Web   ·   Wiki   ·   Activities   ·   Blog   ·   Lists   ·   Chat   ·   Meeting   ·   Bugs   ·   Git   ·   Translate   ·   Archive   ·   People   ·   Donate

#sugar-meeting, 2008-12-10

Index | Today | Next day »     Channels | Search | Join

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
12:06 erikos uff :)
12:06 mchua cheers for erikos and meetbot
12:07 erikos #TOPIC SugarLabs QA
12:07 mchua Is http://sugarlabs.org/go/Testin[…]gendas/2008-12-10 still our agenda, erikos? That's what I'm working from
12:07 (for the purpose of meeting notes, here)
12:07 erikos mchua: yes
12:08 mchua sweet, thanks!
12:08 erikos so the first point is to define the bugsquad and it's purpose
12:08 because for me the QA as a whole has two groups:
12:08 a bugsquad (mainly triaging) and a testing group
12:08 do the others agree with that?
12:09 unmadindu_ agrees
12:09 mchua agrees
12:09 tomeu1 yup
12:09 marcopg erikos: with QA you mean the team?
12:10 erikos marcopg: yeah - because if we name it testing - this would be misleading for the bugsquad
12:10 marcopg I guess I'm still not fully convinced about the name
12:10 but probably just because of the meaning I'm used to give to QA
12:11 erikos ok i am sure everyone has slightly other meanings here
12:11 cjl erikos: If you write it up on the wiki, that makes it true.
12:11 erikos do people agree with the definition of the bugsquad we have on the wiki (agenda) ?
12:12 mchua copy-pastes
12:12 The BugSquad keeps track of current bugs in the sugar software and try to make sure that bugs are triaged correctly. You do not need any programming knowledge to be in the Bugsquad; in fact it is a great way to return something to the Sugar community if you cannot program. The squad is modeled on the gnome bugsquad: http://developer.gnome.org/projects/bugsquad/
12:12 I agree with this.
12:13 marcopg yup, it sounds good to me too
12:13 cjl erikos: It does not capture the distinction you make a bout there also being a testing group under the QA umbrella
12:13 mchua I think that at the very least, it is an excellent concrete beginning. I would like to set a date in the future (a month or two out, or maybe after the next release or interim release) to reevaluate whether this is what we need.
12:13 notes that she sound really formal today...
12:13 tomeu1 that's contagious :p
12:14 erikos cjb: ok - the testing group - is a bit more vague at the moment - that one we need to agree here
12:14 damn cjl ^^^
12:14 marcopg you sound like m_stone today ;)
12:14 mchua yay! that's (usually, I think) a good thing. :)
12:14 erikos maybe we don't need that QA umbrella
12:15 and just make a bugsquad and a testing team?
12:15 cjl erikos: not until it starts raining bugs :-)
12:15 marcopg erikos: to me the testing is still very undefined
12:15 mchua well, my thought is that the TestTeam should have two parts to it, right now: one is the bugsquad, the other is general enabling of non-SL testing of Sugar.
12:15 marcopg erikos: so perhaps it makes sense to try to define it better, before deciding on a structure
12:16 mchua Bug Squad has been defined pretty well by erikos on the wiki, I think. General enabling of non-SL testing of Sugar is what I see the rest of the agenda at http://sugarlabs.org/go/Testin[…]gendas/2008-12-10 being about figuring out.
12:16 marcopg mchua: i.e. you don't think SL should be doing any testing directly?
12:16 mchua marcopg: that's correct.
12:16 just as SL is not doing any deployments directly, or development directly, as I understand it.
12:16 erikos ok as we seem to agree on the bugsquad definition - lets decide on what the testing group is about
12:16 tomeu1 right
12:16 mchua SL enables the SL community to do that, is my understanding.
12:17 erikos which - mel is right are the next items in the agenda
12:17 mchua (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
12:17 tomeu1 marcopg: do you consider soas a SL project?
12:17 because that's a good chunk of integration work that is normally done by distros
12:17 marcopg mchua: I'm thinking of SL as *the* community lately. David posted about it too
12:17 cjl mchua: slightly dissenting opinion expressed here. Maybe fuzzy doue to SL/SL community differentiation mchua is making.
12:18 http://sugarlabs.org/go/Talk:T[…]gendas/2008-12-10
12:18 marcopg tomeu1: no, I consider SoaS an independent project, enabled by SL
12:18 tomeu1 marcopg: fine
12:18 then I see testing of distros as out from SL
12:18 because they can do it better
12:18 marcopg yeah, but if SL doesn't test distros, what does it test?
12:19 tomeu1 nothing ;)
12:19 marcopg I guess I'm thinking to mchua "SL does not do any testing" in a different way
12:19 tomeu1 testing is done on finished products, like a distro or soas are
12:20 marcopg i.e. SL enables distros testing
12:20 tomeu1 and is better done by those closer to those products
12:20 mchua erikos: maybe a way to do this is to bring up some cases of testing that might be done that we know about or think will come up soon, and go through the list and say "that's SL TestTeam," or "That's not SL TestTeam."
12:20 tomeu1 marcopg: how enables that other than providing the code to test?
12:20 erikos mchua: sounds good
12:21 marcopg tomeu1: it provides an upstream tracking system, for example
12:21 tomeu1: and defines the policies to use it
12:21 mchua I'll throw out the one we're talking about now, then: Sugar-on-<distro> testing. SL TestTeam or not?
12:21 (and if not, what does SL TestTeam do to help it, if anything?)
12:21 marcopg mchua: Sugar core or Sugar with activities?
12:22 mchua marcopg: Ah, right. Thanks. Sugar-core-on-<distro> testing, no activities.
12:22 cjb oh, hey, it's an IRC conversation about what I was thinking about before I opened the IRC window :)
12:22 marcopg hey cjb
12:23 my current opinion about that, is that exclusively distro should take care of that
12:23 (mostly because of the points tomeu made above)
12:23 mchua I vote not SL TestTeam, with marcopg's suggestion that distros should do it and SL TestTeam should provide them with an upstream tracking system to those distros and define the policies to use it.
12:23 marcopg SL provides a bug tracker, policies and a triaging team which mediates distro testers <-> developers
12:23 mchua marcopg + 1
12:24 erikos well the policies and the tracker are handled by the bugsquad
12:25 tomeu1 sounds good
12:25 erikos my scenario about testing was:
12:25 that last time, the testing happened late in the cycle which had direct impact on our roadmap
12:26 we need some way of doing testing during the release cycle as well
12:26 cjl any role for SL in helping distros find testers (community building, lists, etc.)?
12:26 erikos not testing of distros - but just the sugar core
12:27 maybe with a reference distribution
12:27 soas or fedora or whatever
12:27 marcopg ok
12:27 that's another scenario, I think
12:27 erikos i am still not sure how we can handle that case best
12:27 mchua Yeah, I guess one of my questions is "what is 'canonical sugar'? What do we use in order to say "Sugar Works," independent of how it runs on any distro?"
12:28 (i.e. if Sugar-on-Fedora works but Sugar-on-Debian has a lot of bugs, does Sugar-core work?)
12:28 (but that can wait until another time, since I know it wasn't in the original scope of this meeting's agenda.)
12:28 erikos mchua: does depend on the bugs i would say ;p
12:28 marcopg I think it's almost impossible to separate the Sugar core from the distro it runs on
12:29 that's the point I try to make about Activities on the agenda
12:29 mchua so we can't say "Sugar works," but we can only say "Sugar-on-<distro>" works?
12:29 erikos: btw, what time is this meeting supposed to end? I originally blocked 1630-1730 UTC for it, and have to run in ~10min, alas
12:30 marcopg if we can ensure a consistent Sugar core on each distro, then we can say if an Activity works or not, independently from the distro it runs on
12:30 erikos mchua: we waited for you :)
12:30 mchua: since others were late as well
12:31 marcopg: what would be your solution - for the activities case?
12:31 marcopg mchua: I don't think we can say for sure. But we can probably provide guidelines to guess if the problem is in the distro or in sugar
12:31 mchua: stupid example. If a bug is present in only one distro, then Sugar works and that specific distro is broken
12:32 mchua: not absolute criteria though, just guidelines.
12:33 erikos: ensure that activities, or at least a set of them, can run unmodified on any distro
12:33 erikos: that requires a well defined platform, and automated testing to verify platform consistency
12:33 mchua ok, so sugar-core and the distro can't be tested independently, but we *do* have the concept of something called "sugar-core" that we are focused on the quality of.
12:34 marcopg mchua: yeah, that's correct
12:34 mchua since we can't test sugar-core independently of sugar-on-<distro>, the only gauge we have for the "health" of sugar-core is the health of the various sugar-on-<distro>s.
12:34 erikos hmmm ok
12:34 marcopg yeah
12:35 one of these "distro" being compiled code on developers laptops
12:36 erikos was posing the problem of how we do testing of the core-sugar during unstable development
12:36 erikos i just thought about it a bit
12:36 marcopg I think we can use some of the distros to provide this testing
12:36 erikos yup
12:36 marcopg SoaS is shipping 0.83 already for example
12:37 if there are people in the community that would like to test unstable sugar, they have a way to
12:37 tomeu1 yeah, we shouldn't wait to have stable releases to do packaging
12:37 erikos and if we make sure that we have one easy to use way to test sugar (soas) we cna announce it when releasing and ask for testing
12:37 we don't need an organized team for that
12:37 marcopg erikos: yup, we can announce all the distros which are/will be shipping the release
12:38 erikos yes - the important part is that we work with the feedback
12:38 -> bugsquad
12:38 marcopg right!
12:38 sugar-core testing sounds like a solved problem to me ;)
12:38 anyone sees other issues?
12:38 erikos marcopg: you brought up the point of automated testing
12:39 no sounds good to me
12:39 mchua I've got to run, do you guys need anything else from me before I go?
12:39 I'll read the logs after.
12:39 erikos mchua: no - i think we made good progress
12:40 marcopg mchua: would like to discuss a couple of points on the agenda with you...
12:40 mchua: but we can do by mail or in another meeting
12:40 mchua: thanks for coming!
12:40 erikos marcopg: points you would like to see already discussed now?
12:41 marcopg well the points are 1 activities testing 2 OLPC
12:41 mchua marcopg: likewise - erikos, if you're going to email minutes/logs to the iaep list, I'll comment on those for my reply, how does that sound?
12:41 marcopg we can discuss 1 now...
12:41 2 we need mchua ;)
12:41 erikos mchua: sure
12:42 marcopg: the floor for point 1 is yours
12:43 marcopg mchua: sure!
12:43 erikos: so the question is on the agenda
12:43 who tests activities?
12:43 mchua gave an answer there
12:43 what do the others think?
12:44 also cjl made the point about fructose, which I tend to agree with
12:44 cjl One thought is that SL has decreasing responsibility to test Activities from Glucose > Fructose > Honey. Must test Glucose activities, should cooperate closely with OLPC (and activity upstreams, e.g. AbiWord, evince, xulrunner) on testing Fructose activities, should encourage and empower and participate in community testing of Honey activities.
12:44 marcopg for Honey I think mchua approach is fine
12:44 erikos honey?
12:45 activities not in Frcutose?
12:45 marcopg erikos: extra activities, which are not in fructose
12:45 erikos marcopg: the question is a bit as well how we package activities
12:45 cjl ertamtam playgo, measure, memorizer, moon, etc.  https://dev.laptop.org/translate/af/honey/
12:46 marcopg erikos: right, that's what I'm talking about in the agenda...
12:46 I'm more and more convinced we need to support .xo at some level
12:46 erikos hmmm
12:46 mchua I really have to run - can you guys ping me on email if you need input from me on something for #2 in particular? I'll read the logs too, when I get back this evening
12:47 marcopg i.e. packages which works independently from the distribution
12:47 mchua thanks guys!
12:47 out
12:48 erikos what kind of support is that?
12:49 marcopg erikos: what do you mean with "support"?
12:49 erikos marcopg: you said that ;p
12:49 <marcopg> I'm more and more convinced we need to support .xo at some level
12:49 marcopg oh
12:49 erikos what exactly do you mean here
12:49 cjl CRC check fail.
12:49 erikos encourage authors to use it
12:49 marcopg I mean you should be able to install a .xo into any of the Sugar distributions
12:49 and have it working
12:50 erikos and that we don't currently?
12:50 marcopg I don't want Sugar to dictate a policy between self-contained-no-dependencies-bundles and standard packages
12:51 cjb erikos: not to the extent that they contain CPU-compiled code, at least
12:51 marcopg distributors and users will use what better fit their needs
12:51 erikos cjb: oh yeah i see
12:51 marcopg erikos: in theory, there are a bunch of problems with it though
12:51 cjb (and to the extent that they rely on system dependencies)
12:51 marcopg compiled code
12:51 but also we dont' have a consistent platform
12:51 so yeah dependencies
12:52 erikos well we need either an interface for install/update (that handles deps) or make them self contained
12:53 i guess
12:53 cjl you can't really make it so it know to yum here and apt-get there
12:53 marcopg consistent platform is a solvable problem, compiled code much less, but we might just decide to punt on that, for example
12:54 erikos: it's not just about installing, it's also about distributing
12:54 erikos: being able to just create a .xo and give it to everyone
12:54 erikos: is different than having to get your application in a distribution
12:54 erikos: same for modifications
12:54 this is getting way out of topic now :)
12:54 erikos marcopg: oh and we want to solve all that :)
12:55 yeah we can organize a conference for that subject
12:56 marcopg we are somewhat out of time
12:56 erikos it comes to action items now
12:56 marcopg should we come with some action and go through the other problems in the next meeting?
12:56 erikos yup
12:57 so i would argue that we call the testing team - bugsquad
12:57 from now on - to get rid of all the irritations
12:57 and clean up the wiki
12:58 marcopg I think it make sense
12:58 if we find that we need to actually do some testing
12:58 erikos we can add another team
12:58 marcopg we can always create another team or something
12:58 I guess I'm wondering which team deals with trac and policies
12:58 perhaps dev
12:59 or maybe triage
12:59 erikos triage i would say
12:59 so bugsquad
12:59 maybe in coordination with the dev team
12:59 marcopg yeah
13:00 Bugsquad is sort of a odd case about team naming
13:00 but I guess it's fine
13:00 BugTeam would seriously suck ;)
13:00 erikos #ACTION make BugSquad the team - clean up wiki (erikos)
13:01 marcopg: you need at least one odity
13:01 marcopg hehe
13:01 cjl re: automated testing check out the links off here, hmmmm   http://www.testingfaqs.org/
13:01 marcopg I guess that we try to reschedule the two points above for discussion next week
13:02 and we try to get mchua to participate
13:02 erikos which is activity testing, olpc, automated testing
13:02 marcopg should be an action?
13:02 oh automated testing
13:02 yeah
13:02 that one too
13:02 erikos #ACTION items for next week meeting: activity testing, olpc, automated testing
13:03 how do we call next week meeting then?
13:03 it is not a bugsquad meeting
13:03 lets use testing i guess
13:03 marcopg well
13:03 bugsquad deals with policies
13:04 erikos oh yeah the olpc case
13:04 marcopg and activities testing might fit in them, depending on the outcome of the discussion :)
13:04 automated testing is between dev and bugsquad I think
13:04 erikos eieiei
13:04 ok - lets call it a bugsquad meeting
13:04 marcopg it sort of fits in bugsquad I think
13:05 erikos even if we find out that we reject the items
13:05 marcopg other actions?
13:05 erikos not that i am aware of
13:05 marcopg we should try to get people interested in doing bugsquad work in next meeting
13:06 so that we can come up with a TODO there
13:06 cjl see also http://www.aptest.com/resources.html for pleasure reading about testing
13:07 erikos ok
13:07 so lets end the meeting here
13:07 5,4
13:07 marcopg I'm sort of worried that if we do activities, olpc and automated we will run out of time, though
13:07 erikos 3
13:07 2
13:07 marcopg and do no real bugsquad
13:07 erikos 2
13:07 2
13:07 marcopg hehe
13:07 feel free to close
13:07 this is next meeting org ;)
13:07 erikos 1.5
13:07 1
13:07 0
13:08 #ending
13:08 #close
13:08 #endmeeting

Index | Today | Next day »     Channels | Search | Join

Powered by ilbot/Modified.
Webmaster