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

[Petr Bena]

it's hard to make the project more reliable, when people don't report
troubles anywhere - we have a bugzilla for that


On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Petr Bena <benapetr at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20130204/6eafbe45/attachment-0001.html>