<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:00:36
!startmeeting F40-blocker-review
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
16:00:37
Meeting started at 2024-03-25 16:00:36 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
16:00:37
The Meeting name is 'F40-blocker-review'
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:00:39
!topic Roll Call
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:00:42
who's around for blocker fun?
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
16:01:06
.hi
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
16:01:33
!hello
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:01:34
Geoffrey Marr (coremodule)
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:01:44
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:01:45
Brandon Nielsen (nielsenb)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:02:23
hi, fun lovers
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
16:02:42
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:02:43
Aoife Moloney (amoloney)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:53
wow, i guess everyone else just doesn't want any fun, huh
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:04:19
still, we only have three bugs to discuss and they have several in-ticket votes already, so we should be good
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
16:04:20
yeah, actually, I rescind my hello
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
16:04:28
they dont know what theyre missing :)
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
16:04:28
!goodbye
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:04:37
coremodule: i'm afraid this meeting works on the Hotel California principle
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
16:04:50
plz no
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:04:58
fun is mandatory
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:25
alllrighty, impending boilerplate alert. what's more fun than boilerplate?!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:27
!topic Introduction
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:30
Why are we here?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:33
!info Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:36
!info We'll be following the process outlined at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:38
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:42
!info The bugs up for review today are available at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:45
!link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:48
!info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:55
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:59
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Beta_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:01
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Final_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:06
!info for Final, we have:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:17
!info 3 Proposed Blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:20
!info 3 Accepted Blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:23
!info 1 Accepted Previous Release Blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:25
!info 1 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:34
who wants to secretarialize?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:07:10
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:07:11
František Zatloukal (frantisekz)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:07:37
I can handle the secretary stuff, but it'd be in a few hours after the meeting
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:23
i guess i'll just do it, since it's only three bugs
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:29
!info adamw will secretarialize
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:35
alrighty, let's get rolling
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:39
!topic Proposed Final blockers
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
16:08:49
oh sorry adamw, I was out of the office, I can do the three bugs, happily
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:56
it's fine, i've got it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:57
!topic (2270178) Monitor via Thunderbolt doesn't light up
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:01
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270178
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:04
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1531
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:06
!info Proposed Blocker, kernel, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:09
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-2) (-nielsenb, -geraldosimiao)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:11
!info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+1,0,-0) (+geraldosimiao)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:37
so far this feels a bit too hardware-specific to me
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:44
there's clearly a bug here, but is it one we should block release for? mm
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:11:00
hmm, I feel like -1 Final Blocker, you need to boot with the monitor connected for issue to occur, if I get it correctly
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:11:22
if it works fine with hot plug, seems more like a common issue?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:26
no
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:46
at least hot plugging the *dock* reproduces it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:51
which is the usual way of using a dock
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:11:56
mhm
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:07
but i'm still kinda -1 blocker. selfishly, because it doesn't affect my dock and my monitor. :P
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:12:58
😁😁😁
honestly, i have f39 on my primary laptop, but I didn't see this issue while validation testing on slimbook
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:13:06
I'll stay with -1
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:13:25
I remain -1, feels too hardware specific
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:14:16
ok
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:14:28
do we want to +1 FE?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:14:47
i think that'd be reasonable if the fix isn't too scary, you can certainly encounter this on live boot / first boot after install
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:14:49
we can wait / punt fe decision
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:15:01
depending on the fix looks
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:15:17
I have some trepidation because I don't think it's even clear where the fix will be
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:15:34
Kernel "probably" I guess?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:44
true
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:17:05
proposed !agreed 2270178 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected on the grounds that it appears to be fairly specific in impact. There's clearly a bug here, but equally clearly it's not affecting even every similar 'external Thunderbolt display' configuration. So it's hard to argue that it violates any criteria sufficiently to be a blocker. We reserve judgment on FE status till it's clearer how dangerous the fix may be
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:17:16
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:17:17
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:18:56
coremodule: Aoife Moloney ahoy, you don't look like you're having the mandatory minimum levels of fun
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
16:19:15
fack
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
16:19:18
as in fun ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:30
!agreed 2270178 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected on the grounds that it appears to be fairly specific in impact. There's clearly a bug here, but equally clearly it's not affecting even every similar 'external Thunderbolt display' configuration. So it's hard to argue that it violates any criteria sufficiently to be a blocker. We reserve judgment on FE status till it's clearer how dangerous the fix may be
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:37
!topic (2270209) Firmware RAID set not usable in anaconda when booting native UEFI: "ERROR:blivet:failed to determine name for the md array a7ff7f19-f142-4329-6b52-1dbafa835906"
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:40
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270209
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:42
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1533
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:45
!info Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, ASSIGNED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:48
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-1) (-nielsenb)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:50
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+2,0,-0) (+geraldosimiao, +ngompa)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:20:10
so this felt like i kinda had to at least propose it as a blocker, but i'm not sure where my vote is. for a start it'd be good to know how specific it is to my test system
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:20:55
i believe we (as Brno qe folks) did some raid testing without an issue
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:21:02
did you boot UEFI, though?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:21:28
i only saw this because I happened to boot my test system UEFI (which i'm more likely to do now it's no longer affected by https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/c/ask/common-issues/82/none )
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:21:32
i am not sure here, i didn't do the testing
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:05
i only saw this because I happened to boot my test system UEFI (which i'm more likely to do now it's no longer affected by https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2113005 )
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:14
ok, would be good to try that
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:22:30
lruzicka: did you do bios or efi?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:23:43
i'm probably 0 until we know more, either from blivet end or through wider testing
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:24:03
yeah, sound alrighty
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:24:13
0/punt FB
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:24:39
I'm okay with a punt
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:24:47
If you made me vote today, I'm still -1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:26:15
proposed !agreed 2270209 - punt (delay decision) - it's hard to make a call on this without knowing how hardware-specific it is. We will delay the decision and hope to get more information either from testing on other systems or from diagnosis from the blivet end
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
16:26:21
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:26:25
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:26:58
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:28:00
!agreed 2270209 - punt (delay decision) - it's hard to make a call on this without knowing how hardware-specific it is. We will delay the decision and hope to get more information either from testing on other systems or from diagnosis from the blivet end
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:28:08
!topic (2269343) After update wireplumber to 0.4.90+ only headset mic is working when I connect bluetooth headset
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:28:11
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2269343
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:28:13
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1518
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:28:15
!info Proposed Blocker, wireplumber, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:28:17
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-2) (-geraldosimiao, -nielsenb)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:28:33
yeah, feels kinda -1 to me. it sucks that your bluetooth headset doesn't work, it's not serious enough to delay a release for
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:29:34
_My_ bluetooth headset works, so I'm not blocking
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
16:29:46
I agree with this, can't find an applicable criterion to block on.
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:29:48
At least my crappy one, haven't tried with a halfway decent one
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
16:29:48
-1 blocker.
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:30:22
FinalBlocker -1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:30:33
hmm, seems to be more diagnosis going on upstream
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:30:37
anyhoo
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:30:56
hah, and my old buddy fcrozat is on the upstream bug. i love randomly running into people on git forges
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:31:24
yeah, -1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:54
proposed !agreed 2269343 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - while this is an unfortunate bug, it doesn't seem to violate any of the release criteria. The closest relevant criterion is "The installed system must be able to record audio using the default web browser (if applicable) and gstreamer-based applications", but this is way too specialized a violation of that to really block the release on
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:32:01
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:32:05
ack
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
16:32:08
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:32:09
hmm, that's an awkward text
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:32:11
let me reword that
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:32:18
You found an upstream bug?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:32:30
proposed !agreed 2269343 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - the closest relevant criterion is "The installed system must be able to record audio using the default web browser (if applicable) and gstreamer-based applications", but this is way too specialized a violation of that to really block the release on
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:32:37
there, we can just drop that first-draft sentence. :D
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:32:42
Brandon Nielsen: sure, it's linked in the bug report
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:32:45
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pipewire/wireplumber/-/issues/598
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
16:32:51
still ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:32:57
seems liek https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pipewire/wireplumber/-/merge_requests/620 claims to fix it
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:33:30
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:33:40
I'm missing it...
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
16:33:43
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:33:54
Brandon Nielsen: there's a "links" section above the comments
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:34:03
!agreed 2269343 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - the closest relevant criterion is "The installed system must be able to record audio using the default web browser (if applicable) and gstreamer-based applications", but this is way too specialized a violation of that to really block the release on
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:34:14
aaaand...I believe that's all!
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:34:15
Oh, there's a specific "links" section now
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:34:21
Neat, I guess...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:34:26
it's been there for years
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:34:32
(though the status sync has never entirely worked)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:34:37
!topic Open floor
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:34:48
the accepted blockers are being worked on, I guess
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:35:35
any other business?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
16:36:05
none from me
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:36:21
Nothing here
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:36:36
alllllrighty, I guess we're all done here
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:36:39
thanks for coming out, folks
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:37:06
!endmeeting