| === rtdos is now known as z80 | ||
| === z80 is now known as retrodos | ||
| === anna is now known as Anna | ||
| === shadeslayer_ is now known as shadeslayer | ||
| === _LibertyZero is now known as LibertyZero | ||
| === txwikinger2 is now known as txwikinger | ||
| === Raist is now known as Guest81381 | ||
| Raistlin_ | http://irc.freenode.net/ | 16:49 |
|---|---|---|
| === m4n1sh_ is now known as m4n1sh | ||
| * jcastro taps the mic | 17:25 | |
| jcastro | 2 minutes until Q+A with Marjo Mercado (Ubuntu QA Manager) | 17:29 |
| jcastro | ok marjo's having xchat problems | 17:30 |
| jcastro | so one minute | 17:30 |
| === ChanServ changed the topic of #ubuntu-classroom to: Welcome to the Ubuntu Classroom - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Classroom || Support in #ubuntu || Upcoming Schedule: http://is.gd/8rtIi || Questions in #ubuntu-classroom-chat || Current Session: Q and A with Marjo Mercado, Ubuntu QA Team Manager - Instructors: marjo | ||
| ClassBot | Logs for this session will be available at http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/03/11/%23ubuntu-classroom.html following the conclusion of the session. | 17:30 |
| jcastro | (We'll give it another minute for the stragglers to join) | 17:31 |
| jcastro | Ok so welcome everyone | 17:31 |
| jcastro | to Ubuntu Q+A with QA manager Marjo Mercado | 17:31 |
| jcastro | and his team | 17:32 |
| jcastro | marjo_: why don't you guys introduce yourselves | 17:32 |
| jcastro | and then let me know when you can start taking questions! | 17:32 |
| marjo_ | jcastro ack | 17:32 |
| marjo_ | hi folks | 17:33 |
| marjo_ | i'm Marjo Mercado and I'm the ubuntu qa team manager | 17:33 |
| jcastro | marjo_: can you explain it is what your team does? | 17:35 |
| marjo_ | the ubuntu qa team is responsible for a couple of major areas | 17:36 |
| marjo_ | 1) Bug Management | 17:36 |
| marjo_ | 2) Testing | 17:36 |
| marjo_ | bug management involves bug triage, reporting for both released and development versions | 17:37 |
| marjo_ | testing includes SRU (stable release updates) and development releases, too | 17:37 |
| marjo_ | .. | 17:37 |
| marjo_ | jcastro:next | 17:40 |
| hggdh | QUESTION: There are people (myself excluded) who would like to see Ubuntu as a rolling distribution. Much like Gentoo. What's the QA's position on this? | 17:40 |
| marjo_ | hggdh: obviously this would impact the way we do testing and how to ensure quality | 17:43 |
| marjo_ | the beauty of the cadence we currently have is it allows for good planning to ensure quality on a predictable basis | 17:43 |
| marjo_ | .. | 17:43 |
| hggdh | ozone702> QUESTION: Will there be support for Gnome in future versions of Ubuntu? | 17:45 |
| jcastro | I can answer that | 17:46 |
| jcastro | GNOME continues to ship GNOME | 17:46 |
| jcastro | currently, for Natty since there is a transition between GNOME2 and GNOME3 if you want the "GNOME3" experience with gnome shell you will need to use a PPA | 17:47 |
| jcastro | but we expect for Oneiric that the transition will be more sorted and we can ship more of a GNOME3 stack | 17:47 |
| marjo_ | jcastro: thx; from a qa point of view, we continue to test GNOME, so no change there | 17:48 |
| marjo_ | next? | 17:50 |
| jcastro | <Ipox123> QUESTION: How is the work on natty going? | 17:50 |
| marjo_ | lpox123: quite well as far as QA is concerned; we've been creating lots of automated tests for both desktop and server | 17:52 |
| marjo_ | http://reports.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/qadashboard/qadashboard.html | 17:53 |
| marjo_ | .. | 17:53 |
| hggdh | <JFo> QUESTION: Is is possible to get a broad idea how you guys plan testing versus community ISO testing. I'd be interested in the relationship of internal versus external. :) | 17:53 |
| marjo_ | JFo: broadly speaking, there's really not much difference | 17:54 |
| marjo_ | since all of our ISO testing is with the community | 17:55 |
| marjo_ | JFo: did i answer your question? | 17:55 |
| marjo_ | JFo: where things are different is the community has access to a broader set of HW types and configurations (compared to internal) | 17:56 |
| * hggdh goes and add his personal interest: of course, the more community-performed tests, the better: many different hardware, more chances of issues | 17:56 | |
| marjo_ | hggdh: +1 | 17:56 |
| hggdh | <BigWhale> QUESTION: How is with regression testing? You mentioned automated tests, what things do they cover? I assume that it is hard to test everything especially things that were developed by 3rd party developers. | 17:57 |
| marjo_ | BigWhale: you're right | 17:57 |
| marjo_ | our current automated tests for desktop are trying to ensure that natty works very well and provides an excellent user experience | 17:58 |
| marjo_ | and for our automated server tests, we want to ensure high reliability in several server configurations | 17:59 |
| marjo_ | both are run on a daily basis, so we're able to detect regressions very quickly | 18:00 |
| marjo_ | furthermore we run regression tests for the SRU (stable release updates) for packages and the kernels (2 week cadence) | 18:00 |
| marjo_ | .. | 18:00 |
| hggdh | <Griever> QUESTION: Does the Ubuntu QA Team test upstream package, such as GNOME? And after you find a bug, do you report it to the upstream developers or Ubuntu developers? | 18:01 |
| marjo_ | Griever: the ubuntu QA team focuses our testing on ubuntu packages | 18:02 |
| marjo_ | after we find a bug, we do the bug triage and assign to ubuntu devs and upstream bugs, as appropriate | 18:03 |
| marjo_ | .. | 18:03 |
| marjo_ | we do upstream bugs we find | 18:04 |
| marjo_ | .. | 18:04 |
| hggdh | as an addendum, we would like more people building pure upstream packages, and testing them *for* upstream. For example I use to build coreutils and weechat | 18:05 |
| hggdh | <EvilPhoenix> QUESTION: When newer kernels, packages, etc. are incorporated into 10.10 or newer, such as gcc-4.5, why are such updates to newer repositories not backported to the LTS build(s)? | 18:05 |
| === i is now known as Guest58535 | ||
| marjo_ | EvilPhoenix: can we get back to you on that? (not a straight-forward answer) | 18:12 |
| hggdh | there are some issues here: some packages have heavy interdependencies. For example, GCC: if we update GCC, we will have to rebuild & retest *all* dependend packages | 18:12 |
| * hggdh goes to answer | 18:12 | |
| hggdh | and this means -- again on this GCC example -- pretty much everything | 18:13 |
| hggdh | so there are limits on what we can upgrade. There is always the SRU (Stable Release Update) for specific issues | 18:13 |
| hggdh | <BigWhale> QUESTION: How about writing some a general QA guidelines/manual for developers so that they would help with the testing. Perhaps even with unit testing. In the long term, an application could get 'Ubuntu QA approved seal'. | 18:14 |
| marjo_ | BigWhale: great idea; that's been one of the biggest challenges from a testing point-of-view | 18:14 |
| marjo_ | some teams have unit testing done but they don't always carry over well into the functional and integration testing areas | 18:15 |
| marjo_ | but in general, i like your suggestion; thx | 18:15 |
| marjo_ | next? | 18:17 |
| jcastro | marjo_: ooh I have a question! | 18:18 |
| jcastro | marjo_: Can you go into some detail on how your team gets a bug fix from an upstream or a contributor and how that gets shipped to users | 18:18 |
| jcastro | like I see tags like "regression testing" and things like that | 18:18 |
| jcastro | and how your team works with for example a desktop engineer to get that fix out | 18:19 |
| marjo_ | jcastro: yes, we use tags to indicate bugs of specific interest so that we can focus the bug triage | 18:20 |
| ClassBot | There are 10 minutes remaining in the current session. | 18:20 |
| marjo_ | the bug squad team takes care of the initial triage to determine which team and or engineer a bug should be assigned to | 18:21 |
| marjo_ | then we make sure to follow up with the team and/or engineer to ensure timely resolution | 18:21 |
| marjo_ | we apply this same process whether the bug is for a released version or one in development | 18:22 |
| marjo_ | as far as verification of fixes is concerned, it depends on whether the bug is in an SRU or in development | 18:23 |
| marjo_ | if it's in an SRU then we use our SRU verification process | 18:23 |
| marjo_ | if it's in development, then we make sure to verify the fix as soon as a new package is available and we can also check through the ISO testing at release milestones | 18:24 |
| marjo_ | .. | 18:24 |
| jcastro | <BigWhale> QUESTION: Would QA benefit from a longer release cycle? :> | 18:24 |
| ClassBot | There are 5 minutes remaining in the current session. | 18:25 |
| marjo_ | BigWhale: that's a tricky question, but let me try | 18:25 |
| marjo_ | BigWhale: a longer release cycle would benefit QA because it would allow more time for more testing | 18:26 |
| marjo_ | but as you would probably agree to, a longer release cycle also means more time to put more features and updated packages in | 18:26 |
| marjo_ | therefore, the benefit is reduced IMHO | 18:26 |
| marjo_ | .. | 18:26 |
| jcastro | that about wraps it up | 18:27 |
| jcastro | marjo_: where can people find out more information about QA? | 18:27 |
| marjo_ | https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam | 18:28 |
| marjo_ | http://qa.ubuntu.com | 18:28 |
| marjo_ | and send us email at: ubuntu-qa@lists.ubuntu.com! | 18:28 |
| marjo_ | thanks everyone! great questions! i appreciate your time and interest in QA! | 18:29 |
| jcastro | thanks everyone for participating! | 18:30 |
| ClassBot | Logs for this session will be available at http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/03/11/%23ubuntu-classroom.html | 18:30 |
| marjo_ | jcastro: thx for setting this up! | 18:30 |
| === ChanServ changed the topic of #ubuntu-classroom to: Welcome to the Ubuntu Classroom - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Classroom || Support in #ubuntu || Upcoming Schedule: http://is.gd/8rtIi || Questions in #ubuntu-classroom-chat || | ||
| === jporsini is now known as jfi | ||
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!