2015-11-23 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting - Minutes

================================== #fedora-meeting: Fedora QA meeting ================================== Meeting started by adamw at 16:00:05 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2015-11-23/fedora-qa.2015... . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll call  (adamw, 16:00:13) * Previous meeting follow-up  (adamw, 16:03:21)   * "adamw to draft up proposal for better handling of 'special     blockers'" - yep, did that, and we'll be discussing the draft later     in the meeting  (adamw, 16:04:13)   * "adamw to finish off the 'installer help' criteria / test case     changes" - did that: can't find the link in new hyperkitty mailing     list archive, but trust me, I did it  (adamw, 16:06:18)   * "adamw to work with releng to get rawhide nightly boot.iso compose     working and create an initial f24 nightly validation event" - did     that too, nirik fixed all the things stopping nightly composes and     we have nightly validation events going now  (adamw, 16:07:03)   * LINK:     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_24_Rawhide_20151120_Installation     (satellit, 16:13:41)   * satellit reports ongoing problems with Rawhide image compose and     install  (adamw, 16:14:08) * Non-media blocker process  (adamw, 16:14:28)   * AGREED: QA is generally in favour of changing the process to include     some kind of check on the status of blocker-fixing updates as an     input to go/no-go  (adamw, 16:44:49)   * ACTION: kparal to look further into the details of go/no-go process     and propose a practical policy for changing it to cover blockers     fixed by updates  (adamw, 16:47:16) * Open floor  (adamw, 16:48:01)   * ACTION: kparal to check with dnf-system-upgrade maintainers if     they're OK with blocking on N+2 upgrades  (adamw, 16:55:51) Meeting ended at 17:00:04 UTC. Action Items ------------ * kparal to look further into the details of go/no-go process and   propose a practical policy for changing it to cover blockers fixed by   updates * kparal to check with dnf-system-upgrade maintainers if they're OK with   blocking on N+2 upgrades Action Items, by person ----------------------- * kparal   * kparal to look further into the details of go/no-go process and     propose a practical policy for changing it to cover blockers fixed     by updates   * kparal to check with dnf-system-upgrade maintainers if they're OK     with blocking on N+2 upgrades * **UNASSIGNED**   * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * adamw (86) * kparal (60) * dgilmore (16) * roshi (11) * sgallagh (10) * linuxmodder (10) * satellit_e (10) * tflink (5) * zodbot (4) * garretraziel (4) * pschindl (3) * nirik (1) * satellit (1) * danofsatx (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net