[16:49] <Raistlin_> http://irc.freenode.net/
[17:25]  * jcastro taps the mic
[17:29] <jcastro> 2 minutes until Q+A with Marjo Mercado (Ubuntu QA Manager)
[17:30] <jcastro> ok marjo's having xchat problems
[17:30] <jcastro> so one minute
[17:30] <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.
[17:31] <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
[17:32] <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
[17:33] <marjo_> hi folks
[17:33] <marjo_> i'm Marjo Mercado and I'm the ubuntu qa team manager
[17:35] <jcastro> marjo_: can you explain it is what your team does?
[17:36] <marjo_> the ubuntu qa team is responsible for a couple of major areas
[17:36] <marjo_> 1) Bug Management
[17:36] <marjo_> 2) Testing
[17:37] <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_> ..
[17:40] <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?
[17:43] <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_> ..
[17:45] <hggdh> ozone702> QUESTION: Will there be support for Gnome in future versions of Ubuntu?
[17:46] <jcastro> I can answer that
[17:46] <jcastro> GNOME continues to ship GNOME
[17:47] <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
[17:48] <marjo_> jcastro: thx; from a qa point of view, we continue to test GNOME, so no change there
[17:50] <marjo_> next?
 QUESTION: How is the work on natty going?
[17:52] <marjo_> lpox123: quite well as far as QA is concerned; we've been creating lots of automated tests for both desktop and server
[17:53] <marjo_> http://reports.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/qadashboard/qadashboard.html
[17:53] <marjo_> ..
 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. :)
[17:54] <marjo_> JFo: broadly speaking, there's really not much difference
[17:55] <marjo_> since all of our ISO testing is with the community
[17:55] <marjo_> JFo: did i answer your question?
[17:56] <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
 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
[17:58] <marjo_> our current automated tests for desktop are trying to ensure that natty works very well and provides an excellent user experience
[17:59] <marjo_> and for our automated server tests, we want to ensure high reliability in several server configurations
[18:00] <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_> ..
 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?
[18:02] <marjo_> Griever: the ubuntu QA team focuses our testing on ubuntu packages
[18:03] <marjo_> after we find a bug, we do the bug triage and assign to ubuntu devs and upstream bugs, as appropriate
[18:03] <marjo_> ..
[18:04] <marjo_> we do upstream bugs we find
[18:04] <marjo_> ..
[18:05] <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
 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)?
[18:12] <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
[18:13] <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
 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
[18:15] <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
[18:17] <marjo_> next?
[18:18] <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
[18:19] <jcastro> and how your team works with for example a desktop engineer to get that fix out
[18:20] <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.
[18:21] <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
[18:22] <marjo_> we apply this same process whether the bug is for a released version or one in development
[18:23] <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
[18:24] <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_> ..
 QUESTION: Would QA benefit from a longer release cycle? :>
[18:25] <ClassBot> There are 5 minutes remaining in the current session.
[18:25] <marjo_> BigWhale: that's a tricky question, but let me try
[18:26] <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_> ..
[18:27] <jcastro> that about wraps it up
[18:27] <jcastro> marjo_: where can people find out more information about QA?
[18:28] <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!
[18:29] <marjo_> thanks everyone! great questions! i appreciate your time and interest in QA!
[18:30] <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!