Reading the meeting summary, I learned about the [off] directive the hard way. Is there a irc-etiquette for dummies somewhere that handles ASFBot and other things newbees should know?
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:55 PM, ASF IRC Services < asf...@wilderness.apache.org> wrote: > Members present: Animesh, sudhap, dahn, topcloud, kelveny, chipc, ke4qqq, > jzb > > ---------------- > Meeting summary: > ---------------- > > 1. Preface > > 2. Active Feature Release: Overall Status > > 3. Active Feature Release QA Status > > 4. Active Feature Release: Doc Status > > 5. Active Feature Release: Additional Issues > > 6. Active Bug Fix Release: 4.1.1 > > 7. Master Branch > > 8. Infra > > 9. Other topics? > > IRC log follows: > > > # 1. Preface # > > > # 2. Active Feature Release: Overall Status # > 17:09:36 [jzb]: what do we have on the 4.2.0 status? > 17:09:43 [dahn]: chipc: thanks, will read it > 17:09:56 [kelveny]: we are targeting to merge vmsync branch > 17:09:56 [Animesh]: On 4.2 there are many open defects > 17:10:04 [Animesh]: kelven go ahead > 17:10:25 [kelveny]: code changes is targeted to complete by the end of > this week > 17:10:42 [kelveny]: after that official merge request will be sent to the > list > 17:11:06 [kelveny]: actually merge may happen at next week if no objections > 17:11:26 [chipc]: kelveny: I'm curious about what testing is happening on > that branch > 17:11:44 [ke4qqq]: BVT at least? > 17:11:51 [kelveny]: we will try to setup BVT test on the branch > 17:12:16 [chipc]: that seems like a pre-requisite to merge, when I look at > the complexity of the work > 17:12:22 [chipc]: so +1 to that! > 17:12:41 [kelveny]: most of infrastructure tests are already done through > unit tests > 17:13:18 [chipc]: sweet! > 17:13:38 [kelveny]: but we do have refactoring changes in areas that is > not possible for unit test, will rely on BVT for integration test > 17:13:43 [chipc]: BTW - that's a really good FS... it made it possible to > grok the changes > 17:13:58 [chipc]: (or at least most of them) > 17:15:13 [kelveny]: that's pretty much the update from my side > 17:15:21 [jzb]: thanks kelveny > 17:15:28 [jzb]: Animesh: did you have more? > 17:15:56 [Animesh]: yes the defect resolution rate has been more than the > incoming defects so looks like we are getting better > 17:16:39 [Animesh]: but still we have large number of open defects, Sudha > will also share test results to help everyone guage our readiness > 17:17:37 [dahn]: newbee question about defects, please > 17:17:58 [Animesh]: dahn: sure what's the question? > 17:18:14 [dahn]: If i use an api in master, and it breaks after an update > do I report a defect in jira ? > 17:18:22 [dahn]: or talk to someone off line > 17:18:27 [dahn]: or the list? > 17:18:40 [Animesh]: filing a defect is best > 17:18:53 [jzb]: dahn: is it an API that also works in a release? > 17:19:11 [jzb]: I wouldn't necessarily say something's a defect if an API > changes in master. > 17:19:17 [jzb]: that isn't in a release. > 17:19:35 [dahn]: jzb: I have to investigate. I think so > 17:19:43 [dahn]: Animesh: does that mean jira?\ > 17:19:54 [jzb]: dahn: OK. then what Animesh said. :-) > 17:19:59 [Animesh]: dahn: yes we use JIRA for defect tracking > 17:20:00 [topcloud]: that should be a bug. comparing it to a previous > release provides details to a bug. > 17:20:21 [topcloud]: we shouldn't treat master different. > 17:20:49 [dahn]: thanks, all > 17:20:56 [dahn]: you will hear of me > 17:22:13 [Animesh]: continuing on the release, I will encourage folks to > check on 4.2 Release dashboard > 17:22:44 [Animesh]: I will send out my weekly reminder today on status and > include Sudha's test results > 17:23:28 [topcloud]: one thing that concerns me is that the bvt continues > to be at < 100% pass rate > 17:23:41 [topcloud]: is there anything we're doing about this? > 17:23:47 [Animesh]: After the feature freeze date 6/28 i will send out > daily emails since we need focused activity to resolve and close our back > log of defects > 17:24:44 [Animesh]: topcloud: on bvt issues rayees and other have been > filing defects that are triaged daily > 17:25:20 [chipc]: topcloud: was BVT ever at 100% ? > 17:25:32 [chipc]: (real question, not sarcasm) > 17:25:44 [topcloud]: chipc: to my understanding, it was at one point >95% > 17:26:17 [sudhap]: Yes - they were 100% before 4.1 but since then we never > had 100% > 17:26:41 [chipc]: once we get it back to 100%, I say we block all changes > when it drops to <100% > 17:26:49 [topcloud]: +1 > 17:26:56 [chipc]: anyway, that was a distraction from the 4.2.0 topic > 17:26:59 [chipc]: (sort of) > 17:27:25 [jzb]: anything else on 4.2.0 overall status? > 17:27:37 [topcloud]: not really...I think bvt not being at 100% is a big > part of why 4.1 was delayed. > 17:27:42 [topcloud]: don't want to see it happen for 4.2. > 17:28:07 [Animesh]: agreed bvt also shows progress towards release readines > 17:28:07 [chipc]: topcloud: +1 > 17:28:32 [chipc]: Animesh: BVT should show that master is stable, > regardless of release timeframes > 17:28:33 [chipc]: IMO that is > 17:28:44 [chipc]: master should only see good /tested code > 17:28:56 [chipc]: but I'm repeating myself I think... so back to the > corner for me! > 17:28:57 [Animesh]: one more thing on my side was we had a GTM on > object_store, john burwell took the action item to update the dev-list > 17:29:23 [jzb]: OK > > > # 3. Active Feature Release QA Status # > 17:29:59 [jzb]: do we need to touch on more w/r/t QA or have we hit on > that already? > 17:30:01 [jzb]: sudhap: ? > 17:30:14 [sudhap]: I am preparing test plan execution summary > 17:30:39 [sudhap]: will post it - which should show how much % of existing > tests are being covered and feature wise quality status ( based on pass > rates) > 17:30:43 [sudhap]: will post it soon > 17:30:56 [sudhap]: I have sent compatibility matrix for review > 17:31:02 [sudhap]: pl do review > 17:31:58 [dahn]: sudhap: this is regarding manual testing? > 17:32:04 [sudhap]: Those are 2 topics and I guess automation has been > covered already > 17:32:17 [sudhap]: dahn: Yes > 17:32:42 [sudhap]: Regression pass rates are very poor (for automation) > 17:32:48 [sudhap]: working to get those also up > 17:33:07 [sudhap]: jzb: I am done > 17:33:38 [jzb]: groovy - anything else on QA, folks? > > > # 4. Active Feature Release: Doc Status # > 17:34:34 [jzb]: we have a ton of unresolved bugs for docs in 4.2.0 right > now > 17:34:36 [jzb]: 90, in fact > 17:34:59 [jzb]: only 17 are unassigned, though > 17:35:31 [jzb]: I still need to start a thread on separating out the docs > into their own repo. > 17:35:37 [jzb]: mea culpa, have not started that yet. > 17:35:43 [jzb]: anything else on docs? > 17:36:16 [jzb]: OK > > > # 5. Active Feature Release: Additional Issues # > 17:36:41 [jzb]: any additional issues we need to discuss on 4.2.0 that we > haven't hit on yet? Otherwise I'll move on to the 4.1.1 stuff > > > # 6. Active Bug Fix Release: 4.1.1 # > 17:37:53 [chipc]: ok, so serverchief noted that he's going to be limited > for time for 4.1.1 > 17:37:57 [chipc]: so I'm taking it > 17:38:30 [chipc]: I'm preparing all of the release version numbers and > whatnot within the 4.1 branch now (updating from 4.1.0-SNAPSHOT to > 4.1.1-SNAP, etc..) > 17:38:41 [chipc]: probably wrap that up today or tomorrow > 17:38:55 [jzb]: chipc: do you need any help with that? > 17:39:14 [chipc]: if you feel like doing the /docs folder update? > 17:39:26 [jzb]: ah, yes. Will do. > 17:39:33 [chipc]: rock > 17:39:58 [chipc]: we're going to kick out 4.1.1 rather quickly, just to > get some critical ones knocked out... so limited regression testing is > going to be required... > 17:40:11 [chipc]: then I'll hand back off to Ilya for a 4.1.2 > 17:40:12 [chipc]: that's it! > 17:40:30 [jzb]: sweet - thanks, chipc > 17:40:42 [jzb]: anything else for 4.1.1 ? > > > # 7. Master Branch # > 17:41:13 [jzb]: anything related to the master branch we need to discuss? > 17:41:23 [chipc]: jzb: I suspect that we did that already with 4.2 > 17:41:28 [jzb]: yeah > 17:41:30 [chipc]: since the release branch hasn't been cut > > > # 8. Infra # > 17:41:52 [jzb]: any Infra topics we need to chat about today? > 17:42:04 [chipc]: other than the fact that git's back ;-) > 17:42:11 [jzb]: that *will* be helpful > 17:42:14 [chipc]: ha > 17:42:17 [chipc]: yes > 17:42:23 [topcloud]: yea! > 17:42:29 [dahn]: not for a stable master it won't > 17:42:49 [dahn]: (not today that is) > 17:43:07 [chipc]: dahn: ha > 17:43:20 [chipc]: dahn: I like you already > 17:43:21 [chipc]: ;-) > 17:43:23 [dahn]: sorry for the sarcasm > 17:43:27 [topcloud]: sorry...to bring back this topic but is bvt running > on apache infra? > 17:43:35 [chipc]: no > 17:43:57 [topcloud]: chipc: is there any talk about bringing it into > apache infra? > 17:44:09 [dahn]: jzb: we all have our faults > 17:44:17 [topcloud]: i can't imagine apache wanting bvt to only run inside > citrix all the time. > 17:44:28 [chipc]: topcloud: not that I'm aware of... but there has been > some chatter about breaking more stuff back out of the overloaded asf build > infra > 17:44:59 [chipc]: topcloud: the problem is that they aren't setup for that > type of thing > 17:45:05 [chipc]: and by apache, you mean us in this case > 17:45:18 [chipc]: the project is free to use what we need to get on with > our business in many respects > 17:45:29 [topcloud]: chipc: yes. i mean us as oppose to having it housed > in citrix. > 17:46:15 [chipc]: topcloud: we would have to ask for some improved build > infra... Perhaps we start a thread to discuss that. Or have someone > broach the question on builds@a.o > 17:46:27 [chipc]: but generally, the ASF build infra is a bit overloaded > 17:46:51 [jzb]: topcloud: when you say "in Citrix" - it's still visible > outside Citrix, yes? > 17:46:52 [chipc]: so frankly, CTXS donating an environment to run it, > publicly visible to everyone, is quite helpful > 17:46:58 [chipc]: jzb: it is > 17:47:18 [chipc]: actually, I think it is... > 17:47:34 [topcloud]: jzb: yeah it's still visible but it really should be > runnable by everyone. > 17:47:37 [jzb]: I'm all for building up Apache infra, but I also think > having vendors donate publicly visible resources that are usable by the > community is acceptable. > 17:47:53 [jzb]: in fact, we probably ought to be hitting up some of our > ISP friends for more. > 17:47:55 [topcloud]: jzb: right now i think only citrix folks can run it. > i appreciate it but we shouldn't rely on it. > 17:48:27 [jzb]: topcloud: hrm. Yeah, that's non-optimal, then. > 17:48:33 [topcloud]: jzb: to me donating has to mean community can have > control of it. > 17:48:44 [jzb]: topcloud: agreed > 17:48:53 [chipc]: topcloud: so then the question is, what are the hardware > requirements... and we can work from there > 17:49:28 [chipc]: topcloud: and if we have that, we can start fishing for > infra > 17:49:49 [ke4qqq]: so tsp (along with abayer and roman) are working on a > publicly accessible jenkins instance in fremont > 17:49:59 [chipc]: rock > 17:49:59 [chipc]: ok > 17:50:17 [chipc]: builds.a.o 2.0 > 17:50:19 [chipc]: ;-) > 17:50:47 [jzb]: anything else on Infra? > 17:51:27 [topcloud]: let's take this to the list. i don't think we can > actually resolve it here. > 17:51:33 [ke4qqq]: we can't > 17:51:47 [ke4qqq]: so good idea to take to the list > > > # 9. Other topics? # > 17:54:04 [jzb]: Any other topics we should discuss this week? > 17:54:21 [chipc]: not from me > 17:55:17 [jzb]: thanks folks. Same time next week! > 17:55:23 [jzb]: ASFBot: meeting end > >
