polkitd from 'read' accesses on the lnk_file localtime. (roshi, 17:42:13) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190377 (roshi, 17:42:16) * Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy, NEW (roshi, 17:42:19) * AGREED: - 1190377 - AcceptedBlocker - This is a clear violation of the Final criterion: "There must be no SELinux denial notifications or crash notifications on boot of or during installation from a release-blocking live image, or at first login after a default install of a release-blocking desktop." (roshi, 17:45:48) * Open Floor (roshi, 17:45:55) Meeting ended at 17:50:10 UTC. Action Items Action Items, by person --- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --- * roshi (127) * adamw (55) * danofsatx (37) * pbrobinson (8) * kparal (7) * pwhalen (5) * zodbot (3) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org
Re: Release criteria notes
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 01:38:55PM +0530, Sudhir Dharanendraiah wrote: > > On 02/06/2015 04:51 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > >>Kickstart Delivery > >>> > >>> Not really a criterion change, but we still list a diskette as a > >>>supported > >>> delivery mechanism [0]. Should we remove this, or do we still > >>>actively test > >>> using a diskette for ks delivery? > >Hum, not sure. I know I haven't had a floppy drive for like ten years > >so it might be hard to test, but people do do a lot of really weird > >stuff. > > > Just a thought. We might want to have 'phase out' section and put last > supported release and phase it out in next release. If it generates enough > noise, we can move it back to main criteria. > > Regards, > Sudhir > That sounds like a good idea to me. Do we have a "phase out" SOP somewhere for criteria? I'm not finding it readily on the wiki if it's there. -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Release criteria notes
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 03:21:53PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 11:24 -0700, Mike Ruckman wrote: > > Greetings testers! > > > > While looking into the affects of the yum/dnf migration I noticed > > some cleanup > > opportunities with the release criteria and thought I'd email the > > list before > > making any changes. > > > > Beta > > > > > > Package set selection > > > > Should we update this to say "when using any network install > > image..." > > instead of "when using the generic?" I'd add a note with something > > like, > > "[Any?] This means any of the productized network installation > > media and > > the base network installation image." > > No. I only just wrote this, and it's specifically this way for a > reason. We're getting the generic netinst back for F22, and we only > want to 'officially support' package set selection when using that > image. The Product-ized netinsts are only 'officially supported' for > deploying their own package sets. At least, that's the current plan. Ah, ok. I must've have missed that. So will the prodcutized netinsts not even offer other package sets? > > > > Kickstart Delivery > > > > Not really a criterion change, but we still list a diskette as a > > supported > > delivery mechanism [0]. Should we remove this, or do we still > > actively test > > using a diskette for ks delivery? > > Hum, not sure. I know I haven't had a floppy drive for like ten years > so it might be hard to test, but people do do a lot of really weird > stuff. I think I might have a disk drive around here somewhere, but I don't have disks any more (not even to use for coasters)... > > Updgrade Requirements > > > > This currently reads: "The release-blocking package sets are the > > minimal set, > > and the sets for each one of the release-blocking desktops." > > > > Should this be updated to "each one of the release-blocking > > products and > > release-blocking desktops?" > > Probably, yeah. It's a bit wiggly either way, but I like that one > better... > > > Domain controller role > > > > The note says this criteria should be removed after F21 - but > > since rolekit > > relies on yum to install the bits needed for the domain > > controller, should > > we keep this in place for F22 through the dnf migration? > > It's supposed to be *moved* to a separate page, not just removed. I've > had that proposal in draft for a while now, I should probably just go > ahead and do it: > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/server/2015-January/001719.html > Ah, that makes sense. I just wasn't sure from the wording on the criteria pages themselves. > > Cloud-init > > > > This was an oversight on my part originally. We need to define the > > specific > > bits of cloud-init that need to work. It'd be nice and easy to > > just say, > > "all of them," but cloud-init has a yum module and no dnf module. > > We need > > to figure out what to do about cloud-init if dnf support won't be > > added. > > And by 'we', we mean 'you' ;) Yeah, already working on it with gholms. I'll work through it with the Cloud WG. -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] 2015-02-09 @ 1700 UTC ** F22 Blocker Review Meeting
# F22 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2015-02-09 # Time: 1700 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net So far this week we've found 1 proposed Alpha blocker as well as 5 proposed for Final. If you want to take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers, the full list can be found here: - https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ Make sure to click through the milestones to see how many we have before the meeting! We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F22 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting Have a good weekend and see you Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Release criteria notes
Greetings testers! While looking into the affects of the yum/dnf migration I noticed some cleanup opportunities with the release criteria and thought I'd email the list before making any changes. Beta Package set selection Should we update this to say "when using any network install image..." instead of "when using the generic?" I'd add a note with something like, "[Any?] This means any of the productized network installation media and the base network installation image." Kickstart Delivery Not really a criterion change, but we still list a diskette as a supported delivery mechanism [0]. Should we remove this, or do we still actively test using a diskette for ks delivery? Updgrade Requirements This currently reads: "The release-blocking package sets are the minimal set, and the sets for each one of the release-blocking desktops." Should this be updated to "each one of the release-blocking products and release-blocking desktops?" Domain controller role The note says this criteria should be removed after F21 - but since rolekit relies on yum to install the bits needed for the domain controller, should we keep this in place for F22 through the dnf migration? Cloud-init This was an oversight on my part originally. We need to define the specific bits of cloud-init that need to work. It'd be nice and easy to just say, "all of them," but cloud-init has a yum module and no dnf module. We need to figure out what to do about cloud-init if dnf support won't be added. Role installation For at least F22, do we need to have a criterion for installing new roles with rolekit? Or will "brought to a working configuration" cover this enough? Final = Domain controller role As with the beta, I'd suggest we keep this through F22 to make sure things work. I know herding the Release Criteria is typically an Adam thing, but thought I'd go ahead and ping the list with these small bits. Thoughts? [0] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Kickstart#Chapter_6._Making_the_Kickstart_File_Available -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] Call for Fedora 22 Test Days
Another testing cycle is finally upon us, and it's about time we got some Test Days scheduled for the F22 cycle. The Anaconda team has already requested a test day [0] and there are several other changes coming to F22 that could use some testing love - a full list can be found here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/22/ChangeSet F22 also has several self-contained changes that could use some testing. So my thought was, if there were things people would like to get tested, but didn't think it warranted an entire day - then we could group these together and run a test day to poke at several different things at the same time. Thoughts on this? For those of you not familiar with test days, a test day is an online event aimed at testing a specific feature of an upcoming Fedora Release. By utilizing IRC for organization/coordination and a Wiki page for instructions and results, test days are easy to organize. Anyone can request to host a test day or request that the QA team help you out with the organization of the test day. A test day can be ran for any feature or area of a distribution that focused testing would be useful for. More information on test days can be found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days . To propose a test day, file a ticket on the QA Trac. A full explanation can be found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days/Create . The SOP for hosting a test day is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/SOP_Test_Day_management . Traditionally test days have been held on Thursdays, but if you'd prefer to have it on another day that's fine too. We're pretty flexible, but having plenty of lead time helps to get the word out. Just put in your ticket the date or time-frame you'd like, and we'll figure it out from there. If you have any questions about test days or the process, please don't hesitate to contact me or any other QA Team member in #fedora-qa on Freenode or respond on the test list. Thanks and happy testing! [0] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/457 -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
2015-02-02 @ 1700 UTC ** Blocker Review Meeting Minutes
== #fedora-blocker-review: F22-blocker-review == Meeting started by roshi at 17:06:14 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2015-02-02/f22-blocker-review.2015-02-02-17.06.log.html . Meeting summary --- * Roll Call (roshi, 17:06:15) * Introduction (roshi, 17:09:07) * Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs. (roshi, 17:09:08) * We'll be following the process outlined at: (roshi, 17:09:12) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting (roshi, 17:09:14) * The bugs up for review today are available at: (roshi, 17:09:17) * LINK: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current (roshi, 17:09:19) * The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: (roshi, 17:09:22) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Alpha_Release_Criteria (roshi, 17:09:24) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Beta_Release_Criteria (roshi, 17:09:27) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Final_Release_Criteria (roshi, 17:09:30) * (1185999) [Gtk3] Text on various bits of chrome (tab titles, menus, buttons...) is white with GTK+ 3.15.4 (roshi, 17:09:49) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185999 (roshi, 17:09:52) * Proposed Blocker, gtk3, NEW (roshi, 17:09:55) * AGREED: - 1185999 - AcceptedBlocker Final - This bug is a conditional violation of the Alpha criterion, "It must be possible to run the default web browser and a terminal application from all release-blocking desktop environments..." but isn't deemed bad enough to block until a later Milestone as FF *technically* works. (roshi, 17:31:11) * (1187742) rebuild openldap with support for moznss (roshi, 17:32:05) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187742 (roshi, 17:32:06) * Proposed Blocker, openldap, NEW (roshi, 17:32:06) * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Beta_Release_Criteria#Roles (roshi, 17:36:09) * AGREED: - 1187742 - AcceptedBlocker Beta - This bug is a clear violation of the Beta criterion: "Release-blocking roles and the supported role configuration interfaces must meet the core functional Role Definition Requirements..." (roshi, 17:39:35) * Discussion Time (roshi, 17:40:17) * Last working boot.iso is the currently nominated nightly. Live images have more recent images to test (roshi, 18:03:27) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2015-February/001530.html (danofsatx, 18:07:11) Meeting ended at 18:10:22 UTC. Action Items Action Items, by person --- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --- * roshi (120) * adamw (64) * kparal (43) * danofsatx (27) * pschindl (12) * zodbot (5) * nirik (4) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] 2015-02-02 @ 1700 UTC ** Blocker Review Meeting
# F22 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2015-02-02 # Time: 1700 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net It's that time of week again, time for some Blocker Review! Currently we have 1 Alpha and 1 Beta blocker proposed - so it should be a short meeting. We'll be sticking with the new trend of going through all the milestones during this meeting. If you want to take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers, the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ Make sure to click through the milestones to see how many we have before the meeting! We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F22 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting See you Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Self-introduction: Abdelhak BOUGOUFFA
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:37:56PM +0100, Abdelhak Bougouffa wrote: > Hi, > > My name is Abdelhak BOUGOUFFA, I'm from Algeria > I'm a student in InfoTronics field (Informatics and Electronics), I'm a > C, Python, PHP, JavaScript developer > > I'm also a skilled GNU/Linux administrator, I think that I can join the > QA team to test the fresh packages, report bugs and even; debug them :-D > > Have good day :) Hey Abdelhak, Welcome to QA! It's good to have you aboard! Since you've sent the introduction email to the list, I presume you've read the Join [0] page on the wiki. Also, you have some python skills, so you might also be interested in some of the qa-devel work, like blockerbugs [1] or taskotron [2] as well. Looking forward to working with you! Drop by #fedora-qa on freenode sometime and say hey! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Join [1] https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Taskotron -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
2015-01-26 @ 1700 UTC ** Blocker Review Meeting Minutes
== #fedora-blocker-review: F22-blocker-review == Meeting started by roshi at 17:00:18 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2015-01-26/f22-blocker-review.2015-01-26-17.00.log.html . Meeting summary --- * Roll Call (roshi, 17:00:18) * Introduction (roshi, 17:02:32) * Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs. (roshi, 17:02:32) * We'll be following the process outlined at: (roshi, 17:02:36) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting (roshi, 17:02:39) * The bugs up for review today are available at: (roshi, 17:02:41) * LINK: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current (roshi, 17:02:44) * The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: (roshi, 17:02:46) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Alpha_Release_Criteria (roshi, 17:02:49) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Beta_Release_Criteria (roshi, 17:02:52) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Final_Release_Criteria (roshi, 17:02:55) * (1184453) mouse cursor is invisible for 1 minute after log in, g-s-d seems to be stuck waiting for cups (roshi, 17:04:14) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184453 (roshi, 17:04:17) * Proposed Blocker, cups, NEW (roshi, 17:04:19) * AGREED: - 1184453 - AcceptedBlocker for Beta - This bug conditionally violates the Alpha criterion ""It must be possible to run the default web browser and a terminal application from all release-blocking desktop environments." by making it difficult/impossible to do anything within the GUI, the violation is considered serious enough to block Beta but not Alpha (adamw, 17:14:51) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting#Secretary_Duty (roshi, 17:19:06) * (1185195) SELinux is preventing NetworkManager from 'create' accesses on the lnk_file .resolv.conf.NetworkManager. (roshi, 17:19:45) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185195 (roshi, 17:19:48) * Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy, NEW (roshi, 17:19:51) * AGREED: - 1185195 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug prevents anything requiring the network from working. Violates at least the following criterion: "The installed system must be able to download and install updates with the default console package manager." (roshi, 17:23:11) * (1184933) login screen stuck after switching users (roshi, 17:23:32) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184933 (roshi, 17:23:32) * Proposed Blocker, gdm, MODIFIED (roshi, 17:23:32) * ACTION: kparal to propose criteria change to the list regarding user switching (roshi, 17:34:57) * AGREED: - 1184933 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a conditional violation of the criterion: "Shutting down, logging out and rebooting must work using standard console commands and the mechanisms offered (if any) by all release-blocking desktops." As "Switch User" is an offered mechanism. (roshi, 17:36:03) * (1185117) UEFI dual-boot + Windows, cannot practically remove and install Fedora over an existing default opensuse installation (roshi, 17:36:08) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185117 (roshi, 17:36:11) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW (roshi, 17:36:14) * AGREED: - 1185117 - AcceptedBlocker for Beta - This bug is a violation of the Beta criterion: "Correctly interpret, and modify as described below, any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table containing ext4 partitions, LVM and/or btrfs volumes..." (roshi, 17:45:18) * (1182652) Missing high contrast icon (roshi, 17:45:57) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182652 (roshi, 17:45:57) * Proposed Blocker, setroubleshoot, NEW (roshi, 17:45:57) * AGREED: - 1182652 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the criterion: "All applications installed by default in Fedora Workstation must comply with each MUST and MUST NOT guideline in the Applications and Launchers policy." (roshi, 17:49:40) * Open Floor (roshi, 17:49:49) Meeting ended at 17:58:54 UTC. Action Items * kparal to propose criteria change to the list regarding user switching Action Items, by person --- * kparal * kparal to propose criteria change to the list regarding user switching * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --- * roshi (114) * adamw (82) * kparal (38) * danofsatx (27) * pschindl (8) * zodbot (4) * tonghuix (4) * oddshocks (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/Me
[Test-Announce] 2015-01-26 @ 1700 UTC ** F22 Blocker Review Meeting
# F22 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2015-01-26 # Time: 1700 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net I seem to have forgotten how to use the "send" button on my mail client, so this annoucnement is getting out a bit late. Apologies for that! We've got another blocker review in a couple hours! We currently have several proposed blockers: 2 Alpha, 1 Beta and 2 Final. So if you're around after the QA meeting, come and join us for some blocker review goodness :) If you want to take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers, the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ Make sure to click through the milestones to see how many we have before the meeting! We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F22 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting See you soon! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Release criterion proposal: "Package sets" (Alpha and Beta)
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 04:20:48PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Hum, so thinking about it a bit further, I'd like to add one more > thing to this proposal. > > > On reflection I think we *should* require install of release blocking > desktops and minimal package set to work with the frozen release > package set, because I can see cases where it would be important to be > able to fire off an install and be 100% confident you're not going to > have package set issues; people may want to use the frozen repo for > that purpose, so they're sure updates won't introduce any new problems. > > We also seem to be pretty much committed to still having the universal > network install image, now - at least for F22. > > So, to cover those goals, propose we basically move the existing Alpha > criterion to Final, with a tweak to refer to the network install image > and the frozen repos specifically: > > When installing with the network install image with no update > repositories enabled, the installer must be able to install each of > the release blocking desktops, as well as the minimal package set. > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net > http://www.happyassassin.net Just to sum it up for people, the proposal overall is: - Reword the alpha criterion [0] - add a Beta criterion (with the latest extension) [1] - add a net-install Final criterion [2] I don't see anything worrisome about any of these changes. Gives us good, well defined areas we know we want covered. -- [0] "When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, the installer must be able to install the default package set." [1] "When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, the default package set must be correct, and choosing a different package set must work." [2] "When installing with the network install image with no update repositories enabled, the installer must be able to install each of the release blocking desktops, as well as the minimal package set." -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Release criterion proposal: "Package sets" (Alpha and Beta)
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:46:34PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > Here's a ping on this (as I only got feedback from Mike before - > anyone else?) and a modification: I'd like to extend the Beta > criterion to read: > > "When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, > the default package set must be correct, and choosing a different > package set must work." > > with a footnote something like: > > "'work' means that the package set selection mechanism itself must > work; when used, the packages that form the chosen set must actually > be the ones marked for installation. Package issues that render one or > more selectable package sets un-installable do not constitute a > violation of this criterion, though they may be violations of other > criteria." > > this is to cover things like > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179362 , which I noticed > when filing it is a bit of a loophole in the proposed criteria. > > Any more thoughts, folks? Thanks! > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net > http://www.happyassassin.net That addition to the proposed criteria sounds good to me. The definition of 'work' makes sense as well. -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
2015-01-12 @ 1700 UTC ** Fedora Blocker Review Minutes
I filled in a gap that zodbot missed when it died in the middle of the meeting, but these should be complete. == #fedora-blocker-review: F22-blocker-review == Meeting started by roshi at 16:06:42 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2015-01-12/f22-blocker-review.2015-01-12-16.06.log.html . Meeting summary --- * Roll Call (roshi, 16:06:43) * Introduction (roshi, 16:08:49) * Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs. (roshi, 16:08:49) * We'll be following the process outlined at: (roshi, 16:08:53) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting (roshi, 16:08:55) * The bugs up for review today are available at: (roshi, 16:08:58) * LINK: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current (roshi, 16:09:00) * The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: (roshi, 16:09:03) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Alpha_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:09:05) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Beta_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:09:08) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Final_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:09:11) * (1166598) going back to installation destination picker swaps partitions on disks (roshi, 16:09:36) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166598 (roshi, 16:09:39) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED (roshi, 16:09:42) * LINK: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2015-01-07/f22-blocker-review.2015-01-07-16.02.log.html (roshi, 16:13:02) * AGREED: - 1166598 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the beta criterion "Complete an installation using any combination of disk configuration options it allows the user to select" in the case you change your mind (roshi, 16:30:40) * (1179905) [dnf] select default optional addons when changing environments (roshi, 16:32:46) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179905 (roshi, 16:32:49) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, MODIFIED (roshi, 16:32:52) * AGREED: - 1179905 - RejectedBlocker - This bug doesn't violate any criterion we have currently and none of the release blocking package sets use default option groups. * (1180706) Does not launch: "Gjs-CRITICAL **: Attempting to call back into JSAPI during the sweeping phase of GC." (adamw, 16:46:29) * AGREED: - 1180706 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the Final criterion: "All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical mechanism of a release-blocking desktop after a default installation of that desktop must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test." (adamw, 16:46:39) * Open Floor (adamw, 16:46:47) Meeting ended at 16:48:30 UTC. Action Items Action Items, by person --- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --- * roshi (70) * adamw (35) * kparal (24) * brunowolff (5) * zodbot (4) * pschindl_wifi (3) * jsmith (3) * sgallagh (2) * satellit (2) * satellit_e (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 - Edited by Roshi 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [Test-Announce] Proposal to CANCEL: 2015-01-12 Fedora QA Meeting
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 10:25:00AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi folks! So I don't think we have anything particular to discuss at a > meeting tomorrow, thus according to the policy of not wasting people's > time with unnecessary meetings, I propose we cancel it. If anyone did > have something to discuss, please do reply to this mail! > > We could possibly move blocker review up by one hour to help out > European folks, but it may be a bit late for that. > -- > adamw We can just see how many people happen to be on IRC and get started early - with the caveat that we can revisit bugs if developers or packagers show up at the allotted time with info on a bug. That work? -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] 2015-01-12 @ 1700 UTC ** Fedora Blocker Review **NEW TIME**
# F22 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2015-01-12 # Time: 1700 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net It's that time of week again, time for some Blocker Review! While it might seem like I've lost track of what day it is again (which happens, I admit), we discussed it this week and decided to give Mondays after the QA meeting a try for the blocker review. So, this Monday we'll be having the review at 1700 UTC instead of the normal Wednesday time. We'll be sticking with the new trend of going through all the milestones during this meeting. Currently, accross all the milestones, we have 3 proposed blockers. Hopefully it'll be a short meeting. If you want to take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers, the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ Make sure to click through the milestones to see how many we have before the meeting! We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F22 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting See you Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
2014-01-07 @ 1600 ** Fedora Blocker Review Minutes
== #fedora-blocker-review: F22-blocker-review == Meeting started by roshi at 16:02:15 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2015-01-07/f22-blocker-review.2015-01-07-16.02.log.html . Meeting summary --- * Roll Call (roshi, 16:02:16) * Change blocker review time discussion (roshi, 16:05:41) * AGREED: Hold next blocker review on Monday 2014-01-12 (roshi, 16:12:36) * Introduction (roshi, 16:14:27) * Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs. (roshi, 16:14:28) * We'll be following the process outlined at: (roshi, 16:14:31) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting (roshi, 16:14:34) * The bugs up for review today are available at: (roshi, 16:14:36) * LINK: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current (roshi, 16:14:39) * The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: (roshi, 16:14:41) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Alpha_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:14:44) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Beta_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:14:47) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Final_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:14:50) * (1169019) UnicodeDecodeError: 'ascii' codec can't decode byte 0xe4 in position 11: ordinal not in range(128) (roshi, 16:15:07) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169019 (roshi, 16:15:10) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED (roshi, 16:15:13) * AGREED: - 1169019 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a conditional violation of the Alpha criterion: The installer must be able to complete an installation to a single disk using automatic partitioning. (roshi, 16:27:01) * (1179362) boot.iso installs result in console login (roshi, 16:30:55) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179362 (roshi, 16:30:55) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED (roshi, 16:30:56) * AGREED: - 1179362 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the Alpha Package Sets criterion: When doing a graphical install using the dedicated installer images, the installer must be able to install each of the release blocking desktops, as well as the minimal package set. (roshi, 16:35:49) * (1170803) calls e2fsck on all ext volumes, provides no status indicator, and hangs indefinitely if e2fsck doesn't exit (roshi, 16:36:05) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170803 (roshi, 16:36:08) * Proposed Blocker, e2fsprogs, NEW (roshi, 16:36:11) * AGREED: - 1170803 - RejectedBlocker - This bug doesn't clearly violate any criteria and looks to be getting worked on either way. Please repropose if it's found to violate another criterion. (roshi, 16:54:50) * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Beta_Release_Criteria#Initialization_requirements (roshi, 16:55:24) * (1166598) going back to installation destination picker swaps partitions on disks (roshi, 16:55:37) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166598 (roshi, 16:55:40) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED (roshi, 16:55:42) * LINK: http://plantpoweredkitchen.com/recipes/recipe-mac-oh-geez/ (danofsatx|w, 17:01:11) * AGREED: - 1166598 - Punt - It's not clear where this bug or the fix currently stands. Punting until we have more information. (roshi, 17:12:00) * (1177988) ConfigError: Repository updates has no mirror or baseurl set. (roshi, 17:12:08) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177988 (roshi, 17:12:11) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED (roshi, 17:12:14) * AGREED: - 1177988 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the Beta criterion: The installer must be able to complete a scripted installation which duplicates the default interactive installation as closely as possible. (roshi, 17:20:55) * (1170800) Please stop overwriting anaconda's stylesheet (roshi, 17:20:59) * Proposed Blocker, fedora-productimg-server, NEW (roshi, 17:21:00) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170800 (roshi, 17:21:02) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176411 (adamw, 17:23:33) * AGREED: - 1170800 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug breaks keyboard usage for installation, and thus is a conditional violation of the following Final criterion: Installer must be able to complete an installation. (roshi, 17:29:56) * (1170788) [abrt] gnome-shell: check_fontmap_changed(): gnome-shell killed by SIGSEGV (roshi, 17:30:01) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170788 (roshi, 17:30:04) * Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, NEW (roshi, 17:30:06)
Re: [Test-Announce] 2015-01-07 @ 1600 UTC ** Fedora 22 Blocker Review Meeting
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 04:10:39AM -0500, Kamil Paral wrote: > > # First F22 Blocker Review meeting > > # Date: 2015-01-07 > > # Time: 16:00 UTC > > # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net > > > > While it's not the usual time to start blocker reviews, after much > > deliberation at today's QA meeting, it was decided to start the blocker > > review process earlier than usual. With that being decided, we're going > > to get started this week! > > I added the meetings to our QA calendar: > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/QA/ Thanks! > > Anyone can add this calendar to his or her calendar application by using this > iCal link: > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/ical/QA/ > > And due to this, I realized I can't attend these meetings until Feb 11, it > collides with my other activities. > > So, either you need to get by without me (no hurt feelings here;)), or we > need to reschedule it to a different day. I talked to Petr and Mondays after > the regular QA meeting (17:00-20:00 UTC) would be fine for us, it would be > just a single evening occupied instead of two evenings taken per week. For US > people, it would be one hour later, which is also a benefit. I think that could work fine (for me at least) - perhaps we can test it out next week? Or throw the idea on the QA meeting agenda if there isn't enough response here on list? -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] 2015-01-07 @ 1600 UTC ** Fedora 22 Blocker Review Meeting
# First F22 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2015-01-07 # Time: 16:00 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net While it's not the usual time to start blocker reviews, after much deliberation at today's QA meeting, it was decided to start the blocker review process earlier than usual. With that being decided, we're going to get started this week! The other change to the blocker review process: we're going to start going through all the remaining milestones for a release. The thought is that this will keep bugs from piling up, which gives developers and QA more time to code and test (respectively). Hopefully this will lessen the number of really long blocker review meetings. If we happen to have a bunch of blockers that we can't get through in one meeting, we'll try to schedule another during the week to get through them. Currently we have 3 Alpha, 2 Beta and 3 Final proposed Blockers and 4 proposed Alpha Freeze Exceptions. If you want to take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers, the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ Make sure to click through the milestones to see how many we have before the meeting! We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F22 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting See you Wednesday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Release criterion proposal: "Package sets" (Alpha and Beta)
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 10:21:11AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > I propose we re-word the Alpha criterion to: > > "When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, > the installer must be able to install the default package set." > > and add a Beta criterion: > > "When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, > the default package set must be correct." > > with an explanatory note that 'correct' means the package set intended > by the group responsible for the image - Product WG, FESCo or whoever. > +1 to the rewording. > I'm not sure whether we need a requirement for non-default package > sets. Note that the case for offline media is already covered by Alpha > criterion "No broken packages": > > "There must be no errors in any package on the release-blocking images > which cause the package to fail to install." > > network installs using updates media don't really need to block on > package set issues, as they can be fixed. That leaves the question of > whether we'd want to block the release if, say, there was a bug which > meant that if you tried to netinst KDE without the updates repos > enabled, it failed. What do folks think about that? I'd be for blocking on a broken netinst (like your example), but if the repos are the same used for image creation this shouldn't really be an issue, right? (Yeah, I know I used the "S" word :p ) AIUI things would break in other places if this particular issue was to come up. Is my understanding correct? -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Self-introduction: Carlos Morel-Riquelme
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 03:57:05PM -0300, Carlos Morel-Riquelme wrote: > Hello folks > > My name is Carlos Morel-Riquelme i'm from Chile and i'm contributor for > Fedora Project since F20 in Testing ( Bodhi ) though i start using Fedora > since F15, also i'm student of computer engineering and i have a little > knowledge in Ruby and GTK+ . > > Well for finish i want say that i really apreciate the good enery and > gratitude of Fedora team for my participation in F21 testing, read my name > in the heroes of fedora is great :) > > > Thank a lot > > http://fedoramagazine.org/heroes-of-fedora-qa-fedora-21-part-2/ > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Empateinfinito Glad to have you aboard Carlos! Looking forward to seeing more of you in the Heroes of Fedora :) Welcome to QA! -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
2014-12-03 @ 1600 UTC ** Conditional Blocker Review Meeting Minutes
== #fedora-blocker-review: F21-blocker-review == Meeting started by roshi at 16:04:24 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2014-12-03/f21-blocker-review.2014-12-03-16.04.log.html . Meeting summary --- * Roll Call (roshi, 16:04:25) * Introduction (roshi, 16:06:59) * Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs. (roshi, 16:07:00) * We'll be following the process outlined at: (roshi, 16:07:04) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting (roshi, 16:07:06) * The bugs up for review today are available at: (roshi, 16:07:09) * LINK: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current (roshi, 16:07:11) * The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: (roshi, 16:07:14) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Alpha_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:07:16) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:07:19) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Final_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:07:22) * (1170153) anaconda gets stuck during creating a partition, when there is some existing partition after that one (roshi, 16:07:28) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170153 (roshi, 16:07:31) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW (roshi, 16:07:33) * AGREED: - 1170153 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the Windows dual boot criterion and can lead to data loss. (roshi, 16:47:53) * (1166598) going back to installation destination picker swaps partitions on disks (roshi, 16:48:26) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166598 (roshi, 16:48:29) * Accepted Blocker, anaconda, VERIFIED (roshi, 16:48:31) * AGREED: - 1166598 - RejectedBlocker - The provided fix for this bug caused a larger issue. At this point in the release it's better to revert and document the problem clearly. Repropose this as a F22 Alpha blocker to get a fix early in the next release. (roshi, 17:10:37) * (1170245) Win 8 UEFI don't start from grub: "error: cannot load image" (roshi, 17:10:51) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170245 (roshi, 17:10:55) * Proposed Blocker, grub, NEW (roshi, 17:10:57) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Final_Release_Criteria#Windows_dual_boot (kparal, 17:13:06) * AGREED: - 1170245 - RejectedBlocker - This doesn't violate any specific release criterion. Document on common bugs that SB enabled dual boots might not work at this point. Workaround is to turn it off. (roshi, 17:17:45) * (1169151) docker run fails with 'finalize namespace setup user setgid operation not supported' (roshi, 17:18:41) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169151 (roshi, 17:18:43) * Proposed Freeze Exceptions, docker-io, ON_QA (roshi, 17:18:46) * AGREED: - 1169151 - RejectedFreezeException - Based on the information we have on hand this looks like it can be fixed with an update. No need for an exception to freeze. (roshi, 17:24:41) * Open Floor (roshi, 17:33:29) * LINK: http://bit.ly/11UI4vL (jreznik, 17:40:20) Meeting ended at 17:41:38 UTC. Action Items Action Items, by person --- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --- * roshi (134) * kparal (113) * sgallagh (66) * Corey84- (63) * adamw (59) * nirik (54) * jreznik (54) * dcantrell (21) * mattdm (19) * zodbot (6) * sbueno (6) * satellit (4) * pschindl (4) * larsks (2) * tflink (2) * satellit_e (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] 2014-12-03 @ 1600 UTC ** Conditional Blocker Review Meeting
Greetings testers! Typically we'd have a blocker review meeting tomorrow, but with Go/No-Go this Thursday and a pretty solid RC out and being tested, we might not need one. Currently there are no proposed blockers (and let's hope we've handled all of them), so we won't be having a meeting. OTOH, if we do find some tonight or before the meeting tomorrow we'll go ahead and have the meeting to discuss whatever has been found. Just wanted to give everyone a heads up. Thanks! -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
2014-11-26 @ 1600 UTC ** Blocker Review Minutes
== #fedora-blocker-review: F21-blocker-review == Meeting started by roshi at 16:01:34 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2014-11-26/f21-blocker-review.2014-11-26-16.01.log.html . Meeting summary --- * Roll Call (roshi, 16:01:34) * Introduction (roshi, 16:04:40) * Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs. (roshi, 16:04:41) * We'll be following the process outlined at: (roshi, 16:04:44) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting (roshi, 16:04:47) * The bugs up for review today are available at: (roshi, 16:04:49) * LINK: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current (roshi, 16:04:52) * The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: (roshi, 16:04:54) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Alpha_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:04:57) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:05:00) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Final_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:05:03) * (1130550) OSError: process '['/usr/libexec/anaconda/anaconda-yum', '--config', '/tmp/anaconda-yum.conf', '--tsfile', '/mnt/sysimage/anaconda-yum.yumtx', '--rpmlog', '/tmp/rpm-script.log', '--installroot', '/mnt/sysimage', '--release', '21', '--arch', 'x86_64', ... (roshi, 16:05:21) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1130550 (roshi, 16:05:26) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW (roshi, 16:05:28) * AGREED: - 1130550 - RejectedBlocker - Based on the information provided within this bug, this bug isn't an issue with anaconda and is not considered blocking. (roshi, 16:11:37) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting#Secretary_Duty for info on how to do it :) (roshi, 16:14:41) * (1158533) selecting one disk from VG spanning over multiple disks causes troubles (roshi, 16:16:33) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1158533 (roshi, 16:16:36) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW (roshi, 16:16:38) * AGREED: - 1158533 - RejectedBlocker - This bug doesn't seem to be reproducible and no new reports have come in confirming this bug. (roshi, 16:25:34) * (1168118) Apple Mac EFI: you have not created a bootloader stage1 target device (roshi, 16:25:56) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1168118 (roshi, 16:25:59) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW (roshi, 16:26:01) * AGREED: - 1168118 - RejectedBlocker - This bug doesn't violate any specific criteria due to sdcards not being a supported storage type. Supported storage types are SATA, PATA and SCSI for locally connected storage. We can revisit this for F22. (roshi, 16:56:21) * (1167959) Anaconda on Server DVD put on the usb by livecd-iso-to-disk --efi hangs in hub due to "probing storage" (roshi, 16:57:12) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167959 (roshi, 16:57:16) * Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, POST (roshi, 16:57:18) * AGREED: - 1167959 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of several criteria, namely: All release-blocking images must boot in their supported configurations." (roshi, 17:00:40) * (1167965) logvol swap --recommended fails (roshi, 17:01:07) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167965 (roshi, 17:01:07) * Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, POST (roshi, 17:01:07) * AGREED: - 1167965 - PuntOnBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - More information is needed before we can decide whether this bug would block release. However, in the mean time we would accept a fix for this during freeze. (roshi, 17:21:26) * (1167014) Manual partitioning using single partition: unable to escape from Partitioning page except with workaround (roshi, 17:21:58) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167014 (roshi, 17:22:01) * Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, POST (roshi, 17:22:04) * AGREED: - 1167014 - AcceptedFreezeException - A fix for this would be considered during freeze. (roshi, 17:32:58) * (1167658) custom partitioning: after you press Done for the first time, Reset All stops working (roshi, 17:33:18) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167658 (roshi, 17:33:21) * Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, NEW (roshi, 17:33:23) * AGREED: - 1167658 - Punt - More information is needed to decide FE status. A proposed fix to look at would be really helpful. (roshi, 17:55:26) * (1167507) CVE-2014-6408 CVE-2014-6407 docker-io: various flaws [fedora-all] (roshi, 17:55:33) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167507 (ros
[Test-Announce] 2014-11-26 @ 1600 UTC ** Blocker Review Meeting
# F21 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2014-11-26 # Time: 16:00 UTC (run "date -d '2014-11-26 16:00 UTC'" to see local time) # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net While we just had a out of band blocker review today after the QA meeting, we'll still be having our regularly scheduled blocker review this Wednesday. We managed to knock out all of the blockers and FEs this morning, but still we had 2 proposed blockers and 1 proposed FE since. I would get ready for more proposals before the meeting on Wednesday, but if we don't get any it should be a short meeting. Maybe this time around we can all watch the FEsCo meeting :) If you want to take a look at the accepted blockers, the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/21/final/buglist We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate the Final Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F21 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting See you Wednesday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] Fedora Atomic Test Day
Greetings, all! Tomorrow (or today for those of you not in North America) will be the first Atomic Testday! The Fedora Atomic host is a new image designed to securely and easily run Docker containers - all based on Project Atomic [0]. Because it's new ground, testing is required for a successful release. The Atomic image utilizes rpm-ostree [1] to allow you to update and revert your installed package set just like a Git repo. This allows for easy upgrades and an easy method of reverting back to a known good state should something go wrong after an update. Come join us for a day of testing and exploration into all Atomic offers for running your containerized applications. Information on the testday can be found on the Wiki [2] or drop by the #fedora-test-day channel on Freenode if you have any questions. See you tomorrow (or later today)! [0] http://projectatomic.io [1] https://github.com/projectatomic/rpm-ostree [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2014-11-20_Atomic -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
2014-11-19 @ 1600 UTC ** Blocker Review Minutes
== #fedora-blocker-review: F21-blocker-review == Meeting started by pschindl at 16:03:55 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2014-11-19/f21-blocker-review.2014-11-19-16.03.log.html . Meeting summary --- * Roll Call (pschindl, 16:04:10) * Introduction (pschindl, 16:08:01) * Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs. (pschindl, 16:08:06) * We'll be following the process outlined at: (pschindl, 16:08:08) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting (pschindl, 16:08:10) * The bugs up for review today are available at: (pschindl, 16:08:12) * LINK: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current (pschindl, 16:08:14) * The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: (pschindl, 16:08:16) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Alpha_Release_Criteria (pschindl, 16:08:18) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria (pschindl, 16:08:20) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Final_Release_Criteria (pschindl, 16:08:22) * 9 Proposed Blockers (pschindl, 16:08:28) * 6 Accepted Blockers (pschindl, 16:08:31) * 11 Proposed Freeze Exceptions (pschindl, 16:08:33) * 3 Accepted Freeze Exceptions (pschindl, 16:08:35) * (1162856) Missing high contrast icon (pschindl, 16:09:30) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1162856 (pschindl, 16:09:32) * Proposed Blocker, fedora-logos, NEW (pschindl, 16:09:34) * AGREED: - 1162856 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the Final criterion: All applications installed by default in Fedora Workstation must comply with each MUST and MUST NOT guideline in the Applications and Launchers policy. (pschindl, 16:16:14) * (1165430) Fedora-repos needs updating for f21 final (pschindl, 16:16:38) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165430 (pschindl, 16:16:40) * Proposed Blocker, fedora-repos, ON_QA (pschindl, 16:16:42) * AGREED: - 1165430 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the final criterion: A fedora-release package containing the correct names, information and repository configuration for a final Fedora release must be present on release-blocking images and the appropriately versioned generic-release package must be available in the release repository. (pschindl, 16:20:19) * (1165261) ipa-server-install fails when restarting named (pschindl, 16:20:33) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165261 (pschindl, 16:20:35) * Proposed Blocker, freeipa, POST (pschindl, 16:20:37) * AGREED: - 1165261 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the beta roles criteria: Release-blocking roles and the supported role configuration interfaces must meet the core functional Role Definition Requirements to the extent that supported roles can be successfully started, stopped, brought to a working configuration, and queried. (pschindl, 16:35:16) * (1164492) Please drop libvirt 'default' network dependency for F21 GA (pschindl, 16:35:27) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164492 (pschindl, 16:35:30) * Proposed Blocker, gnome-boxes, NEW (pschindl, 16:35:32) * AGREED: - 1164492 - RejectedBlocker - This bug tryes to solve the same issue as bug 1146232 which is already blocker. (pschindl, 16:48:46) * (1165425) bcl accidentally pushed a diagnostic 'bcl was here' test for product.img
[Test-Announce] 2014-11-19 @ 1600 UTC ** Blocker Review Meeting
# F21 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2014-11-19 # Time: 16:00 UTC (run "date -d '2014-11-19 16:00 UTC'" to see local time) # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net It's that time of the week again! Things have been moving along smoothly after the Beta release - and now Freeze is upon us for final. This means we'll not only be giving some love to the proposed blockers, but also looking into the proposed Freeze Exceptions. Currently we have 6 proposed blockers and 5 proposed FEs. If you want to take a look at the accepted blockers, the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/21/final/buglist We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate the Final Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F21 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting See you Wednesday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Cloud Providers Criteria Discussion
Hey all, Back in late October we agreed that not having AMIs uploaded was something we should block on [0], but I felt like the "must boot" criteria didn't really fit. I proposed to the cloud WG [1] a new criteria: "Cloud images must be available in the following supported service registries: Amazon EC2." I wanted to get feedback from the QA team regarding this potential criterion and where it might fit. I think at alpha so we can get as much testing as possible. The discussion thus far can be found on the Cloud groups trac. If you could post your comments, votes on adding this, etc on the trac ticket[1] I would appreciate it. Using the trac makes it so people from the Cloud WG can answer any questions/issues QA might have since not everyone is subscribed to both lists. Thanks! [0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1158592 [1] https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/80#comment:3 -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
2014-11-12 @ 1600 UTC ** Blocker Review Meeting Minutes
== #fedora-blocker-review: F21-blocker-review == Meeting started by roshi at 16:03:53 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2014-11-12/f21-blocker-review.2014-11-12-16.03.log.html . Meeting summary --- * Roll Call (roshi, 16:03:53) * (1161779) System fails to boot with rootfs on iSCSI - missing kernel parameters (roshi, 16:07:30) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1161779 (roshi, 16:07:33) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW (roshi, 16:07:36) * AGREED: - 1161779 - AcceptedBlocker - This is a clear violation of the Final criteria: "The installer must be able to detect (if possible) and install to supported network-attached storage devices." (roshi, 16:14:04) * (1162215) LV resize does not check filesystem minimum size (roshi, 16:14:09) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1162215 (roshi, 16:14:09) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED (roshi, 16:14:10) * AGREED: - 11662215 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the Final criterion: "Any installer mechanism for resizing storage volumes must correctly attempt the requested operation." (roshi, 16:25:09) * (1158442) Gnome-initial-setup window doesn't fit to visible with small resolution (roshi, 16:25:59) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1158442 (roshi, 16:26:02) * Proposed Blocker, gnome-initial-setup, MODIFIED (roshi, 16:26:05) * AGREED: - 1158442 - Punt - We're going to wait to decide on this pending discussion and testing of an existing fix. (roshi, 16:37:26) * (986731) Dual boot of uefi Windows 7 and Fedora 19 fails to boot Windows (roshi, 16:37:41) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986731 (roshi, 16:37:45) * Proposed Blocker, grub2, NEW (roshi, 16:37:47) * AGREED: - 986731 - RejectedBlocker - This doesn't seem to be reproducible on F21. If it is, please update the bug and reproduce. (roshi, 16:42:24) * (1103496) Installer interface sometimes freezes for a while (but install continues, and screen eventually unfreezes) (roshi, 16:42:27) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103496 (roshi, 16:42:30) * Proposed Blocker, gtk3, NEW (roshi, 16:42:33) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Final_Release_Criteria#Data_corruption (kparal, 16:58:43) * AGREED: - 1103496 - AcceptedBlocker - This is a conditional violation of the Final Data Corruption criterion since it creates the opportunity of data loss to the user (by making them think the install has hung and the user restarts the machine mid-install). (roshi, 17:02:22) * (1144613) [abrt] gnome-tweak-tool: gtk_tree_row_ref_deleted(): python2.7 killed by SIGSEGV (roshi, 17:02:37) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144613 (roshi, 17:02:40) * Proposed Blocker, gtk3, NEW (roshi, 17:02:43) * AGREED: - 1144613 - RejectedBlocker - The GNOME tweak tool is not a default application for the Workstation product, so this is not considered a blocker. (roshi, 17:10:09) * (1147670) keyboard layout chooser switches letters while typing (roshi, 17:10:18) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147670 (roshi, 17:10:21) * Proposed Blocker, gtk3, NEW (roshi, 17:10:24) * AGREED: - 1147670 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - This bug is difficult to reproduce and it seems to be very system-dependant. Accepting as an FE because if you do hit it, it would be pretty obnoxious. Repropose if more solid reproduction steps can be found or there is a concrete system on which it is quite difficult to perform Fedora installation. (roshi, 17:43:49) * (1158968) AttributeError: 'DMRaidArrayDevice' object has no attribute 'formatClass' (roshi, 17:44:00) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1158968 (roshi, 17:44:03) * Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, MODIFIED (roshi, 17:44:05) * AGREED: - 1158968 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a violation of the Beta Criterion: "The installer must be able to detect and install to hardware or firmware RAID storage devices." (roshi, 17:56:13) * (1130794) Missing high contrast icon (roshi, 17:56:21
2014-11-12 @ 1600 UTC ** Fedora Blocker Review Meeting
# F21 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2014-11-12 # Time: 16:00 UTC (11:00 EST, 08:00 PST) # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net It's that time of the week again! Last week we had 15 proposed blockers, which we managed to get down to 4 or so. This week we have 11 to go through. Also, we're keeping the meeting time locked into UTC so make sure to check your local time (for those of us who had a time change recently). If you want to take a look at the accepted blockers, the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/21/final/buglist We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate the Final Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F21 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting See you Wednesday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] Server Test Day Tomorrow (2014-11-07)
Greetings Testers! Tomorrow we'll be holding a testday for the Server product. Along with general testing there will be a focus on freeIPA, openLMI, cockpit and Rolekit. If you have some time, or want to get more familiar with all the new features Server brings, drop by the #fedora-test-day channel on freenode and run some tests, we'd love to see you there! More information can be found on the wiki [0]. Thanks! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2014-11-07_Server -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
[Test-Announce] 2014-11-05 @ 1600 UTC ** F21 Blocker Review
# F21 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2014-11-05 # Time: 16:00 UTC (11:00 EST, 08:00 PST) # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net The first TC of Final is upon us! Along with that, we've changed up the release schedule a bit so we need to get to finding and knocking out these blocker bugs for Final. Currently we have 15 proposed blockers and 3 proposed FEs to get through. If you want to take a look at the accepted blockers, the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/21/final/buglist We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate the Final Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F21 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting See you Wednesday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
21014-11-05 @ 1600 UTC ** F21 Blocker Review
# F21 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2014-11-05 # Time: 16:00 UTC (12:00 EDT, 09:00 PDT) # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net The first TC of Final is upon us! Along with that, we've changed up the release schedule a bit so we need to get to finding and knocking out these blocker bugs for Final. Currently we have 15 proposed blockers and 3 proposed FEs to get through. If you want to take a look at the accepted blockers, the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/21/final/buglist We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate the Final Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F21 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting See you Wednesday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Introduction
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 05:29:44PM -0800, M. Miles Clark wrote: > Hi All - > > I've been running Fedora for a while and decided to install the F21 > alpha on my new laptop. It's pretty good, but there are a few problems, > so I thought I'd see what I could do to help out with testing. > > I'm primarily a developer, but I also have some system administration > experience. I've been a user of Linux for 15 years or so, but haven't > made the jump to contributor until now. > > I'm reading through http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Join to see where I > can be most useful, but if anyone has suggestions, I'd love to hear > them. > > Thanks, > > Miles > Welcome to QA Miles :) There's plenty of work to be done all around QA. If you want to stick in the developer role you can always help out with Taskotron. If you're looking to switch things up, we can always chat via IRC. Drop by the #fedora-qa channel on Freenode sometime :) Again, welcome! -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
2014-10-29 @ 1600 ** F21 Blocker Review Minutes
== #fedora-blocker-review: F21-blocker-review == Meeting started by roshi at 16:05:38 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2014-10-29/f21-blocker-review.2014-10-29-16.05.log.html . Meeting summary --- * Roll Call (roshi, 16:05:38) * (1135024) can't press Begin Installation button because of low screen resolution 1024 x 600 (roshi, 16:07:37) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135024 (roshi, 16:07:40) * Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST (roshi, 16:07:43) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_User_Interface_Graphical (danofsatx, 16:12:24) * AGREED: - 1135024 - RejectedBlocker - Low resolution is a known and documented shortcoming which we have not blocked on in the past. (roshi, 16:14:43) * (1099299) fedup fails to upgrade F20 to F21 or later - infinite loop when starting udev (roshi, 16:15:32) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099299 (roshi, 16:15:34) * Accepted Blocker, systemd, ASSIGNED (roshi, 16:15:37) * LINK: https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/21_Beta_RC2/Server/x86_64/os/Packages/s/ (adamw, 16:32:13) * Open Floor (roshi, 16:58:39) * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Alpha_Release_Criteria#Release-blocking_images_must_boot (tflink, 17:01:25) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1158592 (tflink, 17:08:20) * AGREED: - 1158592 - AcceptedBlocker - This is a violation of the "Images must boot" alpha criterion. Images have to be available in order to boot. (roshi, 17:28:20) Meeting ended at 17:33:14 UTC. Action Items Action Items, by person --- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --- * roshi (83) * adamw (74) * kparal (48) * tflink (21) * danofsatx (16) * wwoods (10) * nirik (8) * pschindl (8) * zodbot (5) * satellit (3) * satellit_e (3) * randomuser (2) * jreznik_ (2) * pwhalen (2) * jreznik (2) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
2014-10-22 @ 1600 UTC ** F21 Blocker Review Minutes
==
#fedora-blocker-review: F21-blocker-review
==
Meeting started by roshi at 16:03:34 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2014-10-22/f21-blocker-review.2014-10-22-16.03.log.html
.
Meeting summary
---
* Roll Call (roshi, 16:03:35)
* Introduction (roshi, 16:07:10)
* Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and
nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor
the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have
bugs. (roshi, 16:07:11)
* We'll be following the process outlined at: (roshi, 16:07:15)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
(roshi, 16:07:17)
* The bugs up for review today are available at: (roshi, 16:07:19)
* LINK: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current (roshi,
16:07:22)
* The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: (roshi,
16:07:25)
* LINK:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Alpha_Release_Criteria
(roshi, 16:07:27)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria
(roshi, 16:07:30)
* LINK:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Final_Release_Criteria
(roshi, 16:07:33)
* (1155014) DeviceCreateError: ("'NoneType' object has no attribute
'name'", 'fedora-pool00') (roshi, 16:08:01)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155014 (roshi,
16:08:04)
* Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST (roshi, 16:08:07)
* AGREED: - 1155014 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation
of the Beta custom partitioning criteria: "Create mount points
backed by ext4 partitions, LVM volumes or btrfs volumes..." (roshi,
16:17:52)
* (1155633) anaconda doesn't use "url --mirrorlist" option from
kickstart, uses stage2 instead (roshi, 16:18:03)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155633 (roshi,
16:18:06)
* Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW (roshi, 16:18:08)
* LINK:
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/21_Beta_TC4/Server/x86_64/os/.treeinfo
(adamw, 16:25:41)
* AGREED: - 1155633 - RejectedBlocker - We were unable to reproduce
this bug. If more information can be provided, please re-propose for
Final. (roshi, 16:31:23)
* (1155334) [abrt] bind: gssapi_destroy_signverify_ctx(): named killed
by SIGBUS (roshi, 16:31:51)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155334 (roshi,
16:31:54)
* Proposed Blocker, bind, NEW (roshi, 16:31:56)
* AGREED: - 1155334 - This is a clear violation of the Domain
controller role Beta criteria: " Multiple clients must be able to
enrol and unenrol in the domain..." (roshi, 16:37:14)
* LINK: http://grammarist.com/spelling/enrol-enroll/ (danofsatx,
16:37:30)
* (1146580) Mislabelled /usr/sbin, /usr/bin after fedup (roshi,
16:38:22)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146580 (roshi,
16:38:23)
* Proposed Blocker, fedup-dracut, ASSIGNED (roshi, 16:38:23)
* LINK:
https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/mirrorlist?repo=fedora-install-21&arch=x86_64
isn't set up right now (adamw, 16:49:54)
* AGREED: - 1146580 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the upgrade
requirements Beta criteria: "For each one of the release-blocking
package sets, it must be possible to successfully complete an
upgrade from a fully updated installation of the previous stable
Fedora release with that package set installed. ... Upgraded system
requirements: The upgraded system must meet all release criteria."
(roshi, 16:52:20)
* (1071356) Racy startup of ipa.service, named.service and dirsrv.target
(roshi, 16:52:32)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1071356 (roshi,
16:52:35)
* Proposed Blocker, freeipa, NEW (roshi, 16:52:37)
* AGREED: - 1071356 - RejectedBlocker - A simple workaround exists for
the bug, so it's not considered severe enough to block Beta. The
CommonBugs page will be updated with the workaround. (roshi,
17:04:26)
* (1155352) Fedora 21 Beta: Roles do not report firewall status via
rolectl (roshi, 17:04:49)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155352 (roshi,
17:04:52)
* Proposed Blocker, rolekit, NEW (roshi, 17:04:55)
* LINK:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSfVRuIaX1eQrTUtTzpWqSyiAGmaX-Zi3-vE2WmtqZisLIDS_4hzbz7Xw
(danofsatx, 17:05:19)
* LINK:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/server/2014-October/001520.html
(sgallagh, 17:09:26)
* (1155301) SELinux denies certmonger dbus requests during FreeIPA
deployment with rolekit (roshi, 17:12:12)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155301 (roshi,
17:12:14)
* Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy-targeted, NEW (roshi, 17:12:17)
* AGREED: - 1155301 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation
2014-10-22 @ 1600 UTC ** Fedora 21 Blocker Review Meeting
# F21 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2014-10-22 # Time: 16:00 UTC (12:00 EDT, 09:00 PDT) # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net We've already had one blocker review meeting this week (which is likely why I forgot to send this email until now), but it's time for another! With Go/No-Go being decided tomorrow we have plenty to do in order to be ready. So far we've got 9 proposed blockers and and 4 proposed freeze exceptions to look through for this meeting. If you want to take a look at the accepted blockers, the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/21/beta/buglist We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate the Beta Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F21 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting See you in a couple hours! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
2014-10-15 @ 16:00 UTC ** Blocker Review Meeting Minutes
== #fedora-blocker-review: F21-blocker-review == Meeting started by roshi at 16:04:23 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2014-10-15/f21-blocker-review.2014-10-15-16.04.log.html . Meeting summary --- * Roll Call (roshi, 16:04:24) * Introduction (roshi, 16:08:37) * Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs. (roshi, 16:08:37) * We'll be following the process outlined at: (roshi, 16:08:40) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting (roshi, 16:08:43) * The bugs up for review today are available at: (roshi, 16:08:46) * LINK: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current (roshi, 16:08:48) * The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: (roshi, 16:08:51) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Alpha_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:08:53) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria (roshi, 16:08:56) * (1145783) F21 install crashes on Intel firmware RAID with "AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'startswith'" (roshi, 16:09:24) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1145783 (roshi, 16:09:27) * Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, MODIFIED (roshi, 16:09:30) * AGREED: - 1145783 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the Beta criteria: "The installer must be able to detect and install to hardware or firmware RAID storage devices." (roshi, 16:15:19) * (1150147) Parent of existing mdcontainer does not have mdmember format - "ValueError: member has wrong format" on Intel firmware RAID install of F21 (roshi, 16:15:49) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150147 (roshi, 16:15:52) * Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, MODIFIED (roshi, 16:15:54) * AGREED: - 1150147 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the Beta criteria: "The installer must be able to detect and install to hardware or firmware RAID storage devices." (roshi, 16:18:39) * (1148923) ValueError: this device's formatting cannot be modified (roshi, 16:18:55) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1148923 (roshi, 16:18:58) * Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, MODIFIED (roshi, 16:19:01) * AGREED: - 1148923 - Punt AcceptedFreezeException - It's not clear how widespread this is or how to reproduce it so waiting to determine blocker status. Accepted as a Freeze Exception. (roshi, 16:37:45) * (1141549) ABRT cannot report any detected kernel oops (roshi, 16:38:56) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141549 (roshi, 16:38:56) * Proposed Freeze Exceptions, abrt, MODIFIED (roshi, 16:38:56) * AGREED: - 1141549 - AcceptedFreezeException - While manually reporting a kernel oops isn't terribly difficult it would be good to get this fixed. (roshi, 16:43:35) * (1103496) boot.iso 20140601 configuration screen is blank (roshi, 16:43:45) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103496 (roshi, 16:43:45) * Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, NEW (roshi, 16:43:45) * AGREED: - 1103496 - AcceptedFreezeException - While this is a cosmetic issue it would be great to get the fixed pulled in despite freeze. (roshi, 17:02:52) * (1151429) preedit is visible in gnome-lock-screen for all ibus input methods (roshi, 17:03:38) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151429 (roshi, 17:03:41) * Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-shell, NEW (roshi, 17:03:43) * AGREED: - 1151429 - AcceptedFreezeException - Password input should obscure passwords regardless of input method. Please test again on TC4 when it lands. (roshi, 17:11:07) * (1149782) liveusb-creator creates non-booting Live USB (roshi, 17:11:18) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149782 (roshi, 17:11:18) * Proposed Freeze Exceptions, liveusb-creator, NEW (roshi, 17:11:19) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_21_Beta_TC3_Installation#USB_media (satellit_e, 17:11:35) * AGREED: - 1149782 - Punt - We'll delay FE discussion until the root cause and fix is available for discussion. (roshi, 17:24:16) Meeting ended at 17:59:08 UTC. Action Items Action Items, by person --- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --- * roshi (134) * adamw (111) * pwhalen (29) * kparal (26) * kalev (25) * satellit (15) * jskladan (7) * mattdm (6) * zodbot (4) * danofsatx (4) * kushal (1) * satellit_e (1) * jreznik (1) * tflink (0) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot -- /
2014-10-15 @ 16:00 UTC ** F21 Blocker Review Meeting
# F21 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2014-10-15 # Time: 16:00 UTC (12:00 EDT, 09:00 PDT) # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net As testing of Beta TC3 continues, it's time for another blocker review meeting. Currently we have 3 proposed blockers and 2 proposed FEs. We have 10 accepted blockers to review. Should be a shorter meeting :) If you want to take a look at the accepted blockers, the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/21/beta/buglist We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate the Beta Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F21 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting See you Wednesday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Self-introduction: (Marle Cua-chin)
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 11:49:33PM +0800, Marle Cua-chin wrote: > Hi guys, > > I'm very excited to join the Fedora QA team, I would like to share > whatever knowledge I have with regards to Fedora/Linux to the community and > also to rest of the planet. > > I love using fedora as my personal workstation, however I was not able to > apply this knowledge to my work as tester, GUI developer and tech support > for a retail company here in the Philippines. > > I fell inlove to Linux because of Fedora and actually the first Linux I > encountered and tested, later on I jump from one Linux distribution to > another. However due to my work which rely heavily on utilizing the Windows > environment, my experience to fedora was like "come and go" yet I never > miss to test every release of Fedora. > > BTW > > My name is Marle Cua-chin, I'm 27 years old and live at Antipolo Rizal > Philippines. I work as an Information System Specialist dealing mostly on > testing and debugging POS software on different types of machines/hardware > and software environments. > > > Thank you guys and have a good day! > > > Marle Cua-chin > marle.cua-c...@gmail.com Glad to have you on board! You've joined at the right time, since we have plenty of testing to do for the Beta release :) Ping us on freenode if you have any questions or just want to chat! -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
2014-10-03 @ 1600 UTC ** Blocker Review minutes
== #fedora-blocker-review: F21-blocker-review == Meeting started by roshi at 15:58:48 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2014-10-03/f21-blocker-review.2014-10-03-15.58.log.html . Meeting summary --- * Roll Call (roshi, 15:58:49) * (1147998) Cloud image does not permit successful reboot (roshi, 16:02:52) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147998 (roshi, 16:02:52) * Proposed Blocker, cloud-utils, NEW (roshi, 16:02:52) * AGREED: - 1147998 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the Beta Shutdown, Reboot, Logout criteria. (roshi, 16:08:11) * (1142512) 21 Beta TC1 KDE 32-bit live over size limit (roshi, 16:08:18) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142512 (roshi, 16:08:19) * Proposed Blocker, distribution, NEW (roshi, 16:08:19) * (1038413) fedup stage2 keymap will always be US again for F20-F21 due to anaconda not writing vconsole.keymap kernel parameter any more (#1035316) (roshi, 16:12:37) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1038413 (roshi, 16:12:40) * Proposed Blocker, fedup, NEW (roshi, 16:12:43) * AGREED: - 1038413 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug partially violates the Beta "Upgrade requirements" criteria. (roshi, 16:17:20) * (1145952) right click on the background locks mouse clicks (roshi, 16:18:01) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1145952 (roshi, 16:18:01) * Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, NEW (roshi, 16:18:01) * AGREED: - 1145952 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - This bug doesn't violate any criteria but is really annoying for those affected. Accepted as a Freeze Exception if a fix doesn't land before freeze. (roshi, 16:30:23) * (1146126) Fedup upgrade to 21 doesn't put the "upgrade" entry in bootloader (roshi, 16:30:37) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146126 (roshi, 16:30:41) * Proposed Blocker, grubby, NEW (roshi, 16:30:43) * AGREED: - 1146126 - RejectedBlocker - This bug doesn't seem to be widespread enough to block on. However, if more incidents of it continue to crop up, please repropose. (roshi, 16:38:10) * (1146232) f21 workstation ships 'default' network, so loses connectivity when run in a VM (roshi, 16:38:22) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146232 (roshi, 16:38:25) * Proposed Blocker, libvirt, NEW (roshi, 16:38:28) * AGREED: - 1146232 - AcceptedBlocker - This isn't widespread enough to block beta but if not resolved will be a blocker for Final. The workaround is well documented in the time being. (roshi, 16:55:33) * (1121409) Offline update failed (roshi, 16:55:44) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121409 (roshi, 16:55:44) * Proposed Blocker, PackageKit, NEW (roshi, 16:55:45) * AGREED: - 1121409 - Punt - We'd like some more information on the frequency of this bug before we decide it's blocker status. (roshi, 17:07:09) * (1120964) Windows NTFS volume corrupted beyond repair during installation (roshi, 17:07:24) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120964 (roshi, 17:07:27) * Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, ASSIGNED (roshi, 17:07:29) * AGREED: - 1120964 - AcceptedBlocker - only clearly violates Final criteria, but clearly meets the alternative blocker definition, "A bug in a Critical Path package that: -Cannot be fixed with a future stable update, -Has a severity rating of high or greater and no reasonable workaround" (adamw, 17:15:41) * (1141398) anaconda does not see existing Fedora 21 install to LVM-on-RAID (roshi, 17:16:02) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141398 (roshi, 17:16:05) * Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, ASSIGNED (roshi, 17:16:08) * AGREED: - 1141398 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the Beta custom partitioning criteria. (roshi, 17:26:30) * (1141700) Do not autoactivate swaps on machine running live images (roshi, 17:26:48) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141700 (roshi, 17:26:51) * Proposed Blocker, spin-kickstarts, NEW (roshi, 17:26:53) * AGREED: - un-propose - There is already another bug tracking this (BZ#114786). (roshi, 17:38:53) * (1141496) syslinux generates unbootable isos in F21 (roshi, 17:39:24) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141496 (roshi, 17:39:24) * Proposed Blocker, syslinux, NEW (roshi, 17:39:24) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1148087 is the one we're sure of (adamw, 17:50:32) * AGREED: - 1141496 - Punt - We still need more people to reproduce this bug in order to consider it blocking Beta. (roshi, 17:55:30) * (1148087) Fedora 21 Alpha ISO images fail to boot on some systems when wr
Re: Installation validation matrix revision
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 07:56:43PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey, folks!
>
> I spent some time today fiddling around with the installation validation
> matrix. I haven't applied the changes to Beta TC1 to give us some time
> to review/tweak them, but they're in the template:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Template:Installation_test_matrix
>
> so, I did a few things:
>
> * Split several test groups out from the big ugly "Miscellaneous" table
> into their own tables
> * Moved a few test cases from "Miscellaneous" into the storage tables
> * Dropped three duplicated tests
> * Cleaned up the table formatting:
> ** We don't need the ugly nested tables to have collapsible tables with
> nice header lines, you can do it within a single table like this
> ** Dropped all the icky hard-coded column widths, let's just let
> mediawiki sort it out
> ** Made the tables span the full page width (more space!)
> ** Renamed "Release Level" to "Milestone" (it's shorter, and it's the
> term we've been standardizing on across the docs)
> ** Dropped all remaining "test area" columns (not needed with enough
> sub-tables)
> * Moved the instructions and notes we have for a few of the tables
> inside the tables themselves
> * Dropped the sub-sections from the matrix, instead you can wrap table
> titles in and they show up in the ToC (trick I found in the
> Mediawiki docs)
> * Tried to give each of the zillion tables we now have a color, it's not
> the prettiest - anyone with a better eye than me can find the HTML color
> list at http://www.w3schools.com/tags/ref_color_tryit.asp?color=White
> and go nuts.
>
> Where I created new tables I tried to be strategic about the
> 'environments', because we clearly have just too many tests now to run
> them all in every possible environment. So I tried to reduce the
> environments where possible without hurting test coverage too much. If
> anyone thinks it simplifies things too much in terms of arch coverage,
> yell.
>
I think the page is a lot cleaner now - also easier to find tests you might be
looking for. Digging through the huge General Tests table was usually a pain.
> Thoughts: wow, the page is getting long. The separate tables make it a
> bit longer, but the table formatting improvements and loss of section
> heads make it a bit shorter, so the changes are kind of a wash, but
> that's *really* a lot of tests on one page.
>
> I think it would be feasible to split it into three: something like
> sanity tests ("Image sanity tests", "Default boot and install", "ARM
> disk images", "Cloud images", "PXE boot tests", "USB stick tests",
> "Virtualization tests"), installation storage tests (all the storage
> stuff) and installer functionality tests (the rest). I actually used
> this split, more or less, to come up with the color scheme (each of
> those 'areas' uses variations on one color). Does that seem like a good
> idea? We'd have more results pages per compose, but each one would be
> shorter. With relval the creation of the results pages is just as easy
> either way (doing it by hand, it gets tedious if there are too many).
>
I think everyone is pretty used to a single large page. And, now that it's
better organized I think people will have a easier time using it. I'm not
opposed to having several pages, but I like being able to look one place to
see how much coverage we have. Perhaps if there was a way to split them out
but still have an "overview" page showing coverage we could have the best of
both - but I don't know how much work or how possible that is.
> Thoughts #2: there's a little bit of instruction text at the top of the
> page:
>
> "Please click [show] in each table to view the tests of each media
> installation, and click [edit] to post your test results using the
> syntax in Key Section. "
>
> which suggests we initially meant the collapsible tables to be
> *collapsed* by default. Does anyone remember if we ever did that? Does
> anyone think it might be a good idea? (I'm also thinking of collapsing
> the page ToC by default, because it sure takes up a lot of vertical
> space).
>
I think having them collapsed by default makes sense - but that also gets in
the way of the thing I said I liked earlier, being able to scroll one page and
see coverage. So I guess I'm +/- 1 for collapsing all of the tables. +1 for
collapsing the ToC by default though.
> Feedback and improvements welcome! Thanks :)
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
> http://www.happyassassin.net
--
// Mike
--
Fedora QA
freenode: roshi
http://roshi.fedorapeople.org
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Cloud Test Overview
Hey fellow fedorans! I've made some slight edits to the existing "Test Overview" [0] on the wiki and would like some feedback. It's meant as a high-level overview of all the things we think we need to test for the Fedora 21 cloud product. It's not intended to be an exhaustive list, just a basic statement of intent. So if you have a couple minutes to look it over (it's short) and look for anything I might have missed, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Roshi/QA/Cloud_Docs/Test_Overview -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Proposed Cloud release criteria for F21
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 05:54:42PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > We kind of already have this, really, in that we don't *explicitly* say > that all the requirements about desktop stuff don't apply to non-desktop > installs, but everyone just understands it. We could add some fairly > short boilerplate somewhere that covers the most obvious cases, easily > enough. > That works for me. I don't even think the boilerplate is required - it's worked so far. I was just making a note of it in case. > I think these are short enough that we could reasonably add a 'Cloud > Product requirements' section to the existing criteria, along the line > of the 'Server Product requirements' section that's already there. > I'll go ahead and add these two in then. > > > * Note that cloud installations don't need to be able to upgraded from > > release > >to release (this might be wrong though) > > This is kind of an interesting one I'd think we'd want the Cloud WG to > consider. > This is still going to be up for discussion with the Cloud WG. I can see it either way, depending on if your cloud is mostly pets or mostly cattle. I'll add that to the meeting agenda for this friday (Cloud WG meeting). > > * I would alter the "Shutdown, reboot, logout" criteria say "system" > > instead of > >"desktop" since I'm sure all products want to be able to do all those > > things. > > It already states: > > "must work using standard console commands" > > we could possibly look at re-wording it to cover Cockpit for Server and > cloud management consoles (clouds have those, right? right?) for Cloud. If it seems like it's worth it. I just read the "desktop" as the qualifier for the criteria - but like above, everyone just understands it as is. At best, I was nitpicking I think :) -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
2014-10-03 @ 16:00 UTC ** Out of band Blocker Review Meeting
# F21 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2014-10-03 # Time: 16:00 UTC (12:00 EDT, 09:00 PDT) # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Towards the end of today's blocker review meeting, we decided it would be good for us to have a another meeting this week to deal with the unusually large number of blockers left we have to go through. Currently the number we still have is 15. So if you're available to help go through the list this Friday, we'd appreciate the help going through the list. On the other hand, if it works out for more people to do the meeting tomorrow, we can do that as well. I just feared it would be too short of notice to go ahead and schedule for tomorrow. Reply to test@lists.fedoraproject.org or ping me on IRC if tomorrow works better for you, we can adjust accordingly if there is enough interest. If you want to take a look at the accepted blockers, the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/21/beta/buglist We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate the Beta Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F21 can be found on the wiki [0]. Product specific plans are still being solidified, but that should be sorted quickly. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting See you Friday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: 2014-10-01 @ 16:00 UTC ** Fedora Blocker Review Meeting Minutes
==
#fedora-blocker-review: F21-blocker-review
==
Meeting started by roshi at 15:58:52 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2014-10-01/f21-blocker-review.2014-10-01-15.58.log.html
.
Meeting summary
---
* Roll Call (roshi, 15:58:53)
* Introduction (roshi, 16:03:54)
* Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and
nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor
the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have
bugs. (roshi, 16:03:54)
* We'll be following the process outlined at: (roshi, 16:03:58)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
(roshi, 16:04:01)
* The bugs up for review today are available at: (roshi, 16:04:03)
* LINK: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current (roshi,
16:04:06)
* The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: (roshi,
16:04:08)
* LINK:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Alpha_Release_Criteria
(roshi, 16:04:11)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria
(roshi, 16:04:14)
* LINK:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Final_Release_Criteria
(roshi, 16:04:17)
* (1074358) all initramfs in existing /boot are updated and broken on
install (roshi, 16:05:45)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074358 (roshi,
16:05:49)
* Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW (roshi, 16:05:51)
* AGREED: - RejectedBlocker - 1074358 - This bug doesn't directly
violate any criteria and nothing indicates having a shared /boot is
desired functionality. (roshi, 16:22:03)
* (1114786) DeviceError: ('cannot replace active format', 'sda6')
(roshi, 16:22:32)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114786 (roshi,
16:22:35)
* Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW (roshi, 16:22:38)
* AGREED: - RejectedBlocker - 1114786 - Couldn't reproduce this bug.
Utilizing noswap is an easy workaround for this if it's run into.
Document on Common Bugs. Please repropose for final if it can be
shown to have a wider impact. (roshi, 16:47:33)
* (1098735) apper: hawkey backend missing features (roshi, 16:47:56)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098735 (roshi,
16:47:56)
* Proposed Blocker, apper, NEW (roshi, 16:47:56)
* AGREED: - 1098735 - RejectedBlocker - This doesn't clearly violate
any *beta* criteria, but may be considered a blocker for final.
(roshi, 17:04:22)
* (1147998) Cloud image does not permit successful reboot (roshi,
17:04:45)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147998 (roshi,
17:04:45)
* Proposed Blocker, cloud-utils, NEW (roshi, 17:04:45)
* AGREED: - 1147998 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the
"Shutdown, Reboot, Logout" Beta criteria. (roshi, 17:11:00)
* (1142512) 21 Alpha KDE lives and ARM disk image over size limit
(roshi, 17:12:22)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142512 (roshi,
17:12:25)
* Proposed Blocker, distribution, NEW (roshi, 17:12:27)
* AGREED: - 1142512 - Punt - The desired size limit is currently up
for discussion. If the limit isn't upped this is a clear blocker, if
it is we increased we can revisit next week. (roshi, 17:25:33)
* (1038413) fedup stage2 keymap will always be US again for F20-F21 due
to anaconda not writing vconsole.keymap kernel parameter any more
(#1035316) (roshi, 17:25:49)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1038413 (roshi,
17:25:52)
* Proposed Blocker, fedup, NEW (roshi, 17:25:55)
* (1146140) boot fail during upgrade from f20 to f21 on udev (roshi,
18:04:52)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146140 (roshi,
18:04:52)
* Proposed Blocker, fedup-dracut, NEW (roshi, 18:04:52)
* AGREED: - 1146140 - Dupe - Close as a duplicate of 1099299. (roshi,
18:13:47)
Meeting ended at 18:20:00 UTC.
Action Items
Action Items, by person
---
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---
* roshi (185)
* adamw (130)
* danofsatx (29)
* pwhalen (27)
* tflink (24)
* sgallagh (8)
* zodbot (8)
* Kevin_Kofler (8)
* jreznik (8)
* oddshocks (2)
* danofsatx-work (1)
* nirik (1)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
--
// Mike
--
Fedora QA
freenode: roshi
http://roshi.fedorapeople.org
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Proposed Cloud release criteria for F21
Hello fellow Fedorans! I told cloud@ that I would work on some criteria to go over, and here's what I have so far. These are pretty rough, but I think they're servicable enough for the time being. There are only two I've thought of for Beta, but I'm probably forgetting something. Patches welcome :) Here they are: === Growroot === Release blocking cloud images must be able to automatically utilize all available space on a supported volume. [Supported Volume?] -> PVM, HVM volumes, basically, growroot should work without breaking on both types of volumes. === Cloud-init === The cloud-init package must be functional for release blocking cloud images. [Functional?] -> the provided cloud-init package needs to work, but we won't block on issues that EC2 or Openstack have with their service providing said meta-data. Looking through the existing criteria we either need to update the existing pages, create a cloud criteria page or be willing to handwave away criteria that don't apply (for instance, GUI updates don't apply to cloud images). I'm fine with the handwavy answer - I don't know that codifying every detail in the wiki actually adds any value. That being said, there were some general edits I would make to the current beta criteria: - Clarifications - * Define "supported configurations" in the "Release-blocking images must boot" criteria to include all of the products. * Note that cloud installations don't need to be able to upgraded from release to release (this might be wrong though) * I would alter the "Shutdown, reboot, logout" criteria say "system" instead of "desktop" since I'm sure all products want to be able to do all those things. Currently, that's all the input I have for the current release criteria. Each of the new criteria would require new Testcases to be written. If anyone has any feedback on any of these, it would be appreciated. Like Adam said in his Server proposal, it would be good to get these taken care of ASAP as we have a TC landing sometime tonight (I know, I know, it's a little late - but I think these criteria fit the *intent* everyone has had so far). Any feedback would be great! Thanks! PS - Feel free to ping me on IRC if you have any questions. -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Validation results categories: just have Alpha, Beta and Final?
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 05:29:07PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi, folks. So as I've been playing with relval, I've been wondering why > we have 'TC' and 'RC' results page categories. That is, we have a > top-level 'Test Results' category, then we have a category for each > release which is a member of that category (e.g. > Category:Fedora_20_Test_Results ) , and then under that we have: > > Fedora 20 Alpha RC Test Results > Fedora 20 Alpha TC Test Results > Fedora 20 Beta RC Test Results > Fedora 20 Beta TC Test Results > Fedora 20 Final RC Test Results > Fedora 20 Final TC Test Results > > I'm not sure there's any real reason to split them between TC and RC > like that. I'd think it'd be more likely someone would want to see all > the Alpha validation pages, not *just* the TC or RC pages. > > What do people think? Should we just have: > > Fedora 20 Alpha Test Results > Fedora 20 Beta Test Results > Fedora 20 Final Test Results > > ? It wouldn't be too difficult to convert existing results to this > layout, I don't think. Thanks! > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net > http://www.happyassassin.net > It makes sense to me. I'm a +1 to having less pages tracking the same thing - you know, until we have a proper TCMS that isn't a wiki :P -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Installing nvidia driver on Fedora 21 crashes my system
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:38:12AM +0100, Napoleon Quashie wrote: > I have been using Fedora 21 since the alpha release and overall it has > worked wonderfully (it has never one crashed and I use it every day), even > to the extent of noticing a reduction in the memory consumed and processor > usage when I have all my usual application up and running. One thing though > is, I find my screen is kind of jerky when I scroll and this has never > happened with other Fedora releases. > > I therefore tried to install nvidia. I have always followed the steps from > http://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2014/fedora-20-nvidia-guide/. It > basically boils down to: > > Install RPMFusion > > *yum install akmod-nvidia xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-libs kernel-devel acpid* > > yum install kernel-PAE-devel > mv /boot/initramfs-$(uname -r).img /boot/initramfs-$(uname -r)-nouveau.img > dracut /boot/initramfs-$(uname -r).img $(uname -r) > > *reboot* > > However, after reboot, I get the rather interesting message: > > Oh no something has gone wrong > > > > A problem has occured and the system can't recover. > > > > Please logout and try again. > > > > I've never had any issues installing nvidia in the past on any Fedora > release. Hoping for some solutions on how to fix this. Thanks in the > meantime. nVidia drivers only work with certain kernels, and it looks to me like that's your issue. I run the nvidia drivers, but I don't use RPMFusion. For me the workflow looks like this (starting from nouveau): 1 - sudo yum update 2 - reboot and download nVidia drivers 3 - ctrl-alt-f2 and log in again 4 - sudo init 3 5 - install nVidia drivers (this will autobackup your x conf) 6 - sudo init 5 (will work if the kernel matches what nVidia provides) 7 - ctrl-alt-f2 and log out of that terminal 8 - ctrl-alt-f1 to get back to the GUI and your day If you get the same error after completing step 6, then you just have to wait until nVidia provides new drivers for updated kernels. If you have to recover, follow these steps (assuming you're starting from a failed step 6): 1 - ctrl-alt-f2 2 - sudo init 3 3 - uninstall the nvidia drivers (run with --uninstall), this will ask you if you want to restore your previous settings, pick yes 4 - sudo init 5 (this should bring you back to the GUI) 5 - ctrl-alt-f2 and log out of that terminal 6 - ctrl-alt-f1 to get back to the GUI With running the nVidia blobs you're at the mercy of nVidia for support and which kernel the driver works with. If you use RPMFusion, you're also at the mercy of the RPMFusion packagers. AIUI they do a pretty good job of keeping the packages up to date, but I prefer to just do it myself and remove that extra level. If you get a working kernel, you can always '-X kernel*' when you do a yum update to not include kernel updates. Though, if the kernel update has security fixes, skipping it is probably a bad idea and you should just wait on nVidia to publish new drivers. Hope that helps. If you still want to use the RPMFusion repos, then you could probably get help filing a bug [0] with them, in #rpmfusion on freenode, or mailing their list [1]. But this doesn't look or feel like a bug with *Fedora* but rather that the nVidia drivers don't support the kernel you have. [0] http://rpmfusion.org/ReportingBugs [1] http://lists.rpmfusion.org/mailman/listinfo/rpmfusion-users -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
