17:00:14 <pschindl> #startmeeting F20-blocker-review
17:00:14 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Nov  6 17:00:14 2013 UTC.  The chair is pschindl. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:14 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:21 <pschindl> #meetingname F20-blocker-review
17:00:21 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f20-blocker-review'
17:00:27 <pschindl> #topic Roll Call
17:00:37 <pschindl> So who is here?
17:00:48 * kparal here
17:00:49 * pwhalen is here
17:00:51 * mkrizek is here
17:00:56 <mbriza> hi
17:01:20 * tflink is here
17:01:29 * roshi is here
17:01:35 * satellit listening
17:01:43 <pschindl> #chair tflink kparal
17:01:43 <zodbot> Current chairs: kparal pschindl tflink
17:02:01 * jreznik is here
17:02:06 <pschindl> adamw: Are you alive?
17:02:19 <adamw> ahoyhoy
17:02:36 <pschindl> So I think we can start
17:02:42 <pschindl> #topic Introduction
17:02:45 <pschindl> Why are we here?
17:02:51 <pschindl> #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.
17:02:53 <pschindl> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
17:02:55 <pschindl> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
17:02:57 <pschindl> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
17:02:59 <pschindl> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
17:03:01 <pschindl> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
17:03:03 <pschindl> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Alpha_Release_Criteria
17:03:05 <pschindl> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Beta_Release_Criteria
17:03:07 <pschindl> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Final_Release_Criteria
17:03:38 <pschindl> We will secretarize (how is it spelled???) today?
17:03:47 <pschindl> s/We/who
17:03:58 <roshi> I got it :)
17:04:07 * roshi thinks he's getting good at it
17:04:08 <kparal> pschindl: also put here the numbers of blockers
17:04:12 <pschindl> roshi: Thank you
17:04:20 <pschindl> kparal: it's on my list :)
17:04:26 <pschindl> #info 6 Proposed Blockers
17:04:28 <pschindl> #info 10 Accepted Blockers
17:04:30 <pschindl> #info 3 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
17:04:32 <pschindl> #info 12 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
17:04:37 <pschindl> Let's start with proposed blockers
17:04:46 <pschindl> #topic (1027160) Kickstarts don't work on Live
17:04:48 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027160
17:04:50 <pschindl> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
17:05:29 <pschindl> I'm not sure if kickstarts are supposed to work on live
17:05:34 <adamw> is live+ks actually supposed to work...yeah
17:05:43 * adamw goes to catch an anaconda
17:05:43 <kparal> what is --kickstart option then for?
17:05:48 <adamw> fair point
17:05:56 <kparal> also please notice that the option actually _does something_
17:06:02 <pschindl> that's why I'm more +1
17:06:13 <kparal> it just does something else than supposed to do
17:07:01 <kparal> actually I'd be -1 beta blocker at this point, I think usually you automate installations with pxe or netinst
17:07:06 <adamw> i think i'd still be -1, as the installer certainly *can* complete a scripted installation which yadddayaddayadda
17:07:23 <adamw> i'm not sure i see any hugely compelling need for live+ks to work...yeah
17:07:29 <jreznik> and the question is how many people wants to automate live?
17:07:35 <adamw> <bcl> not really
17:07:35 <adamw> there shouldn't be any reason why they couldn't. but it isn't something we try to support on purpose.
17:07:35 <adamw> just use a boot.iso
17:08:23 <pschindl> ok, wait a moment for proposal
17:08:34 * satellit_e that is what a remix is for
17:08:44 <adamw> the Kickstart wiki page looks like it was written in about 1997
17:08:45 <adamw> "To begin a kickstart installation, you must boot the system from a Fedora or Red Hat Enterprise Linux boot diskette, Fedora or Red Hat Enterprise Linux boot CD-ROM, or the Fedora or Red Hat Enterprise Linux CD-ROM #1 and enter a special boot command at the boot prompt."
17:08:58 * adamw thinks he saw a 'boot diskette' in a museum yesterday
17:09:05 <jreznik> :)
17:09:10 <mkrizek> :)
17:09:24 <mkrizek> -1 blocker
17:09:41 <pschindl> proposed #agreed 1027160 - RejectedBlocker - Kickstarts aren't supposed to work with livecd. Kickstarts work fine with pxe and netinst.
17:10:01 <jreznik> also it affects only live, if anybody would desperately need it - update is possible
17:10:34 <kparal> ack
17:10:37 <adamw> ack
17:10:39 <roshi> -1 and ack
17:10:40 <mkrizek> ack
17:10:45 <jreznik> ack
17:10:55 <pschindl> #agreed 1027160 - RejectedBlocker - Kickstarts aren't supposed to work with livecd. Kickstarts work fine with pxe and netinst.
17:11:14 <pschindl> Hohoho that was quick. :)
17:11:16 <pschindl> #topic (1000669) [abrt] florence-0.6.0-1.fc20: gtk_main_do_event: Process /usr/bin/florence was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV)
17:11:18 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000669
17:11:20 <pschindl> #info Proposed Blocker, florence, NEW
17:11:27 <adamw> did anyone volunteer to secretarialize yet?
17:11:32 <adamw> oh, roshi
17:11:43 * adamw resumes drinking
17:11:53 <roshi> yeah?
17:11:57 <roshi> oh
17:12:10 <roshi> haha - sorry saw my name and didn't read above
17:12:33 <tflink> do we want to decide on this group of 4 as a whole?
17:12:44 <tflink> 6 if you include the private bugs filed by the same person
17:12:55 <jreznik> tflink: I just wanted to write it here... yes, please!
17:13:00 <mkrizek> yes
17:13:02 <kparal> bring it on
17:13:09 <tflink> akk
17:13:26 <adamw> well, some of them are in more vital components than others
17:13:36 <adamw> but if he didn't provide any reproduction steps yet...
17:14:02 <jreznik> 1007121 is one that's relevant for final
17:14:52 <tflink> is s-c-s supported anymore?
17:15:12 <tflink> I thought I remembered hearing that there was a desire to move away from the s-c-* utilities
17:15:21 <kparal> s-c-what?
17:15:27 <mkrizek> system-config
17:15:44 <tflink> system-config-services, system-config-keyboard etc.
17:15:44 <kparal> what does the last S mean?
17:15:48 <kparal> ok
17:16:17 <kparal> tflink: pschindl: can you write here links for the bugs currently in question?
17:16:17 <adamw> tflink: it's in the default KDE package set
17:16:51 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000752
17:17:00 <jreznik> tflink: yeah, we are still killing s-c-*, it was my job :)
17:17:05 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000756
17:17:15 <jreznik> what does gnome use instead of s-c-s?
17:17:17 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007121
17:17:25 <kparal> jreznik: nothing
17:17:28 <pschindl> any other?
17:17:52 <jreznik> kparal: then we can consider removing it from KDE package set
17:18:12 <tflink> either way, not a beta blocker
17:18:15 <adamw> yeah
17:18:31 <pschindl> -1
17:18:32 <adamw> i don't think any of them are beta blockers without more detail - no-one else is being eaten alive by any of these crashes, are you?
17:18:53 <pschindl> no, I haven't met any of them
17:19:05 <roshi> me either
17:19:08 <kparal> -1 for the group
17:19:09 <mkrizek> no
17:19:14 <tflink> -1 for the group
17:19:15 <jreznik> -1 for all of them for beta
17:19:23 <mkrizek> -1 for the group
17:19:23 <tflink> do we want to consider the 2 private bugs, as well
17:19:24 <tflink> ?
17:19:48 <adamw> throw 'em in the group i guess
17:19:50 <adamw> they're basically the same
17:19:56 <kparal> tflink: are they proposed, but not showing in BB app?
17:19:57 * tflink realizes that is tough when not everyone has access to them
17:20:08 <tflink> kparal: they're private, the app can't read them
17:20:26 <kparal> ok, please include the links
17:20:52 <pschindl> tflink: could you send links here?
17:21:24 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015347
17:21:35 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016935
17:22:43 <kparal> for the record, gnome-control-center and mate-system-log
17:23:26 <kparal> still -1 without further info
17:23:31 <pschindl> hmm. I wonder how g-c-c can be reproduced. It's the only one which I would say is Final blocker.
17:23:36 <kparal> we need reproducer information
17:23:43 <pschindl> But non of them should be beta blocker
17:23:54 <roshi> ^^ +1
17:24:12 <adamw> so, batch reject with request to re-propose only if they actually violate any criterion?
17:24:15 <adamw> and with details if so?
17:24:24 <tflink> sounds like a plan to me
17:24:45 <roshi> makes sense to me
17:24:51 <jreznik> yep
17:26:15 <pschindl> proposed #agreed 1000669 1000752 1000756 1007121 1015347 1016935 -  RejectedBlocker - All these crashes (reported by abrt) don't have reproducers and aren't in crucial components. We can reconsider later when reproducers will be known.
17:26:30 <pschindl> Is there any magic word for re-propose?
17:26:49 <roshi> re-propose
17:26:51 <roshi> :)
17:26:59 <adamw> ack
17:27:06 <roshi> ack
17:27:08 <kparal> ack
17:27:23 <tflink> patch? something about reproposing?
17:27:40 <tflink> g-c-c could be considered critical
17:27:51 <roshi> I thought that was implicit with "We can reconsider..."
17:27:53 <adamw> tflink: not for beta, i don't think
17:28:08 <roshi> and it's only critical if it can be reproduced
17:28:24 <tflink> sure, but crashes after boot are generally not beta blockers either way
17:28:40 <kparal> secretary can add the bits and pieces about re-proposing
17:28:53 <tflink> fair enough, ack
17:28:59 <roshi> kk
17:29:15 <pschindl> #agreed 1000669 1000752 1000756 1007121 1015347 1016935 -  RejectedBlocker - All these crashes (reported by abrt) don't have reproducers and aren't in crucial components. We can re-propose them later when reproducers are known.
17:29:29 * roshi goes to update 6 bugs
17:29:53 <pschindl> And the last one from proposed:
17:29:57 <pschindl> #topic (1026466) blivet shows existing LVs as not taking up any space in the VG
17:29:59 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026466
17:30:01 <pschindl> #info Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, ASSIGNED
17:31:15 <kparal> I reproduced this today
17:31:19 <kparal> involuntarily
17:32:05 <adamw> sigh
17:32:11 <adamw> looks pretty +1y
17:32:16 <tflink> yep
17:33:02 <kparal> unfortunately
17:33:19 <kparal> we spent the whole day filling missing test cases
17:33:54 <mkrizek> :/
17:35:20 <kparal> I think it should be Beta blocker. lvm resize fails, new lvm partiton fails. too bad
17:35:23 <jreznik> looking on comment #2, I'm not sure I understand it correctly
17:35:24 <adamw> RC5 changing the partitioning code means at least we need to re-do all the partitioning test cases. whee.
17:36:37 <jreznik> if we could get the build later today, how much work it means?
17:36:56 <kparal> tomorrow full of testing :)
17:36:58 <jreznik> we don't have much space for slips :(
17:37:08 <pschindl> proposed #agreed 1026466 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug lets user to set a layout which cannot be created. Also it violates 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
17:37:10 <pschindl> and 5 containing ext4 partitions"
17:37:12 <jreznik> (we don't have any)
17:37:15 <adamw> ack
17:37:16 <kparal> jreznik: do we need to move the Final schedule when we slip Beta?
17:37:27 <adamw> jreznik: it means a good ol-fashioned all-night validation run
17:37:28 <pschindl> jreznik: We will test it tommorow and everything will be fine :)
17:37:29 <tflink> kparal: yes
17:37:36 <tflink> I think, anyways
17:37:43 <pschindl> ack/nack/patch?
17:37:43 * adamw grabs the bottles
17:37:47 <tflink> ack
17:38:00 <mkrizek> ack
17:38:04 <jreznik> kparal: well, for today's FESCo meeting there's a ticket to get one week off the cycle but it still means pretty tight one
17:38:16 <kparal> ack
17:38:16 <jreznik> (we decided it last go/no-go meeting)
17:38:21 <pschindl> #agreed 1026466 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug lets user to set a layout which cannot be created. Also it violates 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 co
17:38:23 <pschindl> ntaining ext4 partitions"
17:38:26 <jreznik> ack as it's proposed by dlehman
17:38:44 <pschindl> ok. That's all from proposed blockers
17:39:03 <pschindl> No, if there are no objections we can move to proposed Freeze Exceptions
17:39:12 <tflink> ack
17:39:18 <tflink> bah, slow
17:39:23 <pschindl> #topic (929177) in text install, "Create user" and "Set root password" are swapped in i386 vs. x86_64
17:39:25 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929177
17:39:26 <jreznik> adamw, tflink: I'll be online for a few more hours today but if you could follow up with dlehman and bcl, it would be great, and then dgilmore
17:39:27 <pschindl> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, POST
17:40:29 <robatino> personally, i think not important enough for beta, but should be fixed for final
17:40:42 <tflink> yeah, not 1 day before go/no-go
17:40:45 <adamw> jreznik: i'm on it (cracks whip)
17:40:57 <kparal> -1
17:41:01 <adamw> yeah, leave it alone
17:41:04 <pschindl> -1
17:41:26 <robatino> how about final FE?
17:41:26 <tflink> -1 unless we somehow slip again
17:41:58 <mkrizek> -1
17:42:20 <kparal> robatino: the patch is ready, it can be included after Beta freeze is over
17:43:29 <pschindl> proposed #agreed 929177 - RejectedFreezeException - Fix for this bug can bring more problems then benefits to bring it before go/no-go. We can look at it after beta is realesed.
17:44:13 <kparal> patch - "Please push the patch once Beta freeze is over"
17:44:25 <adamw> ack either way
17:44:54 <pschindl> proposed #agreed 929177 - RejectedFreezeException - Fix for this bug can bring more problems then benefits to bring it before go/no-go.Please push the patch once Beta freeze is over.
17:44:56 <pschindl> ?
17:45:02 <pschindl> ack/nack/patch?
17:45:05 <tflink> ack
17:45:05 <kparal> ack
17:45:35 <mkrizek> ack
17:45:36 <pschindl> #agreed 929177 - RejectedFreezeException - Fix for this bug can bring more problems then benefits to bring it before go/no-go.Please push the patch once Beta freeze is over.
17:45:51 <pschindl> #topic (1025347) kickstart sometimes hangs in summary hub
17:45:53 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025347
17:45:55 <pschindl> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, ON_QA
17:46:06 <tflink> this was already pulled in, so FE is a bit academic
17:46:48 <pschindl> So lets reject it just for fun :)
17:47:02 <kparal> :))
17:47:13 <tflink> I doubt it'd have an effect but yeah, the thought crossed my mind :)
17:47:43 <kparal> let's skip it
17:47:53 <pschindl> ok.
17:48:34 <kparal> proposed agreed skipped
17:48:37 <robatino> shouldn't that be formalized? automatically reject anything that's already pulled in
17:48:48 <pschindl> #info Fix for 1025347 has been already pulled. Skipping to more important.
17:49:10 <tflink> robatino: that sounds a bit antagonistic to me
17:49:19 <kparal> rather we should ask bcl not to do that next time
17:49:21 <pschindl> Does someone want to add something to this bug?
17:49:35 <tflink> kparal: both adam and I have talked to him about it
17:49:45 <kparal> ok
17:50:07 <pschindl> Lets move to the last proposed FE
17:50:09 <tflink> you're welcome to try as well, though
17:50:16 <pschindl> #topic (1004621) plasma-nm doesn't attempt to connect to any listed networks on Fedora KDE live
17:50:18 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004621
17:50:20 <pschindl> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, kde-plasma-nm, ASSIGNED
17:50:20 <tflink> pschindl: it's just assigned, I think it can be skipped
17:50:26 <adamw> actually, they did revert the fix for a bug we voted rejectedFE that had already been applied, last week.
17:50:34 <adamw> +1
17:50:47 <adamw> bit of a bad bug, really. i'm building an image for KDE test day which may fix it
17:51:05 <adamw> not sure if the changes will be safe enough to pull into RC5, but i'm +1 in case we wind up slipping
17:51:41 <tflink> couldn't this be arguably a blocker?
17:51:50 <kparal> so wifi doesn't work at all in KDE?
17:52:01 <tflink> ie, can't do updates in kde if you only have wireless
17:52:12 * satellit_e not on live but yes after install
17:52:21 <tflink> or is it only on live and doesn't happen post-install?
17:53:01 <adamw> it's only during the live session
17:53:08 <adamw> and you can work around it by logging out
17:53:11 <tflink> c#10 sounds post-install
17:53:11 <adamw> aiui, anyway
17:53:35 <kparal> +1 fe
17:53:47 <adamw> c#10 doesn't really sound like the same thing exactly. it's hard to parse.
17:54:53 <tflink> I suppose that we'd have heard something by now if wireless didn't work on kde post-install
17:55:18 <jreznik> yep
17:55:22 <tflink> +1 FE at least
17:55:33 <mbriza> i guess it was an autologin problem but it's fixed in newest sddm
17:55:48 * satellit_e afk have to go
17:56:04 <pschindl> proposed #agreed 1004621 - AcceptedFreezeException - Not working wireless connection is crucial enough to be fixed as soon as possible.
17:56:25 <adamw> ack
17:56:26 <mkrizek> ack
17:56:46 <pschindl> any other ack/nack/patch?
17:56:47 <tflink> patch: add part about it only being on lives?
17:57:49 <pschindl> proposed #agreed 1004621 - AcceptedFreezeException - Not working wireless connection is crucial enough to be fixed as soon as possible. This bug affects only livecd. Post-install seems to work properly.
17:57:58 <tflink> ack
17:58:35 <pschindl> ack/nack/patch?
17:58:41 <adamw> ack again
17:58:47 <mkrizek> ack
17:58:50 <pschindl> #agreed 1004621 - AcceptedFreezeException - Not working wireless connection is crucial enough to be fixed as soon as possible. This bug affects only livecd. Post-install seems to work properly.
17:59:14 <pschindl> Great. That's all from proposed bugs
17:59:33 <roshi> post install of 1004621 does work
17:59:38 * roshi just caught up
17:59:41 <pschindl> Now, accepted blockers will follow.
18:00:02 <pschindl> roshi: We are quick as hell today :)
18:00:10 <pschindl> #topic (1012504) FSError: filesystem already exists
18:00:12 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1012504
18:00:14 <pschindl> #info Accepted Blocker, anaconda, VERIFIED
18:00:34 <tflink> pschindl: they're all verified, though
18:00:40 <roshi> yeah, no joke
18:00:44 <tflink> do we really want to go through them all?
18:01:04 <adamw> unless there's anything complex about any of 'em, i don't think so
18:01:05 <pschindl> tflink: I was thinking about doing them all together
18:01:18 <adamw> anyone know of any issues with any of the open accepted blockers?
18:01:18 <kparal> let's skip verified
18:01:21 <pschindl> ok. It will be better.
18:01:37 <pschindl> +1 for skipping verified
18:01:47 <roshi> +1
18:02:24 <kparal> do we want to discuss accepted FE?
18:02:33 <pschindl> #info All accepted blocker bugs are verified now and there isn't nothing what we should worry about
18:02:42 <pschindl> kparal: I don't want to :)
18:03:38 <kparal> we probably should do those in ON_QA
18:03:38 <roshi> anything special I should note on 1025347 since it's already pulled and we skipped it?
18:04:05 <kparal> roshi: I guess write that we skipped it because it was already pulled in
18:04:23 <kparal> probably obvious :)
18:04:33 <adamw> kparal: 'do' them how - decide whether to pull them in?
18:04:36 <roshi> that works, I wasn't sure (and couldn't find) anything about what we do when we skip things
18:04:39 <kparal> adamw: yes
18:04:50 <adamw> they're all in rc4
18:04:56 <kparal> ah
18:05:06 <adamw> read the compose requests ;)
18:05:12 <adamw> none of them seem to cause any issues
18:06:00 <pschindl> So is there any special desire to go through some of the accepted freeze exceptions?
18:06:01 <kparal> I read them, but I don't have this complex map of all available builds and fixes in my mind :)
18:06:39 <adamw> anyone worried about having any of them in rc5? if not i don't think there's anything needs discussing...
18:07:00 <tflink> I'd rather keep the changes to a minimum, to be honest :)
18:07:03 <kparal> adamw: is there going to be something _new_ in RC5?
18:07:22 <kparal> apart maybe from that KDE network thingy we already covered
18:07:27 <adamw> compared to rc4? the kde one we just approved is the only possibility, yeah
18:07:48 <kparal> ok, then I think we don't need to go through any of accepted FEs
18:08:05 <pschindl> Cool.
18:08:17 <pschindl> Sooooooooo ....
18:08:22 <pschindl> #topic Open Floor
18:08:49 <robatino> i was confused about adamw's response to my post about automatic promotion of FEs
18:08:51 <kparal> let's hope we have RC5 tomorrow
18:09:02 <pschindl> I have one idea which was said somewhere by adamw
18:09:16 <pschindl> Who is going to lead next blocker bug meeting? :)
18:09:30 <robatino> i wasn't talking about any kind of automation, just whether it was okay for an individual to manually move an accepted beta FE to an accepted final FE after beta goes gold
18:10:09 <kparal> robatino: I don't think we should move accepted of milestone x to accepted of milestone y
18:10:12 <kparal> without discussion
18:10:31 <pschindl> but they could be reproposed
18:10:33 <pschindl> ?
18:10:44 <kparal> definitely
18:10:45 <jreznik> repropose, yes, move automatically, no
18:11:03 <roshi> I can run the meeting next time around (or try :p)
18:11:05 <kparal> in past releases I often did that
18:11:15 <robatino> can someone give an example of where it wouldn't make sense?
18:11:22 <kparal> roshi: great!
18:12:27 <kparal> robatino: the issue can progress and the fix might be much more invasive or influence many more components than originally intended
18:12:35 <kparal> sure, we can still simply not take it
18:12:50 <pschindl> #info roshi volunteer for next blocker bug meeting. Thanks
18:12:53 <kparal> but, in a few weeks time, the changes are easier to keep track with than with months time
18:13:10 <roshi> np
18:13:30 <kparal> so I think it would be better to have a look at that bug again and consider that for the next milestone
18:13:45 <robatino> but a FE can change from accepted to rejected before beta gold. no need to wait until final
18:14:48 <roshi> secretarializing is done
18:15:00 <kparal> I wanted to say that between Alpha and Beta is a lot of time and it might be wise to do a re-evaluation rather than automatically accept it for the next milestone
18:15:53 <kparal> but I have no hard feelings about this
18:18:43 <pschindl> ok. Something else to be mentioned here?
18:18:58 <kparal> robatino: you can start a thread on test list
18:19:05 <robatino> i already did
18:19:11 <kparal> ugh, sorry :)
18:19:18 <kparal> haven't seen it yet
18:19:22 <pschindl> ok. So lets finish it.
18:19:45 <robatino> i was just confused by adamw's response, so i didn't continue it
18:19:54 <robatino> but i can, if anyone adds to it
18:19:54 <pschindl> I don't have any fuse so I'm giving you last minute and than I go for my dinner :)
18:20:28 <pschindl> #info Next meeting time - 17:00 UTC on 2013-11-13
18:21:54 <pschindl> Thank you for coming. Today it was really nice time spent together. Next time with beer and roshi as leader :)
18:22:07 <roshi> yay! Beer
18:22:18 <pschindl> #endmeeting