#fedora-meeting-1: Server Working Group Weekly Meeting (2014-07-15)
Meeting started by mitr at 15:09:03 UTC ( full logs ).
Meeting summary
1. Release Media Status and Tasks ( mitr , 15:09:23)
1. fedora-release-server: done ( mitr , 15:09:27)
2. Comps updated to include Server packages, selectable roles: Patch sent to rel-eng ( mitr , 15:09:33)
3. Finish kickstart (install fedora-release-server by default): Depends on comps ( mitr , 15:09:38)
4. rolekit: close to first upstream+RPM release, client and roles work still outstanding ( mitr , 15:09:43)
5. role implementations: only bare skeletons exist, help needed ( mitr , 15:09:49)
6. ACTION : mitr to resend comps changes to devel@ ( mitr , 15:11:24)
7. ACTION : mitr to finish kickstart after comps changes land ( mitr , 15:11:39)
8. http://fpaste.org/118132/05437588/ ( adamw , 15:20:22)
9. ACTION : twoerner to work on rolectl client ( mitr , 15:26:20)
10. ACTION : twoerner implemnt firewall handling ( twoerner , 15:27:40)
11. https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/446 says it was approved ( mitr , 15:33:31)
2. Open Floor ( mitr , 15:37:24)
Meeting ended at 15:41:57 UTC ( full logs ).
Action items
1. mitr to resend comps changes to devel@
2. mitr to finish kickstart after comps changes land
3. twoerner to work on rolectl client
4. twoerner implemnt firewall handling
Action items, by person
1. mitr
1. mitr to resend comps changes to devel@
2. mitr to finish kickstart after comps changes land
2. twoerner
1. twoerner to work on rolectl client
2. twoerner implemnt firewall handling
People present (lines said)
1. mitr (35)
2. adamw (27)
3. nirik (13)
4. twoerner (9)
5. zodbot (7)
6. stefw (7)
7. dgilmore (2)
8. danofsatx-work (1)
9. tuanta_ (1)
10. tuanta (0)
11. sgallagh (0)
12. davidstrauss (0)
13. simo (0)
14. mizmo (0)
Generated by MeetBot 0.1.4.
Still working on Fedora 21 release criteria. It seems to me that there's
one area currently lacking in the criteria which all the Products would
probably like us to have, hence I'm proposing it as a new 'generic'
criterion, not Product-specific. We still haven't figured out exactly
how to present the criteria, so for now I'm proposing this one be added
as a new Fedora 21 Alpha criterion, i.e. it goes to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Alpha_Release_Criteria (under
"Post-install requirements"). Here's the proposed criterion:
System service manipulation
It must be possible to start, stop, enable and disable system services
using the initialization framework's standard commands.
I don't think it needs any footnotes beyond standard 'References'.
Does this seem reasonable to everyone? Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
# F21 Blocker Review meeting #1
# Date: 2014-07-09
# Time: 17:00 UTC (13:00 EST, 10:00 PST)
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net
Well folks, it's that time again. Throughout the planning process for
Fedora.next, we've been able to identify some potential blockers and we
should review them. As of today there are 13 proposed blockers and one
proposed FE for F21 Alpha. The full list can be found here:
https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/21/alpha/buglist
With the branch today we'll be getting back into the swing of regular
blocker review meetings - so prepare to re-block off your Wednesday
mornings :) This meeting will also be a good chance to figure out ways
of handling the different products going forward. 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 - 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
irc: roshi | twitter: roshi_fedora
blog: roshi.fedorapeople.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
===================================================================
#fedora-meeting-1: Server Working Group Weekly Meeting (2014-07-08)
===================================================================
Meeting started by mitr at 15:10:27 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-07-08/fedora-meeting…
.
Meeting summary
- ---------------
* roll call (mitr, 15:10:38)
* Release Media Status and Tasks (mitr, 15:12:45)
* Outstanding tasks (mitr, 15:40:53)
* Finish kickstart: mitr (mitr, 15:41:02)
* Comps updated to include Server packages, selectable roles:
sgallagh? (mitr, 15:41:40)
* rolekit and plugins: twoerner and others (mitr, 15:41:55)
* fedora-release-server: dgilmore/releng (mitr, 15:42:10)
* ACTION: sgallagh to sort out comps changes (sgallagh, 15:47:01)
* ACTION: sgallagh to provide a holdover fedora-release-$PRODUCT patch
(sgallagh, 15:59:45)
* Open Floor (sgallagh, 16:05:47)
Meeting ended at 16:10:40
U===================================================================
#fedora-meeting-1: Server Working Group Weekly Meeting (2014-07-08)
===================================================================
Meeting started by mitr at 15:10:27 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-07-08/fedora-meeting…
.
Meeting summary
- ---------------
* roll call (mitr, 15:10:38)
* Release Media Status and Tasks (mitr, 15:12:45)
* Outstanding tasks (mitr, 15:40:53)
* Finish kickstart: mitr (mitr, 15:41:02)
* Comps updated to include Server packages, selectable roles:
sgallagh? (mitr, 15:41:40)
* rolekit and plugins: twoerner and others (mitr, 15:41:55)
* fedora-release-server: dgilmore/releng (mitr, 15:42:10)
* ACTION: sgallagh to sort out comps changes (sgallagh, 15:47:01)
* ACTION: sgallagh to provide a holdover fedora-release-$PRODUCT patch
(sgallagh, 15:59:45)
* Open Floor (sgallagh, 16:05:47)
Meeting ended at 16:10:40 UTC.
Action Items
- ------------
* sgallagh to sort out comps changes
* sgallagh to provide a holdover fedora-release-$PRODUCT patch
Action Items, by person
- -----------------------
* sgallagh
* sgallagh to sort out comps changes
* sgallagh to provide a holdover fedora-release-$PRODUCT patch
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
- ---------------------------
* mitr (34)
* sgallagh (26)
* adamw (17)
* nirik (17)
* zodbot (6)
* danofsatx-work (4)
* stefw (2)
* tuanta (1)
* davidstrauss (1)
* simo (0)
* mizmo (0)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBotTC.
Action Items
- ------------
* sgallagh to sort out comps changes
* sgallagh to provide a holdover fedora-release-$PRODUCT patch
Action Items, by person
- -----------------------
* sgallagh
* sgallagh to sort out comps changes
* sgallagh to provide a holdover fedora-release-$PRODUCT patch
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
- ---------------------------
* mitr (34)
* sgallagh (26)
* adamw (17)
* nirik (17)
* zodbot (6)
* danofsatx-work (4)
* stefw (2)
* tuanta (1)
* davidstrauss (1)
* simo (0)
* mizmo (0)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlO8GCQACgkQeiVVYja6o6NuqQCdFR9+uBHlXo2rRUbGaqxoxUju
VXgAn1CLAQlgZp46M9IHz0PL5KROxisk
=daC3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi, folks. So I've just slapped together the existing release criteria
drafts into a draft combined Fedora 21 Alpha release criteria page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_F21_Alpha_criteria
product-specific notes:
Cloud - AFAICS the Cloud-specific draft Roshi did only took things away,
it didn't add any, so there is basically no change as far as Cloud is
concerned. The wirding should exempt Cloud from all inappropriate
criteria - please point out anywhere this is not the case.
Workstation - none of the proposed new criteria are Alpha criteria. The
Alpha proposals for a separate Workstation criteria page were
simplifications of the more 'generic' criteria that apply to multiple
desktops.
There appears to be considerable confusion over an important desktop-ish
question for F21, namely:
"Are network installs of GNOME/Workstation and/or KDE considered to be
release-blocking?"
That is, do we only block on the Workstation (product) and KDE (spin)
live images, or are we also going to block on network installation of
either or both?
As this has not been established, I have mostly left the desktop-y
criteria and preamble wording as-is, with the intent that we can fudge
it in the interpretation. If we decide that we do not block on desktop
network installs, we can refine and focus the wording somewhat; if we
decide to block on them, I'll have to insert something into the preamble
and possibly fiddling with the 'release-blocking desktop' wording a bit
to clarify precisely what we're talking about. This particularly affects
the desktop criteria (obviously) and the "Package sets" criterion, which
looks distinctly wobbly and would be a complete dead letter if we only
care about the live images.
I also just remembered that Workstation apparently wants to make it
possible to install KDE as an alternative desktop post-install, which
is...another fun thing to think about? Goddamnit, this is becoming a
real PITA.
Server - I plucked out the criteria that seemed most Alpha-y and
inserted them into this draft in appropriate places, basically. You'll
note that Server alone has a Product-specific section, down the bottom.
A couple of the criteria proposed for Server and/or Workstation actually
work okay as 'generic' criteria, so I added those into the generic
section: those would be "SELinux configuration" (SELinux must be
enforcing after installation - all Products want this, I believe) and
"Scripted user creation" (which is primarily for Server, but since
there's only one installer, it's probably fine for it to go in the
generic installer criteria).
I tweaked the "DVD package source" criterion to not refer to a
now-obsolete deliverable - it talks more generically about a "dedicated
installer image that contains packages". As things stand, I believe the
only such release-blocking medium will be the Server image that contains
server role packages (once we actually, you know, make that, but it's
listed in the Server tech spec).
I included the latest draft of my proposed "system service manipulation"
criterion, since this is still a draft and it seemed best to get all the
proposals in one place together.
I updated the definition of 'release-blocking images' in the preamble to
be appropriate for Fedora.next:
"The current set of release-blocking images includes the images defined
by the three primary Products - Server, Workstation and Cloud - in their
product requirement documents and/or technical specifications, and the
KDE live image."
(I could make that a lot damn cleaner if all the Products defined their
deliverables in the same document, btw :> some do it in PRD, some in
tech spec. Actually, we *still* ought to have a deliverables policy.
That's been on my todo list for, er, three years? Patches welcome. It's
not actually a QA job.)
There are probably still some corners of this that don't entirely make
sense any more, please point out any logic fails etc. But I think it's
probably at least better than the current page -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Alpha_Release_Criteria , which
is completely un-Next-ified - as a basis for Alpha testing, which I once
again remind folks, is supposed to start tomorrow :) So I'd like to get
this into 'production' before Alpha TC1 drops.
Next steps are going to be to write a couple more missing test cases,
and come up with a vaguely plausible set of test matrices. I'll try and
get that done this afternoon.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net