2025-08-25 16:00:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !startmeeting F43-blocker-review
2025-08-25 16:00:21 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2025-08-25 16:00:20 UTC
2025-08-25 16:00:21 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'F43-blocker-review'
2025-08-25 16:00:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Roll Call
2025-08-25 16:00:51 <@snowyyd:fedora.im> !hi
2025-08-25 16:00:52 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Agustín P (snowyyd) - he / him / his
2025-08-25 16:01:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hi!
2025-08-25 16:02:17 <@pboy:fedora.im> !hi
2025-08-25 16:02:18 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Peter Boy (pboy)
2025-08-25 16:02:21 <@derekenz:fedora.im> !hi
2025-08-25 16:02:22 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Derek Enz (derekenz)
2025-08-25 16:02:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !hi
2025-08-25 16:02:27 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2025-08-25 16:02:28 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Adam Williamson (adamwill) - he / him / his
2025-08-25 16:02:29 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2025-08-25 16:03:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> impending boilerplate alert!
2025-08-25 16:03:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_43_Beta_Release_Criteria
2025-08-25 16:03:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
2025-08-25 16:03:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The bugs up for review today are available at:
2025-08-25 16:03:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
2025-08-25 16:03:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
2025-08-25 16:03:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
2025-08-25 16:03:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_43_Final_Release_Criteria
2025-08-25 16:03:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info We'll be following the process outlined at:
2025-08-25 16:03:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !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.
2025-08-25 16:03:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Why are we here?
2025-08-25 16:03:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Introduction
2025-08-25 16:03:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info for Beta, we have two proposed blockers and two proposed FEs
2025-08-25 16:04:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info for Final, we have two proposed blockers
2025-08-25 16:04:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> does anyone want to secretarialize?
2025-08-25 16:05:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, guess I'll do it
2025-08-25 16:05:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info adamw will secretarialize
2025-08-25 16:05:24 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> !hi
2025-08-25 16:05:25 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Christopher Boni (boniboyblue)
2025-08-25 16:05:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> let's get started with:
2025-08-25 16:05:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Proposed Beta blockers
2025-08-25 16:05:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1878
2025-08-25 16:05:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2389105) blivet-gui only show one disk from a mdraid device which was created on two disks
2025-08-25 16:05:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, blivet-gui, NEW
2025-08-25 16:05:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2389105
2025-08-25 16:07:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> does the screencast work for anyone else?
2025-08-25 16:08:16 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> Yeah - I can see it.
2025-08-25 16:08:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> huh, doesn't work here.
2025-08-25 16:09:32 <@snowyyd:fedora.im> The direct link, if anyone is interested: https://bugzilla-attachments.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2103997
2025-08-25 16:10:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, i got it now
2025-08-25 16:10:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> mmm. well, this is probably the whole 'plan then apply' design, right? the raid set isn't really *gone* yet...
2025-08-25 16:10:35 <@pboy:fedora.im> Wondering about the UI, looks not like the Blivet I remember form my yesterday install
2025-08-25 16:11:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> looks like normal 'advanced custom' blivet-gui to me
2025-08-25 16:11:41 <@pboy:fedora.im> in the advanced UI I had a left column with all the devices condigured so far.
2025-08-25 16:11:58 <@pboy:fedora.im> It looks like the custom conf
2025-08-25 16:12:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i guess we might want someone else to experiment with this
2025-08-25 16:12:46 <@pboy:fedora.im> I can do this, I'll have to do it for server anyway 
2025-08-25 16:13:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i will too
2025-08-25 16:15:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2389105 - punt (delay decision) - we're going to punt this one for other folks to test and see if they can reproduce, and if it's new in f43
2025-08-25 16:15:17 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> Upstream seems to have MR with a fix: https://github.com/storaged-project/blivet-gui/pull/502
2025-08-25 16:15:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, well spotted
2025-08-25 16:16:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ah, and that mentions "MD arrays created directly on top of disks", which may be significant
2025-08-25 16:16:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> that is, arrays created directly on disks, not created from disk *partitions*
2025-08-25 16:16:33 <@pboy:fedora.im> Yeah, that's a new feature
2025-08-25 16:18:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, do we want to go with the punt or accept this as a blocker or fe based on the understanding from the proposed fix?
2025-08-25 16:19:33 <@pboy:fedora.im> I think we should accept it for now and look after it, when the fix is applied.
2025-08-25 16:20:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, we need votes :D
2025-08-25 16:20:47 <@pboy:fedora.im> +1 for accept   :-)
2025-08-25 16:20:56 <@derekenz:fedora.im> +1
2025-08-25 16:21:12 <@snowyyd:fedora.im> I agree, +1
2025-08-25 16:21:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok
2025-08-25 16:21:25 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> +1
2025-08-25 16:21:51 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1
2025-08-25 16:22:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2389105 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of the Beta criterion "When using both the installer-native and the blivet-gui-based custom partitioning flow on the GTK-based installer, and the Cockpit-based "storage editor" flow on the webui-based installer, the installer must be able to:  ... Correctly interpret, and modify as described below, any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table containing ext4 partitions, LVM and/or btrfs volumes, and/or software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions"
2025-08-25 16:23:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> say 'ack' if the proposal looks accurate, 'nack' or 'patch' if not - this is meant to be a correctness check, since there were times in the past when i made booboos :D
2025-08-25 16:23:22 <@supakeen:fedora.im> That criterion says specifically that the raid arrays consist of ext4 partitions; but that isn't the case here right?
2025-08-25 16:23:46 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 16:23:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> other way around - it's limiting the *contents of the raid array itself* to ext4 partitions
2025-08-25 16:23:59 <@supakeen:fedora.im> Then: ack :)
2025-08-25 16:24:02 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 16:24:05 <@snowyyd:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 16:24:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i.e. a bug that only affects raid arrays with xfs partitions or something isn't a blocker
2025-08-25 16:24:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (i don't remember why we say that, oh well)
2025-08-25 16:24:19 <@pboy:fedora.im> may be it's old wording. Defaults are now btrfs or xfs
2025-08-25 16:24:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it was an attempt to limit the RAID requirements from being overbroad iirc, but yeah, we might wanna revisit it
2025-08-25 16:24:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> anyhow, not an issue here
2025-08-25 16:25:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2389105 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of the Beta criterion "When using both the installer-native and the blivet-gui-based custom partitioning flow on the GTK-based installer, and the Cockpit-based "storage editor" flow on the webui-based installer, the installer must be able to: ... Correctly interpret, and modify as described below, any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table containing ext4 partitions, LVM and/or btrfs volumes, and/or software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions"
2025-08-25 16:25:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1870
2025-08-25 16:25:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, NetworkManager-openvpn, NEW
2025-08-25 16:25:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2388442) NetworkManager-openvpn 1.12.2-1.fc43: 2FA prompt window does not appear
2025-08-25 16:25:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+2,1,-0) (+nielsenb, +lruzicka, kparal)
2025-08-25 16:25:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2388442
2025-08-25 16:25:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+2,0,-0) (+nielsenb, +adamwill)
2025-08-25 16:25:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+2,0,-0) (+kparal, +adamwill)
2025-08-25 16:25:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, so this one is pretty much a subjective judgment call under the criteria
2025-08-25 16:26:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> openvpn 2FA doesn't work if your password has 'unusual' characters (i'm not satisifed we have a precise definition - upstream said 'wide', but I don't think that's right, it might be 'any non-ASCII' or something) in it
2025-08-25 16:26:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> do we think that's beta blocker? final blocker? not a blocker at all?
2025-08-25 16:27:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the criterion footnote says "As there are many different VPN server applications and configurations, blocker reviewers must use their best judgment in determining whether violations of this criterion are likely to be encountered commonly enough to block a release, and if so, at which milestone. As a general principle, the more people are likely to use affected servers and the less complicated the configuration required to hit the bug, the more likely it is to be a blocker."
2025-08-25 16:27:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so that's where we are, using our best judgment
2025-08-25 16:28:30 <@pboy:fedora.im> I think it is a security related bug, i guess it is worth to block.
2025-08-25 16:28:57 <@pboy:fedora.im> Or do we have an alternative VPN that works?
2025-08-25 16:29:05 <@supakeen:fedora.im> As someone with non-ascii characters in my passphrase I'd consider this a beta blocker. Upstream seems to have the patch ready to go for it.
2025-08-25 16:29:22 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Agree
2025-08-25 16:29:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> there are many VPN systems, but the larger point here is that the person connecting to the VPN doesn't *usually* control the configuration of the server
2025-08-25 16:30:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> for me since it requires both 2FA *and* a non-ASCII(?) password i'd probably be willing to let it go at beta and make it a final blocker
2025-08-25 16:30:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i've seen too much. :P
2025-08-25 16:30:34 <@pboy:fedora.im> If upstream is already working on it, we should agree to block. Se we are sure they have good time.
2025-08-25 16:30:34 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> 
2025-08-25 16:30:34 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> 
2025-08-25 16:30:34 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> It does seem a patch is on the way: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/NetworkManager-openvpn/-/merge_requests/99
2025-08-25 16:30:34 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> I personally don't think it's worth a BetaBlock but I would FinalBlocker +1
2025-08-25 16:30:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Peter Boy that's not how this process works
2025-08-25 16:31:03 <@pboy:fedora.im> Yeah, I know !
2025-08-25 16:31:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the blocker process is only concerned with whether a bug is significant enough to block the release. "let's block so upstream has time to write a fix" isn't a valid decision basis
2025-08-25 16:31:26 <@pboy:fedora.im> that's best judgment
2025-08-25 16:32:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> note, btw, it's already accepted as a Beta FE
2025-08-25 16:32:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so we can already put the fix in Beta
2025-08-25 16:32:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we're only deciding whether to *block* Beta on it (if the fix doesn't work or breaks something else, or whatever)
2025-08-25 16:33:05 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I think it's probably reasonable given how common non-English passwords are
2025-08-25 16:33:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Conan Kudo so is that a +1?
2025-08-25 16:33:57 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes +1
2025-08-25 16:34:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, well that gives it +3
2025-08-25 16:34:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so
2025-08-25 16:34:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2388442 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of Basic criterion "Using the default network configuration tools for the console and for release-blocking desktops, it must be possible to establish a working connection to common OpenVPN, openconnect-supported and vpnc-supported VPN servers with typical configurations.", our judgment is that 2FA + non-ASCII(?) password is a 'typical' enough configuration to block Beta on
2025-08-25 16:35:17 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 16:35:21 <@supakeen:fedora.im> I think it's not specifically about the password itself; but the prompt.
2025-08-25 16:35:23 <@pboy:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 16:35:28 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 16:35:32 <@snowyyd:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 16:35:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ah, i was wondering about that
2025-08-25 16:35:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, yeah, the russian means "enter the code"
2025-08-25 16:36:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> patch...
2025-08-25 16:36:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2388442 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of Basic criterion "Using the default network configuration tools for the console and for release-blocking desktops, it must be possible to establish a working connection to common OpenVPN, openconnect-supported and vpnc-supported VPN servers with typical configurations.", our judgment is that 2FA + non-ASCII(?) 2FA prompt is a 'typical' enough configuration to block Beta on
2025-08-25 16:36:42 <@supakeen:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 16:37:17 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 16:38:32 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2025-08-25 16:38:47 <@pboy:fedora.im> ack 
2025-08-25 16:39:07 <@snowyyd:fedora.im> Isn't it more accurate to say "password prompt"?
2025-08-25 16:40:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> no, i think it's the prompt for the 2FA code, not for the password
2025-08-25 16:40:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2388442 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of Basic criterion "Using the default network configuration tools for the console and for release-blocking desktops, it must be possible to establish a working connection to common OpenVPN, openconnect-supported and vpnc-supported VPN servers with typical configurations.", our judgment is that 2FA + non-ASCII(?) 2FA prompt is a 'typical' enough configuration to block Beta on
2025-08-25 16:40:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, let's move on to:
2025-08-25 16:40:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Proposed Beta freeze exceptions
2025-08-25 16:40:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-shell, NEW
2025-08-25 16:40:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+2,0,-0) (+nielsenb, +derekenz)
2025-08-25 16:40:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-1) (+lruzicka, -adamwill)
2025-08-25 16:40:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1866
2025-08-25 16:40:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2381599) After upgrading gnome-shell to version 49~alpha.1-1.fc43 layout indicator stopped reacting to layout switches by Ctrl-Shift key combination.
2025-08-25 16:40:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2381599
2025-08-25 16:40:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+0,0,-5) (-nielsenb, -derekenz, -kparal, -lruzicka, -adamwill)
2025-08-25 16:41:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so...I don't know all the background here, but ctrl+shift isn't the documented switch combo for gnome, that's super+space
2025-08-25 16:41:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> possibly ctrl+shift is one that was known to work for  russian or all languages before. I don't know. I don't know how many people might expect it to work, or why it broke
2025-08-25 16:41:56 <@supakeen:fedora.im> ctrl+shift is what Windows does, perhaps they had a tweak that no longer works/is applied?
2025-08-25 16:43:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ctrl+shift+(something) is used a lot in other apps so it feels like a weird thing to use
2025-08-25 16:43:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if you have ctrl+shift switching layouts, do you switch layouts every time you use ctrl+shift+r in a console? or ctrl+shift+t in many apps to open a tab?
2025-08-25 16:44:03 <@supakeen:fedora.im> You do, it's annoying :)
2025-08-25 16:44:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if you have ctrl+shift switching layouts, do you switch layouts every time you use ctrl+shift+r in a console? or ctrl+shift+t in many console apps to open a tab?
2025-08-25 16:44:32 <@supakeen:fedora.im> Anyhow, needs time to verify if it ever worked that way I guess?
2025-08-25 16:44:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm willing to believe it did, but...not sure it constitutes a blocker
2025-08-25 16:44:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> might be a good idea to try and get input from the desktop team, i can ask
2025-08-25 16:45:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm willing to believe it did, but...not sure it constitutes an FE
2025-08-25 16:45:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i mean...I *guess* if gnome folks agreed this is a bug and provided a clean fix, FE would make sense...
2025-08-25 16:45:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> kinda thing you'd want to work as intended on lives and first boot
2025-08-25 16:46:28 <@supakeen:fedora.im> Very weak FE then.
2025-08-25 16:46:46 <@supakeen:fedora.im> There are workarounds (clicking, other shortcuts) in the meantime.
2025-08-25 16:47:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any other votes?
2025-08-25 16:48:30 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1 BetaFE +1 FB
2025-08-25 16:48:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm definitely not buying blocker on this, but we can save that for later :D
2025-08-25 16:50:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2381599 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as an FE on the basis that, *if upstream agrees it's a bug and wants to fix it*, it would make sense to get the fix into Beta so it works as intended on live boots and first boots
2025-08-25 16:50:57 <@supakeen:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 16:51:00 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 16:51:09 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2025-08-25 16:51:09 <@snowyyd:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 16:51:13 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 16:51:20 <@pboy:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 16:51:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2381599 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as an FE on the basis that, if upstream agrees it's a bug and wants to fix it, it would make sense to get the fix into Beta so it works as intended on live boots and first boots
2025-08-25 16:52:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+2,0,-0) (+lruzicka, +derekenz)
2025-08-25 16:52:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2390745) Update vte291 version to 0.81.90 or higher
2025-08-25 16:52:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2390745
2025-08-25 16:52:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1877
2025-08-25 16:52:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, vte291, NEW
2025-08-25 16:52:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hum. so the update is requested to fix a bug. why not just have the bug report be for the bug? oh well.
2025-08-25 16:53:27 <@supakeen:fedora.im> idk but +1 fe
2025-08-25 16:53:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i mean, i might prefer a backport of the fix rather than an entire new unstable vte release, during freeze...
2025-08-25 16:54:36 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ehh +1 FE
2025-08-25 16:54:37 <@supakeen:fedora.im> From what I read there's already a fixed version, but it's not in Fedora yet: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/vte/-/issues/2897#note_2528209
2025-08-25 16:55:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, yes, that's why the bug is "update to this new version". but during freezes we're meant to backport fixes, not just slap in new releases.
2025-08-25 16:55:40 <@supakeen:fedora.im> Oh sorry I misunderstood.
2025-08-25 16:56:43 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> technically we're not in freeze just yet though
2025-08-25 16:56:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> sure, but we're voting on an FE
2025-08-25 16:57:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if they put in a new version before freeze, this discussion is moot
2025-08-25 16:57:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> although, hum, a complicating factor is that most of the changes between 0.81 and 0.81.90 seem to be removing stuff that turned out to be unstable
2025-08-25 16:58:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> anyhoo...i'm fine with an FE for the backspace problem, we can argue over the appropriate fix
2025-08-25 16:59:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2390745 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - we grant a freeze exception *to fix the broken backspace key problem*, but not carte blanche for a version update for no reason. The fix for the bug should be minimal if landed during freeze. The new version may be an appropriate choice if the only changes between 0.81 and 0.81.90 are related, or reversions of unstable changes
2025-08-25 17:00:09 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 17:00:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2025-08-25 17:00:27 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 17:00:28 <@snowyyd:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 17:00:39 <@pboy:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 17:00:45 <@supakeen:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 17:01:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2390745 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - we grant a freeze exception to fix the broken backspace key problem, but not carte blanche for a version update for no reason. The fix for the bug should be minimal if landed during freeze. The new version may be an appropriate choice if the only changes between 0.81 and 0.81.90 are related, or reversions of unstable changes
2025-08-25 17:02:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> let's move on to:
2025-08-25 17:02:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Proposed Final blockers
2025-08-25 17:02:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+2,0,-0) (+nielsenb, +derekenz)
2025-08-25 17:02:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1856
2025-08-25 17:02:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2359710
2025-08-25 17:02:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2359710) bootloader setup to a second MBR drive crashes
2025-08-25 17:02:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, anaconda-webui, NEW
2025-08-25 17:03:43 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we support a second MBR?
2025-08-25 17:04:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> not a second MBR on a single drive, i don't think
2025-08-25 17:04:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> two MBR disks
2025-08-25 17:04:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> see the "steps to reproduce"
2025-08-25 17:05:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this was reported back in april, so...we might want to reconfirm it?
2025-08-25 17:05:43 <@pboy:fedora.im> We support this at least in RAID configs
2025-08-25 17:06:30 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I didn't think this was a thing we supported at all
2025-08-25 17:06:34 <@pboy:fedora.im> I had this issue,too, but I remembver from my testings it is fixed now.
2025-08-25 17:06:38 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it's freakishly difficult to have multi-disk boot working correctly
2025-08-25 17:07:04 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> MBR, OFW, and UEFI don't really have features for it
2025-08-25 17:07:04 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I have it working just fine with Win11 and Fedora :)
2025-08-25 17:07:23 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> as in mirrored boot code that's updated with every bootloader update?
2025-08-25 17:07:32 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> because I'm pretty sure that's not a thing
2025-08-25 17:07:35 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> no, that sounds horrible :)
2025-08-25 17:07:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this isn't anything about multi-disk boot
2025-08-25 17:07:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it's just...installing to the second of two empty MBR disks
2025-08-25 17:08:06 <@supakeen:fedora.im> This is Anaconda/blivet getting very confused when installing onto two disks that both have an MBR already.
2025-08-25 17:08:20 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> oh, this is a subcase of the broken multi-disk thing
2025-08-25 17:08:37 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> both disks are selected, but the first disk isn't used
2025-08-25 17:08:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah
2025-08-25 17:08:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> arguably just 'don't select the first disk', but eh
2025-08-25 17:09:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> kamil might've had a more complex case where he actually did something with the first disk too, and simplified it down to this
2025-08-25 17:09:38 <@pboy:fedora.im> It was previously Raid, you have to select both, otherwise Anaconka will not proceed
2025-08-25 17:09:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> nothing to do with raid in the reproducer, afaics
2025-08-25 17:10:17 <@pboy:fedora.im> there is not anything about was was on it before.
2025-08-25 17:10:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> says "empty disks"
2025-08-25 17:11:23 <@pboy:fedora.im> yes, empty after having deleting the partitions which were prrcviously part of a RAID. That was ti problem im my case. 
2025-08-25 17:12:28 <@pboy:fedora.im> Anyway, we don't know. And April is a long time ago. We should ask it it is still an issue.
2025-08-25 17:12:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think kamil would have specified this.
2025-08-25 17:13:01 <@pboy:fedora.im> Yeah, indeed.
2025-08-25 17:13:58 <@pboy:fedora.im> Sorry, I have to leave now. It's evening in Europe and family dinner is calling .... 
2025-08-25 17:14:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> no problem, thanks for coming
2025-08-25 17:14:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we're nearly done
2025-08-25 17:15:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, reproduced with today's f43 workstation live
2025-08-25 17:16:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and i think yeah, this is a simplified reproducer, the 'real world' case would be where you wanted to put something else on the first disk, but /boot (and maybe sysroot? but just /boot might be enough to cause the problem) on the second disk
2025-08-25 17:17:12 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> a removable boot disk is the reasonable conjecture
2025-08-25 17:18:02 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it's not super-common these days, but it is still a thing
2025-08-25 17:18:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it does feel a *bit* corner case-y to me
2025-08-25 17:18:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i kinda feel like punting this to a week where kparal is here and can argue it?
2025-08-25 17:19:26 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> sure
2025-08-25 17:21:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2359710 - punt (delay decision) - we kicked this around a bit and reproduced it, but decided to punt the blocker discussion to a week where the reporter (kparal) is present to provide more info and background
2025-08-25 17:22:11 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2025-08-25 17:22:12 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 17:22:14 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 17:22:20 <@snowyyd:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 17:22:26 <@aggraxis:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 17:22:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2359710 - punt (delay decision) - we kicked this around a bit and reproduced it, but decided to punt the blocker discussion to a week where the reporter (kparal) is present to provide more info and background
2025-08-25 17:22:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, last one
2025-08-25 17:22:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, NEW
2025-08-25 17:22:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2381599
2025-08-25 17:22:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1866
2025-08-25 17:22:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2381599) After upgrading gnome-shell to version 49~alpha.1-1.fc43 layout indicator stopped reacting to layout switches by Ctrl-Shift key combination.
2025-08-25 17:22:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, we already kicked this around
2025-08-25 17:23:01 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah this was earlier today
2025-08-25 17:23:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but not as a final blocker
2025-08-25 17:23:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'd be inclined to punt any blocker decision on further info from upstream
2025-08-25 17:23:34 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I do think it's probably not acceptable to have this broken in GNOME 49
2025-08-25 17:23:48 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> but I don't know what we can do about it yet
2025-08-25 17:24:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm a lot less definite about it than that...but i think we just need to hear what gnome devs have to say about it
2025-08-25 17:24:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i did ask already
2025-08-25 17:25:14 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Punt?
2025-08-25 17:25:55 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we can punt
2025-08-25 17:26:01 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Ok
2025-08-25 17:26:35 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> punt
2025-08-25 17:26:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2385199 - punt (delay decision) - we agreed to punt this one at least till we have further feedback from upstream
2025-08-25 17:27:12 <@derekenz:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 17:27:14 <@snowyyd:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 17:27:19 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> ack
2025-08-25 17:27:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2385199 - punt (delay decision) - we agreed to punt this one at least till we have further feedback from upstream
2025-08-25 17:28:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alrighty, that's everythng
2025-08-25 17:28:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Open floor
2025-08-25 17:28:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any other business, folks?
2025-08-25 17:28:12 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> nope
2025-08-25 17:28:17 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> Nothing from me.
2025-08-25 17:28:21 <@derekenz:fedora.im> nope
2025-08-25 17:28:37 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> adamw: who is doing a secretary? am I?
2025-08-25 17:29:21 <@snowyyd:fedora.im> Nothing from me. This meeting was really interesting!
2025-08-25 17:29:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Lukáš Růžička i put myself down, but feel free to take it if you like
2025-08-25 17:30:35 <@lruzicka:fedora.im> I would take it. I want to study the process for the future.
2025-08-25 17:30:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok
2025-08-25 17:30:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info update: Lukáš Růžička will secretarialize
2025-08-25 17:30:54 <@aggraxis:fedora.im> Thanks for running the meeting adamw  :)
2025-08-25 17:31:00 <@snowyyd:fedora.im> Btw, thank you Adam!
2025-08-25 17:31:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> no problem no problem
2025-08-25 17:31:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks for coming, folks!
2025-08-25 17:31:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !endmeeting