16:01:47 <tflink> #startmeeting f20beta-blocker-review-5.5
16:01:47 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Oct 28 16:01:47 2013 UTC.  The chair is tflink. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:01:47 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:01:47 <tflink> #meetingname f20beta-blocker-review-5.5
16:01:48 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f20beta-blocker-review-5.5'
16:01:48 <tflink> #topic Roll Call
16:01:57 <tflink> #chair roshi
16:01:57 <zodbot> Current chairs: roshi tflink
16:02:11 <tflink> Who all's here for some monday blocker review fun time?
16:02:23 <sgallagh> tflink: I'm around
16:02:37 * roshi is here
16:02:52 <tflink> sgallagh: welcome to the party!
16:03:09 * sgallagh takes out his conical hat and noisemaker
16:03:34 * satellit_e here
16:03:49 * nirik is lurking. ping if I can help.
16:05:17 * cmurf is lurking
16:07:00 <tflink> hrm, sounds like it's time to start poking people to get a bit more participation
16:07:00 <cmurf> yes
16:07:13 * handsome_pirate stumbles in
16:07:32 <handsome_pirate> I don't know how much use I'll be
16:07:40 <handsome_pirate> The drugs are starting to kick back in
16:08:58 <tflink> ok, let's get this party started - adam sent me his votes already so we have ghost_adamw :)
16:09:13 <tflink> Viking-Ice: thanks
16:09:17 <tflink> #topic Introduction
16:09:23 <tflink> Why are we here?
16:09:23 <tflink> #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 freeze exception bugs.
16:09:28 <tflink> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:09:29 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:09:34 <tflink> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:09:34 <tflink> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:09:39 <tflink> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:09:39 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:09:44 <tflink> #info Up for review today, we have:
16:10:05 <tflink> #info 4 Proposed Blockers
16:10:05 <tflink> #info 14 Accepted Blockers
16:10:06 <tflink> #info 4 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:10:06 <tflink> #info 12 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
16:10:24 <tflink> if there are no objections, we'll get started with the proposed blockers
16:11:21 <tflink> #topic (1023554) cannot get autopart to run after a run through custom storage
16:11:24 * akshayvyas wants to join the party
16:11:24 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023554
16:11:27 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED
16:11:53 <tflink> akshayvyas: the more, the merrier!
16:12:29 <akshayvyas> tflink: yeah....m back :)
16:12:39 <cmurf> i'm uncertain i was able to hit this as described, however i'd say it's a FE for sure
16:12:39 <sgallagh> tflink: I presume the workaround here would be "restart the installer and don't do custom partitioning"?
16:13:07 <cmurf> i don't know that we have a criteria for being allow to change your mind once you've gone down a certain path ;-)
16:13:17 <tflink> sgallagh: yeah, that's my read of this
16:13:30 <sgallagh> -1 blocker, +1 FE from me, then
16:13:40 <tflink> unless there are other side effects
16:13:41 <Viking-Ice> ah that one reminds me of the resize issue bug in the custom partitioning spoke
16:13:41 <handsome_pirate> -1:+1
16:13:41 <roshi> -1/+1
16:13:51 <dan408> hi
16:14:18 <dan408> +1 blocker
16:14:27 * tflink pinged dlehman
16:14:29 <dan408> this is a ridiculous bug
16:14:33 <Viking-Ice> +1 blocker
16:14:44 <tflink> criteria suggestions?
16:14:58 <Viking-Ice> it was dlehman himself that deemed it blocker worthy
16:14:59 <tflink> I see +2/-3 ATM
16:15:01 <dan408> failed install?
16:15:17 <tflink> yeah, that's what's giving me pause. if he proposed it, I'm more likely to say +1
16:15:18 <akshayvyas> +1 blocker
16:15:32 <handsome_pirate> Hrm
16:16:04 <sgallagh> At the same time, if he proposed it, we can probably assume he's working on a fix, in which case Blocker vs. FE is academic...
16:16:05 <cmurf> tflink: well it would be guided partitioning path and allowing the user to complete an installation using any available option
16:16:08 <cmurf> i think
16:16:12 <Viking-Ice> i can more or less guarantee that user that would have to reboot and go through the installer steps in anaconda again would do so in same as he did before
16:16:16 <tflink> it amuses me that we have criteria for crashing on invalid operation but don't have one for valid operations :)
16:16:23 <dan408> i would say it should block final, not beta
16:16:31 <Viking-Ice> so restarting the installer and dont use custom partitioning as a workaround is a no go for beta
16:16:40 <sgallagh> dan408: I could agree with that
16:16:49 <cmurf> tflink: crashing for a valid operation means non-completion so it hits the completion requirements
16:17:03 <akshayvyas> dam408: agree
16:17:11 <akshayvyas> dan408: agree
16:17:26 <dan408> tflink?
16:17:27 <cmurf> so i've always inferred crashing is not ok in any case
16:17:38 <tflink> dan408: I was hoping for more info from dlehman
16:17:41 <Viking-Ice> anaconda hits a hard crash with resizing the default value on autopart as well so...
16:17:48 <handsome_pirate> cmurf:  Good point
16:17:50 <sgallagh> Where does this cause a crash?
16:17:57 * handsome_pirate changes to +1 blocker
16:18:02 <cmurf> no crash
16:18:12 <cmurf> at least not for me, i wasn't able to reproduce the bug
16:18:24 <cmurf> however i didn't click "begin installation"
16:18:32 <dan408> ive reproduced this
16:18:40 <tflink> oh, it sounds like you need to have disks not selected for installation
16:18:40 <dan408> this bug has been around for a while
16:19:19 <cmurf> based on criteria this is a toss up because we don't have one for backing out of custom and going back to guided
16:19:19 <tflink> 1. select one of two full disks, choose custom, clear disk, autopart, save
16:19:26 <cmurf> it's a totally reasonable requirement
16:19:48 <tflink> this is starting to feel a bit corner-casey to block beta
16:19:53 <dan408> like i said, it could easily go for final
16:19:53 <sgallagh> Proposal: Blocker for Final, FE for Beta? I don't think this is worth holding up the beta for
16:19:55 <cmurf> so i'd defer to dlehman and +1 blocker
16:20:03 <Viking-Ice> tflink, not really
16:20:13 <cmurf> but freeze exception makes sense also, it's just a matter of opinion on how aggressive to get with beta
16:20:28 <Viking-Ice> for beta custom should work
16:20:47 <tflink> sure, but the bug isn't about custom not working
16:21:01 <tflink> it's about a crash if you start custom partitioning and change your mind latedr
16:21:06 <Viking-Ice> it's very common practice to have anaconda autopart for you then alter the default value
16:21:23 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: Custom does work. It's only if you start with custom, then change your mind and do auto
16:21:23 <sgallagh> That's not terribly likely
16:21:34 <tflink> Viking-Ice: by my reading of the bug, that would work
16:21:39 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: This is the other way around, though
16:21:39 <sgallagh> It sounds like "auto-then-custom" works
16:21:42 <sgallagh> But "custom-then-auto" doesn't
16:21:52 <cmurf> and it's also multiple-device
16:21:53 <handsome_pirate> Aye, but it should
16:21:55 <tflink> the bug is hit if you go into custom partitioning, exit the storage spoke, re-enter and use autopart w/o custom
16:22:01 <cmurf> one selected, one not selected
16:22:03 <sgallagh> handsome_pirate: No one is arguing that it's not a bug
16:22:13 <sgallagh> Just whether it's serious enough to risk delaying Beta
16:22:15 <tflink> and then, only if you have multiple disks and didn't select them all for installation
16:22:15 <cmurf> i think we can at least agree on F!E
16:22:21 <cmurf> so why don't we do it as FE
16:22:22 <tflink> yeah, I'm -1/+1
16:22:24 <Viking-Ice> tflink, like hey I tried to do custom but fucked up now I want to go back and just have anaconda decide this for me
16:22:27 <cmurf> and then get more info from dlehman
16:22:40 <Viking-Ice> to me that sounds not like a corner case requirement
16:22:41 <cmurf> re-evaluate if we don't have the blocker votes
16:22:47 <dan408> my fear with FE is it could slip through the cracks
16:22:55 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: That description sounds *exactly* like a corner-case to me.
16:23:06 <dan408> but since it was reported by dlehman im less concerned
16:23:16 <cmurf> dan408: yes it could but a.) the primary dev filed the bug; b.) the bug is sort of an edge case
16:23:18 <sgallagh> tflink: Can we consider it Beta FE and Final Blocker?
16:23:19 <tflink> +4/-4 blocker, I think. +8 FE
16:23:33 <Viking-Ice> it's not often that the maintainer he himself deems bug blocker worthy
16:23:44 <sgallagh> I certainly wouldn't want us to ship the final without fixing this.
16:23:52 <dan408> ^
16:23:55 <tflink> +4/-3, on recount
16:23:57 <roshi> +1 for final blocker
16:24:04 <dan408> final blocker please
16:24:19 <akshayvyas> -1 beta blocker / +1 final
16:24:25 <roshi> tflink: I'll handle secretary duty
16:24:29 <tflink> roshi: thanks
16:24:31 <dan408> that's +3 final
16:24:43 <tflink> +1 final
16:24:56 <dan408> cool
16:24:57 <tflink> sound like we're mostly -1 beta blocker, +1 final blocker, +1 beta FE
16:25:02 <cmurf> yes
16:25:04 <dan408> yep
16:25:04 <Viking-Ice> this is a beta material and if we trust maintainers in other times why not do so when he himself deems the bug blocker worthy
16:25:06 <sgallagh> That's +4, including my proposal of Final Blocker
16:25:07 <roshi> that's what I'm seeing
16:25:33 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: FE still allows him to get the fix in
16:25:35 <Viking-Ice> this is started to look more like people are trying to avoid beta slippage
16:25:38 <tflink> Viking-Ice: i think it's a bit academic, to be honest - the patch is already available
16:25:41 <dan408> Viking-Ice: well i think we're on the verge of putting out the beta
16:25:47 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: If dlehman considers it worthy of a blocker, he can rush the fix in.
16:26:18 <tflink> without more info from him, I think it was more of a "this should get into beta" instead of a "we shouldn't ship beta without this fix"
16:26:23 * cmurf also keeps in mind the RH'ers aren't as used to FE's because they don't have them. A bug blocks or doesn't.
16:26:24 <Viking-Ice> sgallagh, there is no such thing as rushing things in from our perspective
16:26:32 <Viking-Ice> sgallagh, new anaconda means redo tests
16:26:54 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: Looking at the rest of the blockers, a new anaconda is going to happen no matter what
16:27:07 <dan408> lol
16:27:09 <cmurf> Viking-Ice we get bit anytime the full matrix is not redone whenever a new RC is rolled
16:27:12 <dan408> +1 sgallagh
16:27:29 <Viking-Ice> sgallagh, which means slippage which means we can take this in as blocker so it does not slip through the cracks
16:27:35 <cmurf> yeah we're talking a few more anaconda's i bet
16:27:38 <cmurf> ANYWAY
16:27:45 <cmurf> proposal please
16:28:05 <dan408> anaconda is always a never ending story
16:28:10 <dan408> i think we shoud move on
16:28:12 <tflink> proposed #agreed 1023554 - RejectedBlocker (beta) AceptedBlocker (final) AcceptedFreezeException - While this feels like too much of a corner case to block beta, it does violate the final release criterion "The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system and/or container format combination offered in a default installer configuration.". A tested fix would be considered past freeze
16:28:18 <dan408> ack
16:28:24 <cmurf> ack
16:28:26 <sgallagh> ack
16:28:32 <roshi> ack
16:28:40 <tflink> it's funny how people get testy about how long it takes to write a proposal until they've been the sap leading the meeting
16:28:50 <tflink> #agreed 1023554 - RejectedBlocker (beta) AceptedBlocker (final) AcceptedFreezeException - While this feels like too much of a corner case to block beta, it does violate the final release criterion "The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system and/or container format combination offered in a default installer configuration.". A tested fix would be considered past freeze
16:29:06 <tflink> #topic (1021507) DeviceCreateError: ("Can't have overlapping partitions.", 'sda3')
16:29:09 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021507
16:29:12 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:30:10 <dlehman> hi tflink
16:30:16 <dan408> reminds me of the last bug
16:31:08 <tflink> dlehman: were there any non-obvious side-effects to 1023554?
16:31:08 <sgallagh> This one actually seems pretty clearly a blocker to me. The user is doing something explicitly bad and we're crashing.
16:31:34 <cmurf> i have not tried to reproduce with a conventional LV but i think this is a naming problem
16:31:53 <tflink> it seemed like more of a "if you do custom part with not all disks and then change your mind about custom part, you'll have to restart the install"
16:32:42 <tflink> apologies on the spillover to this next bug
16:32:48 <cmurf> np
16:33:05 <tflink> I just want to be sure that we didn't miss anything on the last bug before moving on too far
16:33:06 <Viking-Ice> cmurf, was this the same problem as karsten hit on secondary arch
16:34:48 <cmurf> Viking-Ice: abrt sent me to this bug, and the original filer of the bug doesn't list reproduce steps
16:35:11 <cmurf> Viking-Ice: and really, i should have posted better reproduce steps
16:35:18 <tflink> dlehman: if you think we made a mistake by rejecting 1023554 as blocker but taking it as FE, please let us know and we can re-open the discussion
16:35:44 <cmurf> There might be two different bugs here for all I know
16:35:48 <cmurf> one blocking one not
16:36:43 <cmurf> nope, looking at the tb files, they have the same stuff going on
16:37:36 <tflink> is this really invalid, though?
16:37:47 <tflink> if you delete and re-create, I think you'd hit it
16:38:05 <Viking-Ice> +1 blocker
16:38:38 <tflink> yeah, I'm thinking +1 as well
16:38:42 <sgallagh> I'm +1 blocker on this as well
16:38:45 <dan408> +1
16:38:48 <akshayvyas> +1 here
16:39:02 <tflink> adamw said he was boarderline +1 on this
16:39:40 <cmurf> strictly speaking it hits the beta criteria. it's a bit non-obvious the work around is that I need to create an LV with a different name than existing LV.
16:39:46 <cmurf> it probably hits testers more than real people.
16:39:58 * cmurf observes testers are not real
16:40:09 <tflink> cmurf: :)
16:40:12 <cmurf> so i'm on the fence
16:40:18 <dan408> but im a real boy
16:40:33 <cmurf> being in a pragmatic mood, i'd say the same split vote as the last one
16:40:36 <cmurf> beta FE
16:40:38 <cmurf> final block
16:40:45 <tflink> no, I think this is beta blocker material
16:40:58 <tflink> you'd hit this if you deleted your lvm setup and created a new one, right?
16:41:05 <cmurf> yes
16:41:11 <cmurf> i haven't actually tried that
16:41:12 <tflink> +1 beta blocker from me
16:41:29 <cmurf> so i'm not sure there aren't extenuating circumstances with this
16:41:47 <dan408> maybe can someone do a quick test?
16:41:56 <cmurf> i'm doing a a new install to a new qcow2 now, and will try to delete fedora-root and then create a new root and see what happens
16:42:03 <Viking-Ice> that's +6/-1 by count right
16:42:13 <cmurf> yeah i mean we have the votes, might as well just be done with it and move on
16:42:16 <tflink> yeah, assuming that we're understanding the bug correctly
16:42:20 <cmurf> i can update the bug report
16:42:31 <cmurf> tflink true
16:42:38 <cmurf> if you want to move on while i work on this..
16:43:36 <tflink> proposed #agreed 1021507 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F20 beta release criterion: "When using the custom partitioning flow, the installer must be able to: Create mount points backed by ext4 partitions, LVM volumes or btrfs volumes ... and remove a planned storage volume from the planned layout"
16:43:54 <tflink> we can revisit the blocker part if it turns out that we've misunderstood
16:43:58 <Viking-Ice> ack
16:44:01 <cmurf> ack
16:44:03 <akshayvyas> ack
16:44:17 <sgallagh> ack
16:44:21 <dan408> ack
16:44:35 <tflink> #agreed 1021507 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F20 beta release criterion: "When using the custom partitioning flow, the installer must be able to: Create mount points backed by ext4 partitions, LVM volumes or btrfs volumes ... and remove a planned storage volume from the planned layout"
16:44:42 <tflink> #topic (1023295) Users are not shown after system start
16:44:42 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023295
16:44:42 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, gdm, NEW
16:45:22 <tflink> I think I'm -1/-1 on this
16:45:33 <Viking-Ice> I was unable to duplicate this so -1/-1
16:45:43 <tflink> unless you can't log in by typing your user name
16:45:48 <tflink> but I doubt that's the case
16:45:56 <dan408> -1
16:45:58 <cmurf> tflink: right and the original filer didn't answer that question
16:46:01 <cmurf> -1/-1
16:46:09 <dan408> sorry -1/+1
16:46:36 <tflink> I'd rather not muck with gdm this late in freeze for a FE, hence the -1 FE from me
16:47:26 <dan408> sorry, I should have said +1 FE final
16:47:32 <akshayvyas> -1 blocker
16:47:38 <dan408> so yeah -1/-1 beta for me
16:47:59 <akshayvyas> "It happens about 20% of time"....what does that mean ??
16:48:07 <cmurf> right
16:48:09 <dan408> god knows
16:48:10 <tflink> proposed #agreed 1023295 - RejectedBlocker RejectedFreezeException - This appears to be relatively infrequent and doesn't block the user from logging in if they click on "not shown?" in gdm. Rejected as a release blocking bug for F20 beta.
16:48:21 <Viking-Ice> a ck
16:48:23 <tflink> akshayvyas: I assume that means he hits it for 1 in 5 installs
16:48:30 <dan408> ack
16:48:31 <akshayvyas> ack
16:48:40 <sgallagh> ack
16:48:41 <cmurf> ack
16:49:04 <tflink> #agreed 1023295 - RejectedBlocker RejectedFreezeException - This appears to be relatively infrequent and doesn't block the user from logging in if they click on "not shown?" in gdm. Rejected as a release blocking bug for F20 beta.
16:49:10 <cmurf> yes well i've lost count how many f20 installs i've done, at least 50 beta, and more alpha and never once hit this
16:49:21 <cmurf> not saying it isn't happening but we need more info
16:49:24 <cmurf> journalctl or something
16:49:31 <tflink> yep, we can revisit if we're wrong :)
16:49:34 <tflink> #topic (1023556) Blivet.copy does not update parted disk refs for partitions on hidden disks
16:49:37 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023556
16:49:40 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, ASSIGNED
16:50:11 <Viking-Ice> this is another one proposed by dlehman himself
16:50:11 <tflink> this sounds a lot like the first one
16:50:14 <cmurf> +1 block as described
16:50:23 <cmurf> this is any number of devices
16:50:43 <cmurf> and it's a totally viable change of mind within the guided/autopart path
16:50:47 <tflink> not according to the repro steps
16:50:50 <cmurf> the other one starts in custom, moves to autopart
16:51:01 <tflink> it's 1/2 disks and revisiting the storage spoke
16:51:03 <Viking-Ice> this is very similar to the so claimed corner case mentioned earlier
16:51:04 <Viking-Ice> +1
16:51:07 <dan408> +1
16:51:11 * cmurf is blind, you're right i see that now
16:51:27 <dlehman> it's very nearly identical. I hit them both while trying to reproduce the same (totally different) bug
16:51:30 <cmurf> hmm yes how is this different from the other one?
16:51:44 <tflink> it's less corner-casey, though since it doesn't require changing your mind from custom to autopart
16:51:56 <dan408> dlehman: do you think it should block the beta release or we should leave it for final?
16:51:58 <dlehman> the way I hit them was the same, but they could vary slightly, I guess
16:52:11 <tflink> adamw said he was +1 blocker on this
16:52:14 <cmurf> tflink: i think this is autopart link within custom part
16:52:52 <cmurf> +1 block for beta
16:52:54 <tflink> I think I'm +1 blocker on this as well
16:52:58 <dlehman> presumably it does not matter what you do in custom -- any layout would cause this
16:53:16 <dan408> ok
16:53:28 <tflink> dlehman: does it require using some but not all available disks, though?
16:53:40 <tflink> is anyone -1 on this?
16:53:45 <dan408> no i dont think so
16:54:23 <dan408> i guess they can go together
16:54:44 <dlehman> tflink: it requires that you previously deselected one of the disks and then selected it the next time through
16:54:52 <tflink> proposed #agreed 1023556 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F20 beta release criterion: "When using the custom partitioning flow, 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"
16:55:14 <cmurf> i wonder if 1023554 needs to be re-evaluated
16:55:20 <tflink> dlehman: oh, so not as simple as just going through custom partitioning multiple times?
16:55:37 <Viking-Ice> ack
16:55:43 <dan408> ack
16:55:43 <cmurf> ack
16:56:08 <Viking-Ice> dlehman, if you chose to visit autopart layout and resize the default size anaconda chose anaconda hard crashes ( atleast if the size is 100GB or more 3+digit number maybe the cause) could it be related? ( no bug filed yet was reproducable )
16:58:35 <tflink> is everyone still +1 if it requires changing your disk selections in between visits to custom partitioning?
16:58:49 <dan408> yes
16:58:53 <Viking-Ice> yes
16:59:12 <Viking-Ice> arent we moving on to the next or are you trying to change the decition on this one?
16:59:30 <roshi> so 1023556 is accepted and 1023554 is unchanged?
16:59:44 <Viking-Ice> as dumb as that may sound yes
16:59:53 <cmurf> i think we want to make sure we're being consistent with 1023556 and 1023554
16:59:53 <roshi> just checking
16:59:56 <tflink> Viking-Ice: making sure we're all still +1 even if our understanding of the bug changes, yes
17:00:06 <tflink> cmurf: I'm still -1 blocker on 1023556
17:00:21 <tflink> er, 1023554
17:00:24 * roshi hasn't submitted the comments on 1023554 until we got word from dlehman
17:00:25 <Viking-Ice> well the fix will probably fix both bugs anyway so
17:00:35 <cmurf> it sounds like dlehman is saying 1023556 can be hit in more instances than 554
17:00:41 <roshi> that's likely true Viking-Ice
17:00:46 <cmurf> in which case i'm still +1 beta block on 556
17:00:53 <tflink> yeah, I don't think I'm to the point where I'm -1 on this
17:00:59 <Viking-Ice> and the otherone is still approved FE so let's just move on
17:01:02 <tflink> #agreed 1023556 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F20 beta release criterion: "When using the custom partitioning flow, 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"
17:01:05 <cmurf> ack
17:01:12 <dan408> ack
17:01:15 <roshi> is 554 just another route to 556?
17:01:31 <tflink> it sounds like they are somewhat related but not quite the same thing
17:01:34 <Viking-Ice> guy's no need to ack  the agreement
17:01:35 <roshi> +1 and Ack I guess
17:01:41 <roshi> lol
17:01:42 <roshi> true
17:01:45 <roshi> whoops
17:01:47 <cmurf> haha
17:01:53 <cmurf> ok i have an update
17:01:55 <cmurf> .bug 1021507
17:01:56 <tflink> ok, that's all of the proposed blockers on my list
17:01:59 <zodbot> cmurf: Bug 1021507 DeviceCreateError: ("Can't have overlapping partitions.", 'sda3') - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021507
17:02:01 <roshi> got a wee bit ack-happy
17:02:56 <cmurf> in my case it's LVM Thin Provisioning related, but the original bug as posted looks like a conventional partition
17:02:57 <Viking-Ice> cmurf,  still a blocker from my point of view
17:03:19 <tflink> cmurf: I assume that it comes down to the naming of the vgs?
17:03:28 <cmurf> tflink: naming of the LVs
17:03:29 <tflink> regardless of whether they're thin or not
17:03:47 <tflink> ok, sounds like a re-visit isn't needed, though?
17:04:12 <cmurf> tflink: yes but anaconda's default for thinp for / is "root" so that conflicts with existing "root" whereas conventional LVM seems smart enough to check for existing first, and doesn't use "root" it uses "root00"
17:04:12 <Viking-Ice> + we should be testing anconda with disk sizes that are accurately representative to people HD ( partition in 100GiB or more ) size not small sized vm
17:05:02 <cmurf> Viking-Ice: can be done with qcow2, cannot be done when using LVM as backing
17:05:09 <tflink> ok, moving on to the proposed FE
17:05:10 <cmurf> unless you have a huge disk
17:05:26 <tflink> #topic (1023263) Anaconda fails to select default app groups for selected DE
17:05:29 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023263
17:05:32 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, NEW
17:06:01 <dan408> -1/+1
17:06:05 <Viking-Ice> cmurf, we need to be testing anaconda on baremetal
17:06:11 <tflink> dan408: it's just proposed FE
17:06:18 <dan408> yea im +1 fe
17:06:20 <Viking-Ice> dan408, these are proposed FE
17:06:27 <dan408> sorry
17:06:43 <Viking-Ice> +1 FE
17:06:50 <roshi> +1
17:07:08 <roshi> I suppose that's assumed though
17:07:10 <cmurf> Viking-Ice: with few exceptions it actually doesn't matter, if you want it always done on baremetal be  prepared to  have less testing done overall because baremetal takes a lot longer
17:07:12 <tflink> +1
17:07:48 <satellit_e> I have been testing on D/L DVD to USB HD over weekend
17:07:53 <cmurf> +1 beta FE
17:08:36 <tflink> proposed #agreed 1023263 - AcceptedFreezeException - This would be a release blocking bug for a primary DE but not for a secondary DE. A tested fix would be considered past freeze.
17:08:51 <Viking-Ice> cmurf, I'm very aware of how much longer it can take but that's the only time you will catch size bugs and other hw related bugs like the idiom of anaconda opening and "ejecting" the cd when you are installing off usb lol
17:08:53 <Viking-Ice> ack
17:09:11 <roshi> ack
17:09:15 <dan408> ack
17:09:44 <tflink> #agreed 1023263 - AcceptedFreezeException - This would be a release blocking bug for a primary DE but not for a secondary DE. A tested fix would be considered past freeze.
17:09:48 <tflink> #topic (1015755) current version is 0.4.0
17:09:50 <tflink> -1
17:09:52 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015755
17:09:55 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, libbluray, ASSIGNED
17:10:15 <tflink> this can wait for final
17:11:12 <Viking-Ice> yep
17:11:47 <dan408> -1
17:12:35 <tflink> proposed #agreed 1015755 - RejectedFreezeException - New features are not enough justification for pulling fixes past freeze and this fix can wait for beta freeze to end.
17:12:40 <roshi> -1
17:12:44 <roshi> ack
17:12:46 <dan408> ACK
17:12:46 <tflink> ack/nak/patch?
17:12:54 <Viking-Ice> ack
17:12:57 <cmurf> XK
17:13:00 <cmurf> ack
17:13:02 <cmurf> woops
17:13:16 <tflink> #agreed 1015755 - RejectedFreezeException - New features are not enough justification for pulling fixes past freeze and this fix can wait for beta freeze to end.
17:13:30 <tflink> roshi: if you can be a bit more diplomatic in the bug, that would be appreciated :)
17:13:38 <roshi> lol
17:13:41 <tflink> er, when you secretarialize
17:13:42 * roshi will try
17:13:45 <tflink> :)
17:13:49 <Viking-Ice> just REJECT!
17:13:56 <tflink> #topic (1018565) scanimage detects sm3840 only for root
17:13:56 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018565
17:13:57 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, sane-backends, ON_QA
17:14:19 <Viking-Ice> -1
17:14:20 <tflink> -1, can be fixed with updates
17:14:25 <Viking-Ice> this can be fixed via regular
17:14:45 <cmurf> -1
17:14:47 <dan408> -1
17:14:59 <tflink> proposed #agreed 1018565 - RejectedFreezeExceptions - This seems unlikely to affect liveimage users and thus, could be fixed by a 0-day update.
17:15:02 <Viking-Ice> ack
17:15:04 <dan408> ack
17:15:15 <roshi> -1 ack
17:15:40 <tflink> #agreed 1018565 - RejectedFreezeExceptions - This seems unlikely to affect liveimage users and thus, could be fixed by a 0-day update.
17:15:45 <tflink> #topic (1010474) Unable to register keys with MokManager
17:15:46 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010474
17:15:46 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, shim, ON_QA
17:15:47 <Viking-Ice> +1 "
17:15:48 <Viking-Ice> This is really critical functionality that must work, so I've added this as a BetaFreezeException to make sure this is in F20."
17:15:57 <tflink> I'm at least +1 FE on this
17:16:00 <tflink> if not +1 blocker
17:16:12 <tflink> adamw said he was +1 on this as well
17:16:13 <Viking-Ice> I don think shim is a requirment
17:16:32 <tflink> it probably should be, but that's a discussion for another day :)
17:16:45 <tflink> for the moment, I'm OK with +1 FE
17:17:00 <dan408> +1
17:17:07 <Viking-Ice> rest votes please
17:17:12 <Viking-Ice> that's +4 already
17:17:18 <roshi> +1
17:17:30 <tflink> proposed #agreed 1010474 - AcceptedFreezeException - This is required for secureboot to work and cannot be fixed with an update post-release. A tested fix would be considered after freeze.
17:17:35 <Viking-Ice> ack
17:17:49 <dan408> ack
17:17:52 <roshi> ack
17:18:40 <tflink> #agreed 1010474 - AcceptedFreezeException - This is required for secureboot to work and cannot be fixed with an update post-release. A tested fix would be considered after freeze.
17:18:47 <tflink> that's all the proposed FE on my list
17:18:57 <tflink> any accepted blockers that need attention?
17:19:54 <satellit> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023657
17:19:54 <tflink> the oversize one is starting to worry me
17:20:24 <Viking-Ice> it is what it is and happens every release cycle
17:20:29 <Viking-Ice> no need to worry over it
17:20:30 <tflink> satellit: does it need attention?
17:20:31 <cmurf> FWIW the upgrade to shim for 1010474 is why UEFI isn't booting right now :-( looks like
17:20:37 <tflink> fun
17:20:39 <Viking-Ice> oh crap
17:21:03 <Viking-Ice> now that's something to worry about
17:21:10 <satellit> comps have been changed only affect non-blocking DE on DVD
17:21:38 <tflink> satellit: but it's an accepted blocker and being actively worked on
17:21:45 <satellit> ok
17:21:47 <tflink> not sure I see what needs discussion there
17:22:35 <tflink> sounds like it's time for ...
17:22:39 <tflink> #topic Open Floor
17:22:55 <tflink> looks like we've got lots of testing to do and plenty of fixes pending
17:23:01 <dan408> yup
17:23:21 <Viking-Ice> the size bug is something we need to look into
17:23:24 <tflink> happy, happy fun time!
17:23:43 <tflink> #action tflink to discuss pungi fix with dgilmore
17:23:44 <Viking-Ice> I have not had the time to duplicate with tc6 and unsure I do have the time
17:23:48 <tflink> I think he's back from vacation
17:23:49 <Viking-Ice> to do so
17:24:08 <tflink> wait, which size bug?
17:24:17 <dan408> dvd
17:24:33 <Viking-Ice> dan408, no irrelvant to dvd
17:24:40 * satellit issue 2 different DVD's
17:24:45 <satellit> ?
17:24:55 <dan408> it's barely over the limit
17:25:01 <Viking-Ice> there is a bug lurking in adjusting revistingin the partitioning layout and adjusting the size of auto partitioning
17:25:53 <Viking-Ice> and it seem to trigger with 3digit or more so fiddling with 100+GB size anaconda craps itself <99GB anaconda works fine
17:26:12 <tflink> Viking-Ice: can you file a bug on that and we'll find someone to attempt repro, then?
17:26:29 <Viking-Ice> tflink, I'll try to find the time for it
17:26:43 <tflink> Viking-Ice: thanks
17:26:46 <Viking-Ice> the reson I have not is because I did not have the time to repro that with tc6
17:27:21 <tflink> no worries
17:27:54 <tflink> if there's nothing else, I'm setting the fuse
17:28:08 <Viking-Ice> yeah I'm going to worry and cry myself to sleep on my huge pillwo
17:28:25 <roshi> secretarializing is done
17:28:35 <tflink> #info Next blocker review meeting will be 2013-10-30 @ 16:00 UTC
17:29:09 <tflink> Viking-Ice: sleep sounds good :)
17:29:20 <Viking-Ice> people sleep when they are dead
17:29:37 <Viking-Ice> 4 - 6 is per day is more then sufficant
17:29:44 <Viking-Ice> hours that is
17:30:55 <tflink> Thanks for coming, everyone!
17:31:01 * tflink will send out minutes shortly
17:31:03 <tflink> #endmeeting