[Labs-l] Labs testing/bug triage (was "Bot cluster reliability issues")

[Petr Bena]

Can you move your bot to bots-bnr1 and report any packages to install via
bugzilla, if any? That will prevent any troubles.

All bots-N instances are for testing only


On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Ryan Lane <rlane at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:22 AM, Sumana Harihareswara <
> sumanah at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> It'd be good if there were a clear list of what the most serious issues
>> are, so I started looking in Bugzilla.
>>
>> I see that we have about 106 open issues in Bugzilla against various
>> components in Labs[0], including 43 non-enhancement bugs against
>> Infrastructure/General/Other[1].  Are those prioritized right now in
>> about the right priority, reflecting what Ryan and Andrew want to be
>> working on next?  Does the list need bug triage?  Since some of the bug
>> reports are several months old, would it be useful for someone to go
>> through and check old ones for reproducibility?
>>
>>
> We don't have a documented priority list, currently. Since it's only
> Andrew, Mike and myself and our general skillsets cover different things,
> we've been handling this on the fly.
>
> Mike has been doing bug wrangling, shell requests, project requests, etc.
> Andrew has been handling labsconsole interface bugs and general usability
> bugs as of late. I've been working on stabilization and performance
> improvements as of the last couple weeks.
>
> I've begun organizing bugs into projects:
>
> <
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Labs/Account_creation_improvement_project
> >
> <
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Labs/Instance_creation_improvement_project
> >
> <
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Labs/Interface_usability_improvement_project
> >
>
> In general we determine priority of the tasks ourselves and tackle the
> ones we think will have the most impact.
>
> Since we'll be adding a number of people into the mix soon, we should have
> a weekly meeting and start handling ticket triage in a saner way. I'm a fan
> of letting people determine priority themselves. If anyone has a concern
> that a specific bug isn't being addressed they should be raising a flag on
> the list and we'll discuss re-prioritization there, in-between meetings.
>
> For meetings themselves, I'd like to have open google+ hangouts, with the
> ability for all volunteers to join in and raise concerns.
>
> (And btw, when should we be reporting issues in the "General" component
>> versus "Infrastructure"?)
>>
>>
> General should be used if people don't know where to put a ticket.
> Infrastructure is for reporting bugs against things that affect all
> projects, like glusterfs or LDAP issues. A bug for adding replicated DB
> support, for instance, would go under Infrastructure.
>
> For bugs specific to bots or tool labs that don't affect other projects we
> should have a component for those bugs.
>
> - Ryan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Labs-l mailing list
> Labs-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/labs-l/attachments/20130204/8c81eea1/attachment.html>