[15:59]  * slangasek waves
[16:04] <slangasek> hmm... no meeting this week? :)
[16:12] <james_w> slangasek: nope, there was a mail from Colin about it
[16:13] <slangasek> yep, seen now
[17:59] <ara> hello
[18:00] <bdmurray> Hi!
[18:00] <eeejay> howdy
[18:01] <cr3> hi folks
[18:01] <bdmurray> ogasawara, sbeattie, pedro_: ping
[18:01] <intellectronica> 'alo
[18:01] <davmor2> Hello
[18:01] <pedro_> hola!
[18:01] <sbeattie> hey
[18:01]  * ogasawara waves
[18:01] <cr3> yo homies
[18:01] <bdmurray> cr3: where's your compadre?
[18:02] <fader_> howdy
[18:02] <schwuk> evening all
[18:02] <intellectronica> bdmurray: you should have asked about a million dollar ;)
[18:02] <bdmurray> hey there
[18:02] <cr3> bdmurray: all here, my compadre, myself and each of my personalities
[18:02] <pedro_> hehe
[18:02] <fader_> cr3 has no compadres, just a bunch of sockpuppets
[18:03] <bdmurray> Okay, lets get started then
[18:03] <bdmurray> We seem to have grown a bit of an agenda at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/Meetings
[18:03] <cr3> fader_: they're the only ones who don't threaten to hit me for my aweful jokes :)
[18:04] <bdmurray> pedro_: We've a bug day this week correct?
[18:04] <davmor2> cr3: Right but your hand is in them right so they could ;)
[18:04] <pedro_> yes that's correct, tomorrow we're celebrating another rocking hug day based on new bugs since the jaunty release
[18:05] <bdmurray> Of which there are quite a few...
[18:05] <pedro_> as you can see on the page https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay/20090430 there's a big quantity of bugs waiting to be triaged (thanks bdmurray for the list!)
[18:05] <cr3> davmor2: good point, I know one of my personalities wouldn't hesitate to hit me
[18:05] <pedro_> yes there's a lot of them
[18:05] <bdmurray> Hand in hand with that I've created a report of bugs since release
[18:06] <bdmurray> Its at http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/bugnumbers/bugs-since-jaunty.html
[18:06] <cr3> in your opinion, do more bugs come in the last week before release or the first week after release?
[18:06] <pedro_> everybody is welcome to join us during the whole day and help us to decrease the quantity of untriaged bugs
[18:07] <davmor2> cr3: After more people using it
[18:07] <bdmurray> It really seems like week after release to me, I could get some solid numbers if you are interested though
[18:07] <pedro_> the week after we got more i'd say, the weekend after the release is just crazy
[18:07] <ara> bdmurray: I see the bug about merge request is now fixed
[18:07] <sbeattie> bdmurray: BTW, on http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/bugnumbers/bugs-since-jaunty.html I see some bugs repeated.
[18:07]  * pedro_ still catching up with bug mail
[18:08] <sbeattie> e.g. 369220
[18:08] <cr3> bdmurray: I was mostly curious ball park, but your response of "really seems" indicates there's lots both weeks and not a huge jump on the first week
[18:09] <bdmurray> sbeattie: I don't see that lets discuss it after the meeting
[18:09]  * cr3 wonders if support observes a directionaly proportional number of calls as there are bugs filed
[18:09] <sbeattie> bdmurray: doh, wrong bug, bug 369215, but okay
[18:09] <sbeattie> there was a kernel bug day yesterday, no?
[18:09] <bdmurray> ogasawara: ?
[18:10] <ogasawara> bdmurray: yes, had great participation from the kernel team (I'm still crunching the final numbers)
[18:10] <bdmurray> ogasawara: That's primarily for the kernel team though, rather than a community event?
[18:11] <ogasawara> bdmurray: we do encourage community participation, but didn't receive much yesterday
[18:11] <bdmurray> ogasawara: and is that going to be a regular event?
[18:11] <ogasawara> bdmurray: yes, twice a month
[18:12] <bdmurray> okay, great!
[18:12] <ogasawara> bdmurray: the next will be May 12th
[18:12] <ara> ogasawara: was it in the fridge?
[18:12] <ogasawara> ara: I don't believe so.  I'll make a note to get it posted there for the next one.
[18:12] <bdmurray> Next item, we have 1 new bug control member - Andreas Olsson (andol) who has done some great work upstreaming and actually fixing bugs too!
[18:13] <pedro_> ogasawara: remember to also blog about it ;-)
[18:13] <ara> congrats andol!
[18:14] <ara> bdmurray: when accepting a new member, you could let them know that they are going to be announced as a new member in the qa meeting
[18:14] <ara> they might be interested in being here :)
[18:14] <bdmurray> ara: sounds good
[18:14] <bdmurray> next up sbeattie and SRU verifications for Jaunty
[18:15] <sbeattie> As usual, there's a post-release explosion of SRUs: http://people.ubuntu.com/~ubuntu-archive/pending-sru.html
[18:15] <sbeattie> We've already processed a bunch, but it would be great if people could help out verifying fixes and looking for regressions
[18:16] <sbeattie> a bunch of people have already done so, thanks to you all!
[18:16] <bdmurray> sbeattie: yeah, a lot of those are looking green which is good right?
[18:16] <sbeattie> (and my apologies for not having specific names offhand)
[18:16] <sbeattie> bdmurray: yep, green is good!
[18:17] <ara> sbeattie: question
[18:17] <bdmurray> ooh, this checkbox one should be easy - bug 354813
[18:17] <ara> sbeattie: I verified 366048 (update-manager). I commented the verification, but i did not change the tag
[18:18] <ara> sbeattie: after reading the comment, pitti changed it
[18:18] <cr3> bdmurray: that one was done
[18:18] <ara> sbeattie: next time, should I change the tag myself?
[18:18] <bdmurray> cr3: I don't see the verification-done tag
[18:19] <cr3> bdmurray: ah, good point
[18:20] <sbeattie> ara: generally, we've wanted sru-verification or the sru teams change the tags, pitti's pretty good about deciding when he's happy with the SRU.
[18:20] <sbeattie> But I think it might be reasonable for people in bug-control to set it.
[18:20] <bdmurray> sbeattie: however ara could join the sru-verification team right?
[18:21] <sbeattie> yep
[18:22] <bdmurray> sbeattie: maybe an e-mail to ubuntu-qa / bugsquad regarding sru verification reminder is in order
[18:22] <pedro_> bug 366098 should be pretty easy to test as well
[18:22] <sbeattie> Basic requirements for joining that team are an understand of the SRU process and how to do verifications, and some sample bugs where you've demonstrated performing verifications
[18:22] <sbeattie> bdmurray: good idea, will do.
[18:23] <bdmurray> Okay, great - thanks sbeattie
[18:23] <bdmurray> schwuk: you wanted to talk about OpenID?
[18:23] <schwuk> bdmurray: thanks
[18:23] <schwuk> this is quite straightforward
[18:24] <schwuk> A user has filed a bug about the fact we should be using OpenID (and Launchpad) to authenticate to the QA sites
[18:24] <schwuk> I agree.
[18:24] <schwuk> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-qa-website/+bug/365060/
[18:24] <cr3> heh, I've rarely heard "openid" and "straightforward" in the same sentence :)
[18:24] <schwuk> cr3: I meant the discussion :)
[18:24] <pedro_> that'd be really neat to have :-)
[18:24] <ScottK> Something similar has been done for REVU, so there's code available for anyone that wants it.
[18:25] <cr3> schwuk: there's an apache modpython script for that
[18:25] <schwuk> cr3: but it won't work for the iso tracker - that's a code change.
[18:25] <bdmurray> ScottK: is that on Launchpad somewhere?
[18:25] <davmor2> schwuk: personally I don't care as long as I can login :)
[18:25] <schwuk> so we need the input of the maintainer (stgraber?)
[18:25] <ScottK> bdmurray: It is.  I don't recall the project name (it may be revu)
[18:26] <bdmurray> schwuk: yes, stgraber is the right person to contact
[18:26] <schwuk> ScottK: what is revu written in?
[18:26] <davmor2> schwuk: isn't he normally at lunch about now though?
[18:26] <ScottK> Python
[18:26] <schwuk> ah - most of the *.qa.ubuntu.com sites (that require authentication) are PHP/Drupal.
[18:27] <cr3> I wouldn't be surprised there's an openid plugin for drupal already available, it might be worthwhile to involved newz2000 too
[18:27] <bdmurray> schwuk: why don't you e-mail ubuntu-qa about it?
[18:27] <cr3> http://drupal.org/project/openid
[18:27] <schwuk> I've subscribed stgraber to the bug
[18:28] <schwuk> That's it really, unless anyone has objections (unlikely I hope)
[18:28] <schwuk> bdmurray: will do
[18:30] <bdmurray> Okay davmor2 you wanted to talked about checkbox, hardware and launchpad correct?
[18:30] <davmor2> Yeap
[18:30] <davmor2> At the moment checkbox's results go to a random page linked to your lp account
[18:30] <davmor2> I feel that because there is no direct link to it from your id page that the information gets forgotten about
[18:30] <intellectronica> davmor2: how do you hope it will be used, if not forgotten?
[18:31] <davmor2> As far as I can tell the info in there is similar to running lspci and would therefore useful in reporting bugs
[18:31] <davmor2> intellectronica: you could add a hardware tab to LP so a user can quickly add their HW to a bug etc
[18:32] <intellectronica> davmor2: if you have hardware submitted, just mark the bug as affecting you. we should get the link from the bug to your hardware behind the scenes
[18:32] <schwuk> davmor2: technically, it's not a random page. Just to be pedantic. :)
[18:32] <davmor2> schwuk: technically each page has a different id and therefore specific but random :P
[18:33] <sbeattie> intellectronica: submitted hardware (for some of us) is likely to be a one-to-many relationship/
[18:33] <davmor2> intellectronica: I have 6 machines currently how would it know which to use :)
[18:33] <intellectronica> sbeattie: that's true in some cases (about 25% judging by samples from the current pool of submissions). in the future, we will add UI for selecting a particular hardware profile to link to a bug
[18:34] <intellectronica> but that's not planned for the next few months
[18:34] <sbeattie> intellectronica: ah, okay.
[18:34] <davmor2> intellectronica: Ah Cool that would pretty much help the cause I think
[18:35] <sbeattie> cr3: BTW, how is the submission hash generated? I noticed that my virtualbox submission had the same hash as 400 other submissions.
[18:35] <sbeattie> (they're still referred to independently, just curious)
[18:37] <cr3> sbeattie: it hashes these values from hal: computer.info.product, computer.info.subsystem, system.product, system.vendor, system.formfactor, hardware.vendor, hardware.product
[18:37] <bdmurray> davmor2: Does that help?
[18:37] <cr3> sbeattie: I suspect you meant the system hash rather than the submission hash
[18:37] <davmor2> If the issue of using the data from checkbox is already under construction then the next issue I see is promoting both it's use and the use of the apport tools
[18:37] <sbeattie> yes, sorry, system hash
[18:37] <davmor2> bdmurray: Yes
[18:38] <bdmurray> Right, so next then
[18:38] <cr3> sbeattie: so, that hash is meant to express a system model rather than a system instance
[18:38] <bdmurray> intellectronica: How many people are recently submitting hwdb information?
[18:38] <bdmurray> Do we need to push it more?
[18:38] <intellectronica> bdmurray: i don't know. let me get back to you on that
[18:38] <cr3> sbeattie: I'm really not happy that this is being generated client side, so there is little chance to ajust this hashing mechanism without wrecking increadible havok
[18:38] <cr3> intellectronica: ^^^
[18:39]  * sbeattie notes we need to finish the checkbox sru so upgraders don't have a broken checkbox before pushing it more widely.
[18:39] <intellectronica> cr3: do you think this should be done on the server?
[18:39] <bdmurray> I personally haven't seen any blog posts / e-mails regarding we are using the hwdb now
[18:39] <davmor2> I've thought of an interesting way to help promote their use by adding links to the Main Bug Reporting page saying have you tried using apport-collect X to help developers etc
[18:40] <bdmurray> So perhaps blogging about that at qa.ubuntu.com and recommending people submit data is best
[18:40] <cr3> intellectronica: let me put the question back at you: why shouldn't it be done on the server?
[18:40] <intellectronica> bdmurray: we're only really starting now to make real use of the data. ogasawara can tell you more about that
[18:40] <intellectronica> cr3: don't know. i don't even know what it's used for, and how you calculate it
[18:41] <intellectronica> it would seem to me that you might want that as a way to identify a hardware profile. on the server we have sql ids for identifying things
[18:41] <cr3> intellectronica: we'll discuss it further at some point outside this meeting then
[18:41] <intellectronica> cr3: cool
[18:41] <bdmurray> cr3: thanks
[18:42] <bdmurray> ogasawara: Could you blog about the hwdb after we get checkbox SRUed?
[18:42] <ogasawara> bdmurray: sure
[18:43] <bdmurray> davmor2: one thing on my todo list is to update the standard responses and greasemonkey script to mention 'apport-collect'
[18:43] <bdmurray> So I think that'll help some
[18:44] <bdmurray> And for Karmic we have expaning apport hooks on the agenda
[18:44] <bdmurray> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/UDSKarmic
[18:45] <bdmurray> Putting 'apport-collect' info into the guided bug filing instructions is somewhat problematic as that only exits in 1 out of the 4 releases we support
[18:45] <davmor2> bdmurray: That only really helps the people who already know about it's use though I think.  I'm wondering if maybe a generic link to a page that tells a new user how to use it and report a bug might help triager/developer in the long term and the obvious place for that would be the main bugs.launchpad.net page I think
[18:47] <davmor2> bdmurray: it being the first place that people go to report a bug, No?
[18:47] <bdmurray> davmor2: almost all bug filing documentation points at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs which explicitly states to use apport / ubuntu-bug
[18:47] <james_w> apport-collect isn't that useful when you are filing the bug though is it? Wouldn't pointing to ubuntu-bug be better?
[18:47] <bdmurray> Additionally, https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug-advanced points to the previously mentioned help page
[18:48] <bdmurray> james_w: right apport-collect is useful after the bug's been filed and ideally wouldn't be necessary
[18:48] <bdmurray> because people would have used ubuntu-bug to report the bug
[18:50] <stgraber> schwuk: openID is planned for a long time, migration is the hard part but we're pretty close to being able to do it (now that we're on our own box and not the same as brainstorm)
[18:50] <bdmurray> davmor2: Does that make sense now?
[18:50] <schwuk> stgraber: cool
[18:50] <stgraber> schwuk: next step is to get the module installed, then work on the migration as we have quite a lot of existing users with possible issues (clashes between Launchpad names and existing user DB)
[18:50] <bdmurray> stgraber: that's great to hear! so soon canonical sysadmin help won't be required?
[18:51] <stgraber> bdmurray: I don't have access to that box myself and I don't think anyone outside IS has access to it
[18:51] <bdmurray> stgraber: oh, hrm
[18:51] <davmor2> Kinda but I'm still think that if you type into google Ubuntu Bugs the top link is this page https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs  Here there is no indication the there is an existing page to help reporting bugs
[18:52] <bdmurray> davmor2: but from there if you go to report a bug then'll you get a link to the wiki page
[18:53] <bdmurray> I guess we could all link to mdz's blog post to get it to be number 1?
[18:55] <bdmurray> Okay, we are running short on time.  davmor2 - can we carry over your last item for next week?
[18:55] <davmor2> bdmurray: but that says advanced reporting options.  Which wouldn't mean a new user right?  If that makes sense
[18:55] <davmor2> yes
[18:56] <bdmurray> davmor2: No, after you go to file bug and enter the summary then you get the same text at -advanced
[18:56] <davmor2> bdmurray: Ah right as long as it is in there :)
[18:56] <bdmurray> I'm all for getting more people to use apport, I think it is more of a cultural thing though at this point
[18:57] <bdmurray> And I'm sure ubuntu-bug and apport-collect will be talked about during Open Week right?
[18:58] <davmor2> No idea you doing a talk :)
[18:58] <ScottK> bdmurray: I think one barrier for people coming from other OS where they have not so much trust of the OS vendor is it's hard to tell what will get send to Launchpad before you agree to send it.
[18:59] <bdmurray> ScottK: that makes sense, could apport be more informative somehow?
[18:59] <sbeattie> ScottK: hrm, apport will let you view the report, though of course it could be lying to you.
[18:59] <davmor2> ScottK:  You can look at the report first though can't you?
[19:00] <ScottK> sbeattie: It isn't clear though that what you see is all that will be sent.
[19:00] <ScottK> Let me try one and see...
[19:00] <bdmurray> Yeah, maybe the verbage can be cleared up
[19:02] <ScottK> Looking at it again, the thing I was concerned about was on the LP end.
[19:02] <bdmurray> ScottK: How so?
[19:02] <ScottK> After you click send, it just says 'extra debug information will be added"
[19:02] <ScottK> There's no way to see what that is.
[19:03] <ScottK> If you didn't check details before sending, now you've no way to see what gets added to the bug.
[19:03] <bdmurray> I think we could clarify that what apport is showing you is the "extra debug info"
[19:03] <davmor2> The debugging information might be better wording
[19:03] <bdmurray> Also I don't think apport-collect shows you what it is gathering
[19:03] <ScottK> I think it would also be useful to give the reporter visibility of what will be in the bug on LP before reporting the bug.
[19:04] <ScottK> The key is to be as transparent as possible throughout the process.
[19:04] <bdmurray> So it sounds like we have 2 apport bugs to report then - one regarding ubuntu-bug and extra debug info and one regarding apport-collect
[19:04] <ScottK> I'm not sure where the presentation on LP gets filed.
[19:05] <bdmurray> ScottK: I'm sure its quite faster to try and fix in apport
[19:05] <ScottK> No doubt.
[19:05] <davmor2> Time gentlemen please ;)
[19:05] <bdmurray> Thanks everyone, same bat-time and bat-channel next week then!
[19:06] <sbeattie> thanks!
[19:06] <davmor2> Yay see you then
[19:06] <pedro_> thanks all
[19:06] <schwuk> ScottK: It should be filed against lp-bugs (what was malone)
[19:06] <schwuk> thanks for chairing bdmurray
[19:06] <ara> thanks
[19:06] <ScottK> OK.  I'm probably not the best one to file it.
[19:06] <bdmurray> ScottK: I'll do it then
[19:07] <ScottK> OK.  Thanks