#title #ubuntu-meeting Meeting Meeting started by ara at 16:02:22 UTC. The full logs are available at http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2011/ubuntu-meeting.2011-11-14-16.02.log.html . == Meeting summary == *Moving this meeting to bi-weekly? -- ara ''ACTION:'' ara to send an email to the mailing list about the cadence of the meeting (ara, 16:15:19) *Checkbox Oneiric SRU -- roadmr ''LINK:'' https://launchpad.net/checkbox/+milestone/0.12.9 (roadmr, 16:16:55) ''LINK:'' https://launchpad.net/checkbox/+milestone/0.12.9 (ara, 16:17:05) ''ACTION:'' roadmr to talk to the SRU team about the string changes + creating 0.12.10 milestone (ara, 16:25:23) *Ubuntu Friendly next deployment -- jedimike ''ACTION:'' brendan to open a bug about the usability bug on the selection of tests (for Ubuntu Friendly, only) and milestone it for checkbox 0.13 (ara, 16:34:06) *Any Other Business? ''ACTION:'' ara to file a bug about the usability bug on UF + checkbox relation (ara, 17:00:42) Meeting ended at 17:01:30 UTC. == Votes == == Action items == * ara to send an email to the mailing list about the cadence of the meeting * roadmr to talk to the SRU team about the string changes + creating 0.12.10 milestone * brendan to open a bug about the usability bug on the selection of tests (for Ubuntu Friendly, only) and milestone it for checkbox 0.13 * ara to file a bug about the usability bug on UF + checkbox relation == Action items, by person == * ara ** ara to send an email to the mailing list about the cadence of the meeting ** ara to file a bug about the usability bug on UF + checkbox relation * roadmr ** roadmr to talk to the SRU team about the string changes + creating 0.12.10 milestone == People present (lines said) == * ara (84) * roadmr (40) * brendand (33) * cr3 (20) * jedimike (19) * alourie (17) * meetingology (7) * bladernr (6) == Full Log == 16:02:22 #startmeeting 16:02:22 Meeting started Mon Nov 14 16:02:22 2011 UTC. The chair is ara. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot. 16:02:22 16:02:22 Available commands: #accept #accepted #action #agree #agreed #chair #commands #endmeeting #endvote #halp #help #idea #info #link #lurk #meetingname #meetingtopic #nick #progress #rejected #replay #restrictlogs #save #startmeeting #subtopic #topic #unchair #undo #unlurk #vote #voters #votesrequired 16:02:31 Agenda: 16:02:33 Moving this meeting to bi-weekly? -- ara 16:02:34 Checkbox Oneiric SRU -- roadmr 16:02:34 Ubuntu Friendly next deployment -- jedimike 16:02:34 AOB 16:02:44 * ara have put items for other people there :D 16:02:56 #topic Moving this meeting to bi-weekly? -- ara 16:03:17 OK, so I have been wondering if it'd make sense to move this meeting to a biweekly cadence 16:03:38 It made sense to have them weekly when we were rushing to get the beta release out 16:03:46 o/ 16:03:49 o/ 16:04:07 now that everything is moving to a more normal pace, shall we move to a biweekly one? 16:04:08 .. 16:04:13 jedimike, go ahead 16:04:16 o/ 16:04:22 i agree 16:04:23 .. 16:04:42 brendand? 16:05:20 we should, unless we find in future that we are getting to many items to discuss in one meeting. but the chances of this happening are very low 16:05:23 ... 16:05:51 roadmr? 16:06:05 Do consider that things slowed down because of a) the release and b) UDS. I'd probably prefer to wait a couple of weeks to see what "normal" attendance looks like 16:06:42 but if we're bringing this to a vote, I'm sure the 2-weekers will prevail, and I'm not vehemently opposed, we can just as easily go 2-week and then switch back to weekly if it's too long 16:06:45 .. 16:07:52 It is just not a matter of attendance in my opinion, but of development pace 16:07:59 .. 16:08:04 o/ 16:08:28 brendand, yes 16:09:09 attendance isn't really the factor so much as agenda length. apart from this item we have only two agenda items and two weeks ago we had one 16:09:11 o/ 16:09:45 ... 16:09:51 cr3, go ahead, please 16:10:36 won't making the meetings bi-weekly affect attendance negatively by lack of mementum? 16:10:39 .. 16:11:19 o/ 16:11:34 ara go ahead :) 16:11:45 I guess that's the risk, but lack of content can affect negatively as well 16:11:54 .. 16:12:46 shall we defer this to the mailing list? 16:13:01 o/ 16:13:07 o/ 16:13:10 roadmr 16:13:19 I'd like to see this discussed on the mailing list, 16:13:29 that way we also get the ML moving a bit :) 16:13:30 .. 16:13:37 bladernr, your turn 16:13:53 roadmr: any excuse to generate traffic on the mailing list is all good :) 16:13:57 I'm just +1-ing the mailing list... I'd imagine there are more people there that may not have been able to make this meeting who'd want to have input on this 16:14:00 .. 16:14:53 brendand, jedimike: fine with discussing this at the ml? 16:14:59 ara: yup 16:15:01 * brendand is 16:15:19 #action ara to send an email to the mailing list about the cadence of the meeting 16:15:19 * meetingology ara to send an email to the mailing list about the cadence of the meeting 16:15:48 cool! let's move on to a non meta-topic :) 16:15:56 #topic Checkbox Oneiric SRU -- roadmr 16:16:15 roadmr, all yours :P 16:16:27 thanks! 16:16:33 In order to take care of the most painful checkbox issues in Oneiric, an SRU will be published. It's preferable to do this soon, to avoid a lot of fixes piling up, which can slow things down. 16:16:46 The list of bugs scheduled for the 0.12.9 release of checkbox is here: 16:16:55 https://launchpad.net/checkbox/+milestone/0.12.9 16:17:02 If you can take a look at the unfixed bugs and propose a solution that would be appreciated. 16:17:05 #link https://launchpad.net/checkbox/+milestone/0.12.9 16:17:16 Also keep in mind that per SRU procedure, the fixes have to be *published* (i.e. Fix Released) on Precise - so we need to take into account the time it takes to publish checkbox 0.13 on P and then backport the SRUable fixes to 0.12. 16:17:28 Ideally we should have a cutoff date for the 0.12.9 fixes 16:17:45 after which we'd publish 0.13 to P and get it tested 16:18:05 and then after a reasonable testing time, backport the SRUable bugs and get the SRU process rolling 16:18:27 o/ 16:18:30 o/ 16:18:43 hopefully I'm not missing anything here, so any ideas or proposals on the dates, or stuff I may be missing? 16:18:46 .. 16:19:22 ara go 16:19:57 OK, so I think the list is complete enough for a first SRU in Oneiric 16:20:13 So I would go for it, and try to get as many as possible in trunk 16:20:27 unless you guys know any other high/critical bug that we should be adding 16:20:28 .. 16:20:41 brendand your turn 16:21:44 strictly speaking, SRUs should be for issues which affect the stability of the application, so i'm concerned about getting some of the test wording fixes in 16:21:49 i guess we can try 16:21:54 as for dates 16:22:43 i think in terms of adding bugs to the list, we should aim for tomorrow (i.e. i think it's complete but just incase we missed any) 16:22:50 ... 16:23:15 o/ 16:23:19 roadmr, go! 16:23:38 hehe :) well I think we could take today to ask about the string fixes 16:23:45 instead of just trying to sneak it in 16:24:02 o/ 16:24:05 .. 16:24:20 ara, go ahead 16:24:54 OK, sounds good. roadmr, can you take the action of talking to the SRU team about the string changes + creating 0.12.10 milestone tomorrow? (for fixes that we might fix in the next SRU) 16:25:06 will do 16:25:23 #action roadmr to talk to the SRU team about the string changes + creating 0.12.10 milestone 16:25:23 * meetingology roadmr to talk to the SRU team about the string changes + creating 0.12.10 milestone 16:26:02 anything else on this topic? 16:26:13 * roadmr has nothing more 16:26:46 cool! let's move on :) 16:26:58 #topic Ubuntu Friendly next deployment -- jedimike 16:27:19 jedimike, can you give us an update on what we can expect on the next deployment of UF? 16:27:29 The next deployment of UF has been given a deadline of this thursday (17th) 16:27:50 we will see updated help for the participate page to make it clearer what test we require run 16:28:06 help for people who are having trouble finding their submissions on the site 16:28:27 an updated "report a problem" page which will direct people to the right place for different types of feedback 16:28:55 a stricter policy on skipping tests, if any test we require run is skipped, we reject the submission 16:29:04 o/ 16:29:20 on the backend, we have a faster way of finding individual submissions to help answer bugs, some stats reporting 16:29:32 and a way to refresh all site data without taking the site down 16:29:38 brendand, go ahead 16:30:42 about the 'no skipping' policy. it's a really wide misconception that you should uncheck tests in the test selection screen which you can't run. see e.g. : http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/ubuntu-friendly-usersubmitted-database-computers-work-ubuntu/ 16:31:17 also when helping someone at the UF session at UDS they tried to do that 16:31:35 o/ 16:31:37 ... 16:31:39 brendand: yes, those instructions have been corrected in the upcoming release 16:31:46 ara, go! 16:31:51 thanks! 16:32:44 definitely, for Precise, we should really pay attention on how we present that information 16:33:04 actually, we should open a bug about it and milestone it for Precise 16:33:08 so we keep track of it 16:33:17 on the client side, I mean 16:33:20 .. 16:33:26 * brendand will take that action 16:33:28 o/ 16:33:35 brendand, go! 16:34:06 #action brendan to open a bug about the usability bug on the selection of tests (for Ubuntu Friendly, only) and milestone it for checkbox 0.13 16:34:06 * meetingology brendan to open a bug about the usability bug on the selection of tests (for Ubuntu Friendly, only) and milestone it for checkbox 0.13 16:34:07 do we distinguish between not run altogether and skipped? 16:34:15 if so, why? 16:34:17 ... 16:34:57 o/ 16:35:00 no, if an entire test category is unselected, it will be reported as skipped. If an individual test is skipped, that is reported as skipped to, and we check if it's a skippable test. 16:35:03 ara: go 16:35:21 that's a good point 16:35:38 jedimike, if bluetooth is unselect it at the beginning, that's reported as Untested 16:35:44 what would happen in that case? 16:35:45 .. 16:36:07 (obviously that would work only for categories where all tests are skippable) 16:36:21 ara: Untested in UF speak is Skipped :) we need a translator heh 16:36:36 o/ 16:36:40 brendand, go 16:37:15 so maybe not too much to worry about from the technical side (deselecting bluetooth is the same as skipping every bluetooth test) 16:38:00 however it's still a good idea to communicate that tests should only be skipped individually and only where you really can't run them 16:38:12 so no change in the action items 16:38:14 ... 16:38:53 cool, thanks jedimike for the clarification and brendand for taking the action item :) 16:39:06 anything else on the topic? 16:40:21 not from me 16:40:29 OK, let's move on 16:40:42 #topic Any Other Business? 16:40:50 anything else? 16:41:29 * roadmr has nothing else :) 16:41:50 may I? 16:41:58 alourie, sure, go ahead :) 16:42:33 I find it strange that running Checkbox seemingly has nothing to do with Friendl 16:42:34 y 16:43:06 o/ 16:43:08 so I think that at least at the end, where the results are being uploaded, it should be mentioned instead of Launchpad 16:43:15 such as: 16:43:30 "provide an email address to upload results to Ubuntu Friendly" 16:43:38 or something like that 16:44:14 o/ 16:44:39 I agree that we need to give a better experience for UF users on the client side, but we have to make sure that we don't lose the "System Testing" goal of checkbox 16:44:53 sure 16:45:05 and what "Launchpad" has to do with it? :-) 16:45:06 for Precise, when building the UI, we will try to come up with something that fits both 16:45:10 o/ 16:45:15 ok 16:45:15 .. 16:45:19 brendand, go ahead 16:46:04 for alourie, the results in ubuntu friendly are taken from launchpad. this is just an architectural detail. 16:47:05 as for the original comment. i don't see the harm. 16:47:30 people using Checkbox for 'not Ubuntu Friendly' are already well aware of what it does 16:47:48 .. 16:48:04 cr3, your turn 16:48:09 brendand: sure, but why would I, as user, knwo that? 16:48:14 o/ 16:48:28 might the problem be that UF seemlingly has nothing to do with Launchpad? 16:48:57 * brendand is agreeing with alourie, to be clear 16:48:58 ^^ nevermind .. 16:49:12 I think Checkbox should remain agnostic of Ubuntu Friendly in order to encourage others to build services similar to UF, I don't see how Checkbox could know about every other project using results from testing in Launchpad 16:49:15 bladernr: thank you 16:49:16 .. 16:49:38 thanks cr3 16:49:48 anything else? 16:50:14 cr3: but what if I, as user, run it as UF, and then have no mention of it in the tool? Doesn't it confuse a little? 16:51:05 alourie: perhaps there should be a UF client that would Depend on Checkbox 16:51:16 I'm just thinking about a clean and clear experience... 16:51:31 o/ 16:51:36 roadmr, go ahead, please 16:51:47 first thanks to alourie for mentioning this usability problem! 16:51:48 Checkbox is infinitely extensible, both good and bad, but this would be an opportunity to use this extensibility for good rather than evil 16:52:06 second, maybe we could have as cr3 says some way to parameterize checkbox so it shows customized information 16:52:23 say checkbox-gtk --for="Ubuntu Friendly" would instruct checkbox to mention UF at key points during the test run 16:52:41 o/ 16:52:50 and for instance checkbox-gtk --for="Desktop Application Testing" would show that instead 16:52:57 .. 16:53:19 cr3, your turn 16:54:07 roadmr: wow 16:54:09 roadmr: if someone in the community develops an Ubuntu Unfriendly program, which is perfectly possible since the information is freely available, should Checkbox know about that project as well? 16:54:13 I was afraid to offer that :-) 16:54:27 o/ 16:54:49 roadmr: why not develop an ubuntu-friendly project with its own intro_prompt plugin, for example, that would be specifically for Ubuntu Friendly? 16:55:26 it could even have an Ubuntu Friendly logo people could identify with... 16:55:26 .. 16:55:48 cr3: to avoid a rash of checkbox-* packages? 16:55:56 roadmr, go ahead 16:56:03 bladernr: this is a ubuntu-friendly package, not a checkbox-* package :) 16:56:05 (and we should be wrapping up this conversation soon) 16:56:35 well it's implementation discussion at this point, my idea is very simplistic but the fact is, we can probably find a way to extend checkbox to show more customized information 16:56:57 as unobtrusively as possible (i.e. not introducing project-specific stuff in checkbox itself) 16:57:00 .. 16:57:10 o/ 16:57:17 cr3, go ahead (if it is quick) :) 16:57:50 roadmr: indeed, if other projects could extend checkbox by adding files under a .d directory, like /etc/checkbox.d/ubuntu-friendly, which could be accessed from the checkbox-gtk command line, that would work 16:57:54 .. 16:59:03 OK, I think we have been discussed this for a long time now. I guess the summary of it is: people coming to checkbox to test for UF find no relation between the two and any solution to this problem should take care of not putting checkbox too uf specific 17:00:42 #action ara to file a bug about the usability bug on UF + checkbox relation 17:00:42 * meetingology ara to file a bug about the usability bug on UF + checkbox relation 17:00:51 ara: don't forget that people coming to UF find no relation with Launchpad 17:00:51 I agree 17:01:11 cr3, cool, thanks for the reminder 17:01:25 OK, we run out of time 17:01:28 so... 17:01:30 #endmeeting Generated by MeetBot 0.1.5 (http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot)