16:00:46 <adamw> #startmeeting Fedora 13 Alpha blocker bug meeting #2
16:00:46 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Feb 12 16:00:46 2010 UTC.  The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:47 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:54 <adamw> #topic blockerbug
16:01:00 <adamw> grr
16:01:39 <adamw> #topic welcome
16:01:43 <adamw> who's around?
16:01:52 * akia is here
16:01:53 <jlaska> I'm here ... finishing up another meeting
16:03:00 <adamw> well, let's dive in I guess
16:03:24 <adamw> working off https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=538273&hide_resolved=1
16:03:37 <adamw> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=555526
16:04:24 <adamw> this seems like something that should be fixed quickly (as it may be breaking the build of several packages), but I don't see why it should block the alpha
16:04:51 <akia> well...
16:04:57 <adamw> if there was an alpha-blocking bug in another package that couldn't be rebuilt because of this bug, maybe it would indirectly block it, but otherwise...
16:07:32 <akia> does anybody know why it's an alpha-blocking bug?
16:07:47 <adamw> doesn't seem to have been any rationale provided
16:08:16 <adamw> set by the reporter, on feb 10th
16:09:24 <adamw> he's a packager, it seems, but I can't find an IRC nick for him
16:09:54 <adamw> jlaska: any opinion on this one?
16:10:32 <jlaska> my other meeting just ended. I'm back now
16:10:38 <jlaska> reading ..
16:11:46 <jlaska> I don't have context on this one
16:11:56 <jlaska> shall we request more info, then move it?
16:12:03 * maxamillion is kinda here (late ... of course) :/
16:12:06 <jlaska> (if appropriate)
16:12:07 <adamw> heya maxa
16:12:13 * jlaska tips hat
16:12:21 <maxamillion> hi hi
16:12:26 <adamw> yeah I think we can drop it from the blocker list with a note to re-add it with rationale if desired
16:12:29 <maxamillion> adamw: I don't see why that's an alpha blocker
16:12:52 <adamw> okay
16:12:59 <adamw> who wants to be Bug Secretary For The Day?
16:13:15 <adamw> (do all the bug updates that we agree on)
16:13:36 * maxamillion *would* volunteer, but is trying to multitask with $dayjob tasks and would probably miss things
16:13:50 <adamw> i'll do it then :)
16:13:53 <jlaska> adamw: I'll be happy to take a few, not fast enough to take all
16:13:57 <jlaska> I'll grab this one
16:14:16 <adamw> #agreed 555526 will be dropped from the blocker list as there's no clear reason why it should block alpha release, it does not meet any criteria
16:14:42 <adamw> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=557386
16:14:49 <adamw> this is the abrt-borkage bug we discussed last week
16:14:58 <adamw> it's in progress atm
16:15:31 <adamw> i've just pinged jmoskovc for an update
16:16:42 <maxamillion> that one could be seen as an alpha blocker but might not be ... where are the alpha requirements again?
16:16:51 <adamw> maxamillion: we already went over it last week and decided it was
16:18:13 <maxamillion> ah ok, sorry ... I must have missed that one :(
16:18:38 <adamw> jmoskovc says he expects to have it done in time for alpha
16:19:00 <adamw> no action needed here I think...
16:19:32 <jlaska> so it stays where it lays
16:20:11 <adamw> #agreed 557386 is being worked and should be done in time according to jmoskovc, no action needed
16:20:26 <adamw> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=558318
16:20:38 <adamw> tech33 kindly provided a couple of nouveau bugs for us :)
16:20:49 <jlaska> yay!
16:20:54 <adamw> i think he intended to be around to discuss them but he's not, so I'll do my best...
16:21:35 <adamw> okay, few problems with this: we don't know how many systems it affects (historically we haven't added single-adapter 'x fail' bugs as blockers) and it's on f12, not rawhide
16:22:12 <akia> i agree...
16:22:28 <adamw> three, it doesn't actually appear to be fatal, just a failure to clear the screen which shouldn't really be a problem except gdm apparently has a bug too. so it's workaround-able by not using gdm, I guess
16:22:32 <Oxf13> I'mhere
16:22:34 <Oxf13> sorry for being late
16:22:36 <adamw> hi oxf13
16:23:32 <akia> ...so it's not critical
16:23:56 <adamw> yeah
16:24:17 <adamw> so i'm leaning towards dropping this for now with an explanation, we could ask if the reporter feels like testing with an f13 nightly
16:24:48 <maxamillion> +1 on dropping
16:24:53 <akia> good idea
16:25:14 <adamw> okay, let's do that
16:25:39 <adamw> #agreed 558318 does not seem to meet blocker criteria for now, it's against 12, seems to have an unlisted workaround, we don't know that it affects more than one user
16:25:55 <adamw> #agreed 558318 will be dropped from list with explanation and request for further testing
16:27:56 <adamw> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=560444
16:28:01 <adamw> here's the other one tech33 provided
16:29:41 <adamw> again, doesn't meet the criteria for me - 12, single system, not even a function we've traditionally considered blocker-y in the past
16:29:47 <jlaska> just for me ... suspend to disk is also known as hibernate, right?
16:29:54 <Oxf13> yes
16:29:57 <adamw> i should mention to tech33 that we usually set suspend bugs as medium not high, actually
16:30:00 <adamw> not quite
16:30:03 <jlaska> Oxf13: thx!
16:30:03 <adamw> oh right yes
16:30:08 <maxamillion> +1 for dropping as alpha blocker
16:30:09 <adamw> there's lots of words :)
16:30:21 <adamw> 'suspend' = 'sleep' = 'write everything to RAM and shut down'
16:30:26 <adamw> 'suspend to disk' =
16:30:30 <maxamillion> (not even sure if we're supposed to be doing the "+1 system" right now ... just kinda going with it)
16:30:35 <adamw> 'hibernate' = write everything to disk and shut down'
16:30:38 <adamw> +1 is fine
16:30:44 <maxamillion> rgr
16:30:51 <akia> not a blocker bug :)
16:31:06 <jlaska> #idea Do we need suspend/hibernate coverage on the release criteria?
16:31:14 <adamw> #agreed 560444 does not meet blocker criteria, single-system and in a function (suspend) we don't usually consider blocking alpha
16:31:21 <adamw> jlaska: it may be worth explicitly mentioning, yeah
16:31:22 <Oxf13> suspend yes, not sure about hibernate, but probably
16:31:35 <Oxf13> coverage yes, blocking for alpha no.  Blocking for beta is a more interesting question
16:31:56 <jlaska> don't mean to derail things, just wanted to toss that in as food for thought
16:32:34 <adamw> Oxf13: traditionally we haven't even blocked final for single-system suspend bugs
16:32:52 <adamw> i think a bug which broke suspend for everyone would be worth blocking final and possibly beta for, but that's about it...
16:33:14 <akia> adamw: good to know
16:33:17 <jlaska> yeah, it certainly touches on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Blocker_Bug_FAQ#What_about_hardware_and_local_configuration_dependent_issues.3F
16:33:24 <Oxf13> adamw: single system correct, it'd have to be more systemic
16:33:48 <adamw> yeah, it's a hardware-dependent grey area thing
16:34:02 <adamw> but we could put a little more explicit reasoning in there to help explain
16:35:07 <adamw> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=560477
16:35:47 <adamw> I recall we discussed this one last week and the action was just to make sure the fix got into a build
16:35:51 <adamw> seems like no-one's tested yet
16:36:05 <adamw> should be pretty simple to test
16:36:13 <adamw> anyone want to volunteer to test it and close this off?
16:36:57 * jlaska raises hand
16:37:04 <adamw> yay
16:37:14 <jlaska> I'll test the updates.img, but will hold off on closing until it's in the next build
16:37:18 <adamw> #action jlaska to test the fix for 560477 and close off bug (assuming it's fixed)
16:37:31 <adamw> #agreed 560477 just needs to be tested and confirmed fixed
16:38:05 <adamw> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=562209
16:38:38 <adamw> this was discussed and accepted as a blocker last week, looks like installer folk are working on it
16:39:17 <adamw> i've pinged clumens but he's listed as away right now
16:39:48 <jlaska> I don't know if we're closer on this ... kamil is looking for ways to reproduce this outside of anaconda (or inside but with more debugging)
16:39:51 <Oxf13> jlaska: were you able to reproduce?
16:40:07 <Oxf13> this certainly needs a re-test once I get new images in place
16:40:13 <jlaska> right on
16:40:22 <jlaska> it's easy to reproduce using previous images
16:40:27 <jlaska> just boot the boot.iso and try to install
16:40:34 <Oxf13> oh, clumens said you couldn't reproduce
16:40:45 <adamw> yeah, so it might be worth clarifying that
16:40:48 <jlaska> ah ... he posted a procedure to try to reproduce outside the installer
16:40:58 <jlaska> I tried that procedure, and it didn't reproduce the issue as we thought
16:41:09 <jlaska> sorry, mixed it up there
16:42:16 <adamw> ah, ok.
16:42:23 <jlaska> so I still think this affects the alpha rel. crit.
16:42:28 <adamw> yeah
16:42:34 <adamw> i'm not sure what action we can take
16:42:37 <adamw> besides cracking the big whip
16:42:44 <jlaska> we'll certainly get updated test results on this in the coming week
16:44:08 <adamw> ok
16:44:18 <adamw> #agreed jlaska will continue to track and provide testing for 562209
16:44:39 <adamw> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563212
16:44:53 <adamw> i threw this one in there, it's an intel bug which broke the driver for rather a lot of users
16:44:57 <adamw> should already be fixed in -4, though
16:45:03 <jlaska> oh nice
16:45:35 <adamw> just set to modified and asked people to test with -4
16:46:08 <adamw> don't think there's any other action here
16:46:35 <adamw> move on?
16:47:08 <jlaska> yeah
16:47:18 <adamw> #agreed 563212 is likely fixed in -4, set to modified and await testing results
16:47:32 <adamw> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563348
16:47:56 <adamw> this is the bug that broke rawhide boot because the syslogger wouldn't come up, heh
16:48:06 <akia> the patch seems to work...
16:48:32 <adamw> yeah, and -6 has gone through koji
16:48:33 <adamw> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=155653
16:48:43 <adamw> so we can set this MODIFIED and ask people to test and confirm, I guess
16:49:18 <akia> yes
16:49:44 <adamw> anything else?
16:49:58 <jlaska> this is the issue many folks were hitting on the list yesterday right?
16:50:05 <Oxf13> yes
16:50:14 <Oxf13> and what was thought to be the original cause of our installer woes
16:51:54 <jlaska> adamw: can't think of anything else ... Oxf13's undup'd issue is being tracked elsewhere on the list
16:52:04 <adamw> no, i just meant on this issue :)
16:52:15 <Oxf13> none here
16:52:22 <adamw> #agreed 563348 is a blocker, fix is going through rawhide, set to MODIFIED and ask for retesting
16:52:30 <jlaska> http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=anaconda.git;a=commit;h=e8cdfc480ccec62cfb2b70598dd792bbab43a1b2
16:52:34 <jlaska> looks like it's in
16:52:45 <jlaska> this does bring up a question, but will raise outside this meeting
16:53:35 <adamw> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=564103
16:53:58 <adamw> new one from jlaska, smells like a blocker to me, yeah
16:54:33 <jlaska> yeah, I think this hits one of the criteria pretty good
16:54:36 <jlaska> I listed it at the end
16:54:43 <jlaska> "#  The installed system must be able to download and install updates with
16:54:46 <jlaska> yum and PackageKit "
16:55:03 <adamw> yeah
16:55:24 <Oxf13> I was going to look into this one with the new images and see what's failing here, but well the new images failed
16:55:48 <Oxf13> so I'm in full agreement that this is a blocker.  It's indicative that something is going wrong with the @core and @base group installs
16:55:54 <akia> definitely a blocker bug...
16:55:55 <Oxf13> and there is likely worse fallout
16:56:16 <jlaska> Oxf13: clumens indicated he found out what the problem was in a message earlier
16:56:21 <Oxf13> oh!
16:56:22 <adamw> so, action here?
16:56:23 <jlaska> but I haven't circled back with him yet
16:57:14 <jlaska> adamw: re: action, I don't think so  ... just some devel time to assess the issue and work up a patch?
16:57:16 <Oxf13> k, so this one just waits for input
16:57:49 <Oxf13> now we have at least a couple reasons to want a new anaconda today
16:57:50 <adamw> ok
16:58:08 <adamw> #agreed 564103 constitutes a blocker, action currently on development team for investigation
16:58:32 <adamw> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=564213
16:58:47 <adamw> so this is the installer version of the syslog bug?
16:59:24 <Oxf13> yep
16:59:45 <adamw> so not much discussion needed really
17:00:01 <Oxf13> I debugged, sent a patch, and committed the patch today
17:00:26 <adamw> ok
17:00:42 <jlaska> Oxf13: full service baby!
17:00:45 <adamw> #agreed 564213 is a blocker, oxf13 has prepared and committed a patch, next action is to confirm fix in a new anaconda build
17:01:02 <adamw> ...and bang on one hour, we're through the list
17:01:02 <adamw> nice
17:01:15 <jlaska> adamw: well done
17:01:43 <Oxf13> So I'm going to wait for a new anaconda and then do a TC.1
17:01:56 <jlaska> Oxf13: okay
17:02:14 <adamw> sounds good
17:02:26 <adamw> anyone have any other bugs to discuss that weren't on the list?
17:02:33 <akia> nope
17:03:01 <jlaska> I have a few new ones that came out of the RATS#3 drop
17:03:07 <jlaska> but I don't believe those are Alpha blockers
17:03:11 <jlaska> more edge cases
17:03:25 <jlaska> so nothing from me
17:03:29 <adamw> ok
17:03:54 <adamw> let's call it a day then!
17:03:58 <adamw> thanks for helping, everyone
17:04:45 <jlaska> thanks for leading Adam :)
17:06:03 <adamw> #endmeeting