[16:52] <belkinsa> Reminder, your Checkin-in with the CC is in less than 10 minutes!
[17:01] <belkinsa> Your Check-In Meeting in #ubuntu-meeting, started but your team is in 30 minutes after the Doc Team's.
[17:30] <belkinsa> It's 17:30 UTC, and it's time for your check-in in #ubuntu-meeting.
[17:45] <flocculant> it's 17:44 and docs still going seemingly
[17:45] <belkinsa> Yes, they seem to have lots to say.
[17:45] <belkinsa> I would suggest e-mail the CC your report since there is no time.
[17:46] <flocculant> no thanks - get Nick to if he feels the urge
[17:46] <belkinsa> Alright.
[17:47] <flocculant> not sure there was much or many or more than me from QA to talk from a community perspective
[17:47] <flocculant> but I'd think that if 17:30 is the time it's the CC's job to make it available
[17:47] <flocculant> well - actually I know it is
[17:48] <flocculant> balloons: ^^
[17:49] <flocculant> mhall119 belkinsa: not very good meeting running perhaps
[17:50] <belkinsa> I tired to stop it for the QA team but no one spoke up/
[17:50] <wxl> what happened?
[17:50] <wxl> i just got into the office
[17:51] <flocculant> we got phillibustered by docs going on about how no-one does anything
[17:51] <belkinsa> Your team's check-in meeting with CC is going on but the Doc Team is hoarding the time.
[17:51] <wxl> oh jeez
[17:51] <wxl> wasn't the cc check in supposed to happen like an hour ago/
[17:52] <belkinsa> No, it's still going, 7 minutes left
[17:52] <flocculant> too many mails to the list with different time - not sure why we got something in Eastern time
[17:52] <flocculant> what the hell is that?
[17:53] <flocculant> not that impressed tbh
[17:56] <flocculant> even less so now
[18:36] <balloons> o/ flocculant
[18:41] <flocculant> hi balloons
[19:08] <flocculant> balloons: cc'd you to a mail to Mike
[19:42] <balloons> flocculant, so what do you propose we should do about the ubiquity + AP test situation?
[19:42] <balloons> it seems the changes to ubiquity keeps ensuring they fail
[19:44] <flocculant> well if it keeps failing not much anyone can do
[19:45] <flocculant> I'm glad I made that real basic testcase - at least I can put people on that - does the image boot?
[19:45] <flocculant> just the normal ubuntu thing going on - less than stellar communication
[19:46] <flocculant> I'll just move on and forget about it this cycle
[19:52] <balloons> what are you specifically hoping to test?
[19:53] <flocculant> about all I ever expected of the autotest - that the daily booted
[19:54] <flocculant> but I'll get people to do that
[19:54] <flocculant> just needed to know where *we* stood
[19:54] <flocculant> might be good to let the flavours know this died for this cycle
[19:55] <balloons> interesting.. You only want to know if the desktop loads?
[19:55] <flocculant> well - I was never hopeful of the test doing more - it always missed anything people might see in vb
[19:56] <flocculant> nvm now
[19:56] <balloons> well, I say that because we don't need autopilot for that at all
[19:56] <flocculant> balloons: it's too late in the cycle for me to start fiddling about here
[19:56] <balloons> just because we can't get autopilot to run, doesn't mean we couldn't do a simple test to make sure the machine boots
[19:57] <balloons> basically, that should be trivial to do
[19:57] <flocculant> I'd rather just send a mail to my testers - I have the testcase set up already
[20:38] <dkessel> balloons: how would one do such a test?
[20:39] <balloons> hey dkessel. we can't tell flocculant, but I gutted one of the AP tests to simply stop after the first assert. Just make sure the installer loads is all
[20:40] <dkessel> How would that work with the normal ISO without installing first? Or would it install through something else but ubiquity?
[20:40] <balloons> dkessel, fixing the other tests would be lovely as well of course, but just ensuring it boots works well enough
[20:40] <balloons> dkessel, it loads an image and boots to the installer and makes sure the installer starts fine
[20:41] <dkessel> Oh OK. So no installed system.
[20:41] <balloons> right, no installed system
[20:41] <balloons> the tests fail at some point during the install, but if we care only about it booting ok, that's fine
[20:41] <balloons> it should be a very resiliant test
[20:42] <dkessel> I say put up the Jenkins job for that :)
[20:43]  * balloons is testing to make sure it works now
[20:43] <dkessel> But better don't tell flocculant :D
[20:43] <balloons> yes
[20:48] <balloons> we can also take on any shell scripts and just run those
[22:22] <flocculant> definitely don't tell flocculant
[22:48] <alexbh> Hi... a short question.... how can I know the difference between 20160301 and 20160303? where is it documented?
[22:49] <wxl> alexbh: do you mean how can you tell the difference between the images, or what the changes between the two are?
[22:51] <alexbh> i mean the changes... i want to test again but not sure it is the same image just renamed
[22:51] <wxl> yeah the best you can do is check the package lists against one another
[22:52] <wxl> alexbh: this is on ubuntu or which image?
[22:53] <flocculant> alexbh: pretty sure that if *you've* not got some data from the first to check the new one against - then changes are lost - or extremely hard to work out
[22:53] <alexbh> i did ubuntu, ubuntu-gnome and lubuntu... but it must be the same procedure, right?
[22:53] <wxl> yeah
[22:53] <flocculant> seem to remember this coming up in -release
[22:54] <wxl> so basically you want to go to the cdimage.ubuntu.com page for the image
[22:54] <wxl> and then check the manifests against one another
[22:54] <wxl> e.g. http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/daily-live/20160302/xenial-desktop-amd64.manifest
[22:54] <alexbh> ahh ok... perfect..thanks
[22:54] <wxl> versus http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/daily-live/20160303/xenial-desktop-amd64.manifest
[22:54] <flocculant> wxl: oh - they keep them?
[22:54] <wxl> flocculant: well those two are up for sure1
[22:54] <wxl> flocculant: but if you make sure to pull down the manifests when you grab thge image, you can check them over time, too
[22:55] <wxl> unfortunately an md5 doesn't work even with no changes because there are references to the version number (i.e. the date)
[22:55] <flocculant> of course - not sure I'd bother though :)
[22:55]  * wxl shrugs
[22:55] <wxl> me either
[22:55] <wxl> but i tend to be scientific like that. repeatability is key. no assumptions.
[22:55] <wxl> but THEORETICALLY XD
[22:56] <flocculant> ha ha
[22:57] <flocculant> frankly if it didn't work yesterday but does today then \o/
[22:57] <wxl> heh yep
[22:57] <wxl> BUT WHY WHY??????
[22:58] <wxl> in other news they set up the wiki editors to require ubuntu-etherpad membership as a way to deter spam
[22:58] <flocculant> cos there's no such thing as can't of course :p
[22:58] <wxl> hasn't been officially announced but
[22:58] <flocculant> oh that works then
[22:58] <flocculant> another way to stop people contributing
[22:58] <wxl> it's temporary
[22:58] <wxl> and easy to make people editors
[22:58] <flocculant> isn't it always
[22:58] <wxl> it seems they're still taking the media wiki migration as a serious long term solution
[22:58] <wxl> so i'm pleased about that
[22:59] <wxl> and honestly this is better than the current state of things
[22:59] <flocculant> wxl obviously didn't have to wait for so long to get someone into etherpad that they grabbed rights to do so
[23:00] <flocculant> though it is *usually* quick - but generally I would think that if someone has made the effort to edit a wiki and then has to join some thing they're likely to just wander off
[23:00] <flocculant> I would
[23:01] <wxl> probably
[23:01] <flocculant> and suddenly IS care about spam?
[23:01] <wxl> but at this point the wiki is unusable for ANYONE
[23:05] <flocculant> balloons: so this thing that you can't tell me - will it boot an image - make it try desktop and then check the desktop is there somehow?
[23:05] <flocculant> cos I've not sent the mail yet :p
[23:06] <alexbh> and.. which package is supposed to fix this? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1551778 I see ubuntu-minimal and ubuntu-standardwere updated but not sure if itt fixes the issue
[23:07] <flocculant> alexbh: how have you built the usb or cd?
[23:07] <alexbh> usb
[23:07] <flocculant> yes
[23:07] <flocculant> but with what tool?
[23:07] <alexbh> ahh.. in ubuntu with the usb creator thingy
[23:07] <flocculant> right - known issue
[23:08] <flocculant> should know the bug number of by heart now ...
[23:08] <alexbh> sorry... what dod you mean?
[23:09] <flocculant> alexbh: it's not new - it's an issue we know about :)
[23:09] <alexbh> ok.. so should I use another tool? because for the stable images it is working
[23:09] <flocculant> alexbh: what are you creating the usb install on?
[23:10] <alexbh> lubuntu 14.04
[23:10] <flocculant> iirc unetbootin worked way back then still
[23:11] <wxl> i just use dd. it never fails.
[23:11] <wxl> mkusb is pretty cool, too.
[23:11] <flocculant> wxl: yea - but because I use dd rarely I never ever tell people how to :p
[23:12] <wxl> flocculant: that's the beauty of mkusb. it's dd under the hood.
[23:12] <flocculant> and mkusb is good as a tool - but last time I looked it was way back in 1999 :D
[23:12] <balloons> flocculant, yep, boots to live desktop, starts installer and just make sure you can interact with it
[23:12] <wxl> yeeeeeeeeeeeeah it's changed a bit :)
[23:12] <flocculant> and sudodus know's me well enough to know I am not being anything but nice :D
[23:14] <flocculant> balloons: \o/
[23:37] <alexbh> the bug is this one, right? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/usb-creator/+bug/1360823
[23:45] <flocculant> alexbh: I do apologise - I wandered off ...
[23:45] <flocculant> the bug is the main one
[23:45] <flocculant> 1325801
[23:47] <flocculant> alexbh: so you should be able to boot from that usb - when it gets to a prompt - try live and enter