16:07:39 <roshi> #startmeeting F21-blocker-review 16:07:39 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Sep 10 16:07:39 2014 UTC. The chair is roshi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:07:39 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:07:39 <roshi> #meetingname F21-blocker-review 16:07:39 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f21-blocker-review' 16:07:40 <roshi> #topic Roll Call 16:07:53 <danofsatx> again, I'm kinda-sorta here 16:08:12 * roshi is here 16:08:55 <roshi> sorry for getting started late, I got distracted with brokenness :) 16:09:08 <roshi> anybody else here? 16:09:21 * tflink can be here 16:09:28 <danofsatx> just use chickens. 16:09:38 <danofsatx> erm, s/use/us 16:09:54 <roshi> adamw, sgallagh? You guys around? 16:09:56 * sgallagh waves 16:10:05 <tflink> danofsatx: I suspect that chickens might not appreciate having a DVD or usb drive stuck into them 16:10:19 <danofsatx> welll...... 16:10:23 <sgallagh> I'm juggling a fair number of things (including lunch), so apologies if I'm slow to respond 16:10:39 <roshi> no problem 16:11:03 * mattdm gets a plate of food from the indian buffet 16:11:40 <amita> mattdm, indian? 16:11:44 * pwhalen is here 16:12:02 <mattdm> amita yes it is deeelicious :) 16:12:10 <roshi> I think we have enough to get started with actual reviews :) 16:12:15 <amita> nice mattdm :) 16:12:22 <amita> roshi, yeah 16:12:55 <roshi> #chair tflink pwhalen danofsatx amita mattdm 16:12:55 <zodbot> Current chairs: amita danofsatx mattdm pwhalen roshi tflink 16:13:17 <roshi> any volunteers for secretary duty? 16:13:32 <roshi> if you haven't done it, but want to - I can walk someone through it after the meeting 16:13:48 * danofsatx can't today 16:14:14 * satellit listening sorry I am late (Workstation meeting) 16:14:17 <adamw> man, i keep forgetting what time this is 16:14:20 * adamw here 16:14:25 <adamw> i can secretary 16:14:29 <roshi> no worries satellit, we were late too 16:14:31 <adamw> once i have breakfast and coffee 16:14:40 <roshi> thanks adamw 16:14:48 <amita> roshi, I woule like to 16:14:53 <roshi> #topic Introduction 16:14:53 <roshi> Why are we here? 16:14:53 <roshi> #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. 16:14:57 <roshi> #info We'll be following the process outlined at: 16:14:59 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting 16:15:02 <roshi> #info The bugs up for review today are available at: 16:15:04 <roshi> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current 16:15:06 <danofsatx> if you weren't up so late tracking down sssd errors, you'd have breakfast at a reasonable hour adamw 16:15:07 <roshi> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: 16:15:09 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Alpha_Release_Criteria 16:15:13 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria 16:15:16 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Final_Release_Criteria 16:15:19 <roshi> secretary amita? 16:15:34 <amita> no for walk through :P 16:15:42 <amita> its adamw 16:16:07 <roshi> part of the walkthrough I was going to take people through was actually doing it, just after the meeting 16:16:50 <roshi> adamw or I can walk you through it after the meeting - it's pretty simple 16:16:56 <roshi> ok, onto the first blocker! 16:16:57 <roshi> #topic (1139015) F21 Workstation Alpha TC6 network install fails with crash, hang, reboot or "pane is dead" - caused by anaconda segfault 16:17:00 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1139015 16:17:03 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, distribution, NEW 16:17:09 * amita clicks 16:17:11 <adamw> +1, obviously 16:17:19 <pwhalen> +1 16:17:37 <sgallagh> +1 16:17:39 <roshi> +1 16:17:46 <kalev> +1 16:17:50 <sgallagh> Though it sounds like this was a bad compose more than anything else 16:17:56 <tflink> +1 16:18:24 <amita> +1 16:18:59 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1139015 - AcceptedBlocker - This is a clear violation of the Alpha Criteria "Installer must run" 16:19:00 <danofsatx> +1 16:19:06 <danofsatx> ack 'n' all 16:19:26 <sgallagh> Ack 16:19:39 <pwhalen> ack 16:19:41 <kalev> ack 16:19:44 <amita> ack 16:19:49 <roshi> #agreed - 1139015 - AcceptedBlocker - This is a clear violation of the Alpha Criteria "Installer must run" 16:20:03 <roshi> #topic (1135516) freeipa-client needs python-backports-ssl_match_hostname 16:20:05 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135516 16:20:08 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, freeipa, VERIFIED 16:20:39 * amita clicks 16:20:53 <kalev> I'd be rather conservative what we mark as blockers, don't want to end up delaying the Alpha for small issues 16:20:56 <adamw> achievement unlocked: coffee 16:20:56 <kalev> but FE, sure 16:21:04 <adamw> amita: we can probably take the 'clicks' as understood 16:21:09 <roshi> looks like we're just waiting on the fix to land? 16:21:20 <danofsatx> +1 FE 16:21:29 <adamw> it matches the criterion precisely. 16:21:30 <amita> but its says it is already VERIFIED 16:21:40 <adamw> "It must be possible to join the system to a FreeIPA or Active Directory domain at install time and post-install, and the system must respect the identity, authentication and access control configuration provided by the domain." 16:21:57 <sgallagh> +1 blocker 16:21:57 <danofsatx> ok then, -1 FE, +1 block 16:22:01 <roshi> it'd be a blocker for the freeipa criteria for sure, and a fix is pending, so I'm fine with a +1 blocker 16:22:07 <adamw> amita: it's verified fixed in the update, but the update isn't in stable. actually maybe i'm not supposed to use VERIFIED for that, i forget. 16:22:21 <amita> adamw, hmm 16:22:30 <amita> so you may want to change the state? 16:22:34 <adamw> kalev: this makes it impossible to do an unattended/scripted realm join at install time 16:22:55 <adamw> amita: possibly, but i have to go remember what the rules about VERIFIED are first. it's not super important 16:23:03 <pwhalen> +1 blocker 16:23:09 <amita> adamw, ok 16:23:27 <pwhalen> adamw, please let me know too, as i flip that as well once i have confirmed it as working 16:23:36 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1135516 - AcceptedBlocker - This clearly violates the Alpha Criteria: "It must be possible to join the system to a FreeIPA or Active Directory domain at install time and post-install, and the system must respect the identity, authentication and access control configuration provided by the domain." 16:23:44 <adamw> ack 16:23:48 <amita> ack 16:23:49 <pwhalen> ack 16:23:56 <sgallagh> Ack 16:23:56 <roshi> #agreed - 1135516 - AcceptedBlocker - This clearly violates the Alpha Criteria: "It must be possible to join the system to a FreeIPA or Active Directory domain at install time and post-install, and the system must respect the identity, authentication and access control configuration provided by the domain." 16:24:01 <roshi> #topic (1138746) virt-manager needs to split the version filed of the .treeinfo file on _ and - not just - 16:24:04 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138746 16:24:07 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, virt-manager, ON_QA 16:24:36 <sgallagh> +1 FE, but as this bug is really about the host OS, I don't think it's a true blocker for F21 itself 16:25:13 * jreznik_ is here, again a bit later 16:26:23 <roshi> yeah, I'm not sure this qualifies as alpha blocker 16:26:55 <amita> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138746#c1 - virt is generally Beta 16:27:16 <roshi> seems like a host issue and a fix is already pending 16:27:29 <roshi> wouldn't hurt to pull it in for the next TC though 16:27:31 <pwhalen> +1 FE 16:28:10 <adamw> well, i mean, i guess someone might be using virt-inst on live images? 16:28:36 <roshi> perhaps? 16:28:38 <adamw> or virt-manager with its 'guided install' thing, i guess this is 16:28:57 <roshi> I mean, an FE would fix the issue and get it in before alpha release 16:29:04 <amita> bug definition says virt-manager 16:29:15 <kalev> well, the fix is already there, so let's pull it in as FE? 16:29:25 <roshi> I'd lean towards FE 16:29:27 <danofsatx> +1 FE 16:29:27 <adamw> yeah, i guess this is the thing where you create a new machine and it tries to do something clever with the target distro? 16:29:30 <kalev> +1 FE 16:29:44 * adamw isn't really convinced, but doesn't mind...+/-0 16:29:59 <roshi> convinced of what? blocker or fe? 16:30:10 <adamw> fe 16:30:14 <adamw> it's obviously not a blocker 16:30:39 <roshi> well, we've got votes for FE 16:31:01 <danofsatx> and the local fix is simply mv F21_blah_blah.iso F21-blah-blah.iso 16:31:13 <amita> hmm :) 16:31:18 <roshi> I don't see any issues with it being pulled in, though I would question people running virt-manager from the batch of alpha lives we have in the first place 16:31:29 <roshi> for anything important anyways 16:31:53 <amita> but it means if anyone is creating VM with - in its name will face trace back 16:32:15 <amita> I mean _ 16:32:19 <danofsatx> heh...the Redmine server I just built was from the Server TC5 release ;) 16:32:20 <sgallagh> danofsatx: That doesn't help at all with the netinstall case 16:32:52 <danofsatx> sgallagh: true, hadn't considered that. 16:32:55 <roshi> proposed #agreed - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - This doesn't violate any of the alpha criteria so is not a blocker. However it was accepted as a FreezeException to be included in the next TC. 16:32:59 <adamw> amita: it's not the VM name, it's the ISO image name 16:33:12 <sgallagh> roshi: Well, I suspect that there's a lot of intersection between "people testing Alpha TCs" and "people running F21 prerelease on their client machine" 16:33:19 <adamw> roshi: that's nice and vague ;) 16:33:26 <kalev> I think we've historically been too strict with FE's. If the fix is there and seems sane to everybody, it should be fine to pull it in. 16:33:37 <adamw> sgallagh: we mean specifically running VMs off the live image, as that's the only case where FE actually makes any difference 16:33:37 * roshi shrugs towards adamw 16:33:50 <adamw> kalev: we have historically been too liberal with them and they keep busting our composes 16:33:52 <sgallagh> kalev: Well, there are cases where the fallout isn't worth it 16:34:07 <roshi> true sgallagh 16:34:11 <adamw> sgallagh: if you run a VM from an *installed* F21 Alpha system you can just do 'yum update libvirt' 16:34:16 <sgallagh> e.g. A freeze exception for a soname bump of libc? Not gonna happen 16:34:21 <adamw> hell, you can do that in the damn live image if you want to run a VM, we have that working. 16:34:40 <roshi> the workarounds are there - this doesn't really *stop* you from doing anything 16:34:53 <adamw> sgallagh: it's a wrinkle people keep forgetting about, but it's always vital to consider what breaking the freeze actually *achieves* when you're considering FEs 16:35:07 <sgallagh> Yes 16:35:30 <adamw> i mean, i don't really mind this one, i don't think it's gonna explode anything, but i'm just not sure strictly considered it's actually worth breaking a freeze for. 16:36:16 <roshi> yeah 16:36:51 <roshi> well, how about we just say rejected blocker and be done with it 16:37:15 <roshi> far as I can tell, this doesn't break anything a simple workaround doesn't fix quickly and easily 16:37:28 <sgallagh> Fine by me 16:37:54 <danofsatx> so, -1 blocker? 16:38:28 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1138746 - RejectedBlocker - This doesn't violate any of the alpha criteria and workarounds exist. 16:38:36 <danofsatx> ack 16:38:54 <adamw> ack 16:39:08 <pwhalen> ack 16:39:12 * roshi supposes he's an implicit ack since he wrote it 16:39:20 <roshi> #agreed - 1138746 - RejectedBlocker - This doesn't violate any of the alpha criteria and workarounds exist. 16:39:51 <roshi> #topic (1138746) virt-manager needs to split the version filed of the .treeinfo file on _ and - not just - 16:39:54 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138746 16:39:56 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, virt-manager, ON_QA 16:40:08 <sgallagh> -1 blocker 16:40:27 <roshi> bah 16:40:31 <roshi> that's the one we just did 16:40:34 <roshi> #undo 16:40:34 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by roshi at 16:39:56 : Proposed Blocker, virt-manager, ON_QA 16:40:39 <roshi> #undo 16:40:39 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Link object at 0xf333850> 16:40:45 <roshi> #undo 16:40:45 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x10033150> 16:40:55 <roshi> ok, that's all the blockers 16:40:57 <pwhalen> i have a late addition, just added 16:41:07 <roshi> link pwhalen ? 16:41:17 <pwhalen> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136990 16:41:43 <pwhalen> this is actually a dup of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124987 16:41:55 <roshi> #topic (1136990) - TypeError: must be an interface 16:42:08 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136990 16:42:09 <pwhalen> but prevents net installs on arm, i confirmed locally that the new glibc fixes it 16:42:45 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, glibc, NEW 16:43:35 <kalev> I would definitely be +1 FE if it gets fixed in time 16:43:43 <roshi> are netinsts blocking on arm? 16:44:12 <jreznik_> well, it's primary arch 16:44:13 <roshi> I thought the typical arm install was more of a local thing 16:44:26 <pwhalen> glibc-2.19.90-36.fc21 fixed it, regenerated the install tree locally 16:44:56 <roshi> well, we don't block on ws netinst (as far as I tracked that conversation anyways) - so I didn't know if arm cared about the netinst is all 16:45:00 <sgallagh> ARM is blocking for Server 16:45:18 <roshi> ah 16:45:24 <roshi> which does care about netinst :) 16:45:40 <adamw> we did talk about arm server netinst and concluded we cared, IIRC 16:45:47 <roshi> +1 blocker 16:45:47 <adamw> (we = server SIG, he said, switching hats rapidly) 16:46:08 <roshi> works for me, I just wasn't sure where the cards fell on that one 16:46:09 <pwhalen> adamw, right, it was discussed yesterday 16:46:10 <roshi> if that makes sense 16:46:11 <sgallagh> adamw: You remember correctly 16:46:14 <pwhalen> +1 16:46:22 <sgallagh> +1 blocker 16:46:41 <adamw> +1 16:46:42 <kalev> +1 blocker, if we make the image it should actually work 16:47:01 <jreznik_> +1 blocker 16:47:03 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1136990 - AcceptedBlocker - This clearly violates the following Alpha Criteria: When using a dedicated installer image, the installer must be able to complete an installation using the text, graphical and VNC installation interfaces. 16:47:22 <sgallagh> Ack 16:47:24 <pwhalen> ack 16:47:28 <jreznik> ack 16:47:38 <kalev> ack 16:47:42 <roshi> #agreed - 1136990 - AcceptedBlocker - This clearly violates the following Alpha Criteria: When using a dedicated installer image, the installer must be able to complete an installation using the text, graphical and VNC installation interfaces. 16:47:50 <jreznik> not sure how long it will be, maybe we can add for what product we block 16:47:58 <roshi> any more ninja blockers? 16:48:00 <pwhalen> thanks, sorry about the late addition 16:48:03 <pwhalen> ;) 16:48:07 <roshi> no worries pwhalen :) 16:48:30 <roshi> onto the FE's then? 16:48:36 <roshi> we've got 9 of them... 16:48:42 <sgallagh> 10 16:49:03 <roshi> huh, only 9 showing on my page 16:49:03 <adamw> whew, for aminute there i thought we were going to have another short blocker meeting 16:49:08 * adamw has ten 16:49:10 <adamw> hit refresh 16:49:10 <sgallagh> roshi: Refresh 16:49:12 * roshi refreshes 16:49:24 <roshi> for the record, mine was easier 16:49:28 <sgallagh> hahaha 16:49:29 <roshi> you guys asked for this :p 16:49:43 <sgallagh> (Unfortunately, I *did* ask for the tenth one) 16:50:00 <roshi> but no, you guys were all like "Hey, let's be thorough and stuff" 16:50:08 <roshi> ok, onto the first one 16:50:08 <roshi> #topic (1133394) [abrt] cheese: g_type_check_instance_is_fundamentally_a(): cheese killed by SIGSEGV 16:50:11 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133394 16:50:14 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, cheese, ON_QA 16:50:17 <adamw> such fools we are 16:51:30 <adamw> sure, non-crashing cheese is a good thing on lives 16:51:31 <adamw> +1 16:51:49 <roshi> yup 16:51:50 <roshi> +1 16:51:53 <amita> +1 16:52:44 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1133394 - AcceptedFreezeException - This change can be pulled into the next compose. 16:53:15 <sgallagh> +0, for the record 16:53:43 <sgallagh> (I don't think it's necessarily worth breaking freeze for, but it's unlikely to have any wider impact, so meh) 16:54:07 <adamw> sgallagh: leaves are usually a bit less worrying :) 16:54:10 <roshi> it's a default app people are likely to test with on lives though 16:54:29 <sgallagh> Which is why I'm only +0 and not -1 :) 16:54:37 <roshi> fair enough, lol 16:54:44 <roshi> any ack/nack/patch? 16:54:50 <sgallagh> Ack 16:55:54 <roshi> ? 16:55:58 <adamw> ack 16:56:01 <adamw> well 16:56:09 <adamw> your agreeds are rather vague this morning ;) 16:56:26 <adamw> maybe #agreed - 1133394 - AcceptedFreezeException - cheese is a highly visible and commonly tested app for live images, worth fixing 16:56:36 <roshi> ack 16:56:41 * roshi was just doing the edit 16:57:07 <sgallagh> ack 16:57:32 <amita> ack 16:57:33 <roshi> the next ones will be more informative adamw :) 16:57:52 <adamw> ack 16:58:07 <roshi> #agreed - 1133394 - AcceptedFreezeException - cheese is a highly visible and commonly tested app for live images, worth fixing 16:58:18 <roshi> #topic (1140165) Cockpit 0.21 is broken with Docker 1.2.0 16:58:18 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140165 16:58:18 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, cockpit, MODIFIE 16:59:39 <sgallagh> Docker broke ABI underneath Cockpit and is already in F21. This is a fix so Cockpit (which is acting as our user-friendly interface to Docker) isn't a huge embarrassment at Alpha 17:00:09 <roshi> so this is when the host running cockpit can't manage the containers? or something wrong in our docker container image with cockpit installed? 17:00:19 * roshi is a bit fuzzy with cockpit 17:01:03 <kalev> +1 FE, the fix is available so might just as well pull it in 17:01:27 <roshi> I can see it being worth breaking freeze since cockpit is a key feature of F21 17:01:37 <sgallagh> roshi: The host cannot manage docker containers running on it through cockpit 17:01:44 <roshi> ok 17:01:47 <roshi> thanks sgallagh 17:01:52 <sgallagh> All docker actions result in an error 17:02:16 <roshi> +1 FE, since this touches a lot of the shiny new F21 shiny-ness 17:02:24 <kalev> it's not like we have an release to ship to mirrors today, so might just as well spend the extra time to polish up things and fix embarrasing bugs 17:02:29 <kalev> especially if the fix is already available 17:03:02 <roshi> yeah 17:03:03 <kalev> if we were releasing tomorrow, then I'd be more conservative :) 17:03:24 <sgallagh> Well, it's an FE, not a blocker for much that reason 17:03:37 * kalev nods. 17:03:49 <adamw> seems like you can get the fix through a yum update, but i guess the polish argument kinda sways me on this one as it would look unfortunate if you just deployed straight out of the DVD ISO and tried to use it without updating... 17:04:02 <roshi> that was my thought 17:04:20 <roshi> cockpit and running docker containers are two the the things we're touting with f21 17:04:23 <roshi> votes? 17:04:36 <roshi> I count 2 +1s 17:04:36 * sgallagh abstains for obvious reasons 17:06:01 <roshi> is that a +1 from you adamw ? 17:06:13 <adamw> sure 17:06:27 <adamw> sgallagh: we don't really have conflict-of-interest rules for blocker review 17:06:37 <adamw> the highly advanced heuristic vote counting algorithm takes it into account 17:06:44 <adamw> (i've been known to vote against my own proposals) 17:07:18 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1140165 - AcceptedFreezeException - This bug touches cockpit and docker interoperability which are both key features for F21. It's worth breaking freeze to get these changes into a more polished image. 17:07:29 <adamw> ack 17:07:39 <roshi> less vague? :) 17:08:01 <amita> roshi, you are just fine, I guess :) 17:08:20 <danofsatx> ok, I'm out. have fun, folks.... 17:08:25 <roshi> later danofsatx 17:08:43 <roshi> ack/nack/patch? 17:09:01 <amita> ack 17:09:10 <sgallagh> ack 17:09:16 <roshi> #agreed - 1140165 - AcceptedFreezeException - This bug touches cockpit and docker interoperability which are both key features for F21. It's worth breaking freeze to get these changes into a more polished image. 17:09:30 <roshi> #topic (1116316) gnome-initial-setup not coming up after Live Workstation install 17:09:33 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116316 17:09:36 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-initial-setup, NEW 17:10:17 * amita brb 17:10:47 <adamw> +1, it's not crucial but it'd be good to fix it 17:10:50 <roshi> +1 FE 17:10:56 * roshi thought this looked familiar 17:11:02 <adamw> the g-i-s workflow is kinda useful, and obviously we want folks to test it 17:11:03 <adamw> roshi: :) 17:11:59 <roshi> anyone else? 17:12:33 <pwhalen> +1 fe 17:13:35 <kalev> I don't see a lot of value in theoretical voting here. I mean, if we say +1 FE, it usually means +1 to this _particualar build_ since it looks sane and safe. 17:13:58 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1116316 - AcceptedFreezeException - g-i-s provides a useful workflow that we want to have tested before release. 17:14:31 <kalev> I'd be happy to say +1 FE if there was an actual build available, but this voting for an unknown thing :) 17:14:32 <satellit> I get it in VirtualBox but in russian... 17:14:35 <roshi> kalev: I see it as a mix between the two, if the package is sane and good isn't enough reason to break freeze - it also has to make sense for the image itself to get that update 17:14:39 <roshi> AIUI 17:15:23 <roshi> well, the +1 FE is "when a fix is available we've alread said we want it pulled in because it helps the image itself" 17:15:40 <roshi> if we were just pulling in good packages, then we wouldn't really need a freeze process anyways 17:15:44 <roshi> far as I can tell 17:15:47 <adamw> kalev: in fact the conception is just the other way around 17:15:54 <adamw> though in practice it's kind of a fudge 17:16:09 <roshi> I could be worng though 17:16:13 <adamw> the idea is that we vote on whether the issue potentially merits a freeze break, and do the evaluation of the actual fix when we decide whether to pull it in 17:16:23 <adamw> in practice, when we can actually see the complexity of the fix at vote time we tend to consider it 17:16:26 <adamw> eh, humans :P 17:16:32 <satellit> g-i-s worked for me in VB root but no user workstation 21 Alpha TC6 x86_64 17:16:40 <adamw> i thought we actually already had the fix for this one, though? 17:16:47 * satellit just now in Vb 17:17:07 <roshi> I thought we did too 17:17:26 <roshi> guess not - at least noted in the bug 17:17:43 <adamw> hum, oh yeah, i guess mclasen just identified the problem, not the fix 17:18:37 * satellit logged in to getting started 17:18:59 <roshi> so I see 3 +1s 17:19:02 <roshi> any other votes? 17:19:37 <roshi> ack/nack/patch? 17:20:08 <adamw> ack 17:20:13 <pwhalen_> ack 17:20:45 <roshi> #agreed - 1116316 - AcceptedFreezeException - g-i-s provides a useful workflow that we want to have tested before release. 17:21:06 <roshi> #topic (1139475) cannot select from full list of keyboard layouts 17:21:06 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1139475 17:21:07 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-initial-setup, NEW 17:22:25 <roshi> +1, being able to get your keyboard layout shouldn't be something you can't do 17:22:44 <kalev> +1 here, nice and small fix and already available 17:23:30 <pwhalen> +1 17:23:54 <adamw> +1 17:24:06 <jreznik> +1 17:24:27 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1139475 - AcceptedFreezeException - Being able to configure the proper keyboard layout is key functionality that should be present in the image and a fix is already available. 17:26:03 <kalev> ack 17:26:17 <pwhalen> ack 17:26:51 <sgallagh> Ack (but the "key" pun was a bit obvious, don't you think?) 17:27:09 <roshi> nah - no one reads these things anyways, right :p 17:27:23 <roshi> I could patch it to say "pressing" 17:27:37 <sgallagh> Nah, I enjoy a good pun. 17:27:40 <roshi> #agreed - 1139475 - AcceptedFreezeException - Being able to configure the proper keyboard layout is key functionality that should be present in the image and a fix is already available. 17:27:43 <adamw> ack 17:27:45 <adamw> d'oh 17:28:09 <roshi> #topic (811967) libvirt in a VM often brings up 'default' network when it shouldn't, kills vm networking 17:28:12 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811967 17:28:15 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, libvirt, NEW 17:30:06 * jsmith looks up from his day-job to look at the details of this one 17:30:09 <adamw> i'm definitely +1 FE to this in theory, but with a definite chance for not taking a fix if it's too messy 17:30:13 <adamw> it's a high impact issue, though 17:30:18 <kalev> for me, this one too needs an actual fix I could look at and vote if it's safe to pull in, hard to say now 17:30:57 <roshi> this could be a messy fix 17:31:28 <kalev> like, taking out Boxes would be one possible fix, but I wouldn't be +1 to that without Workstation WG-s agreement 17:31:43 <kalev> we can't just blanket approve any fixes that might come up 17:31:56 <sgallagh> I'm -1 FE on this all-around. 17:32:03 <jsmith> I'm torn... 17:32:07 <sgallagh> Yes, it's a long-standing issue, but the risk it poses is very large. 17:32:15 <sgallagh> I'd rather it get sorted out between Alpha and Beta 17:32:20 <adamw> kalev: this review process is definitely not about code review, it's just about whether the issue is potentially important enough to merit freeze breaking 17:32:27 <kalev> I just don't see value in voting on this until an actual fix is available. 17:32:33 <adamw> kalev: we kind of have short-cycle / timing problems with doing formal review of the actual fix 17:32:50 <adamw> kalev: we tend to have very short windows and it's not practical to try and convene a meeting every time an FE fix lands, unfortunately 17:32:50 <kalev> pff :) 17:33:23 <adamw> we've taken out Boxes before, but that was when it was still pretty early 17:35:22 <roshi> I dunno about this one 17:35:59 <adamw> maybe we should punt it till we see an actual fix? 17:36:02 <adamw> reserve judgment? 17:36:11 <roshi> that works for me 17:36:13 <kalev> sure, I would be +1 to that 17:36:24 <roshi> +1 punt 17:36:57 <pwhalen> +1 punt 17:37:03 <sgallagh> I'm sticking with -1 FE 17:37:15 <sgallagh> Even an actual fix has the potential to be destabilizing 17:37:41 <roshi> everything has that potential though :) 17:37:50 <roshi> so that's +3 to punt 17:38:21 <sgallagh> roshi: Some more than most 17:39:04 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 811967 - Punt - We'll wait to decide FE status until an actual fix is available to look at, since this issue has the potential to touch or break other things. 17:39:10 <roshi> true :) 17:39:10 <adamw> ack 17:39:14 <pwhalen> ack 17:40:01 <kalev> ack 17:40:05 <roshi> #agreed - 811967 - Punt - We'll wait to decide FE status until an actual fix is available to look at, since this issue has the potential to touch or break other things. 17:40:36 <roshi> #topic (1136994) GTK+3 themes must be updated for upstream checkbox 'checked' state 17:40:39 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136994 17:40:41 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, mate-themes, ON_QA 17:41:13 <roshi> +1 for this 17:41:29 <roshi> makes user creation in anaconda unintuitive 17:41:58 <kalev> well, the fix is already done, could just as well close the ticket 17:42:07 <kalev> not much to vote on here ... 17:42:22 <kalev> spin-kickstarts doesn't go through any QA process and the fix has already landed there. 17:42:44 <sgallagh> *rubber stamp* 17:43:11 <roshi> works for me 17:43:12 <kalev> sure, +1 FE to that fix that already landed then :) 17:43:31 <roshi> I say we just close the bug if the fix has landed 17:43:44 <roshi> no reason to keep it in the "Accepted FEs" list for us to go over again 17:43:49 <pwhalen> roshi, +1 17:43:55 <satellit> in yum install @KDE? 17:45:01 <roshi> there's another similar FE proposed right now that is that satellit 17:45:04 <roshi> iirc 17:45:07 <adamw> kalev: eh? 17:45:11 <adamw> how is this a spin-kickstarts fix? 17:45:16 <adamw> oh right 17:45:19 <adamw> mate just fudged it 17:45:34 <adamw> i was hoping to find ten minutes to actually fix their damn themes but i didn';t 17:45:50 <adamw> the bug shouldn't be closed because the themes are still broken 17:46:06 <roshi> I htought the fix landed already? 17:46:20 <kalev> they landed a hacky workaround 17:46:36 <adamw> their 'fix' was 'use a different theme when running live' 17:46:48 <amita> ha 17:46:53 <roshi> works for me :p 17:47:02 * roshi misunderstood it 17:47:20 <kalev> it's the mate teams choice how they fix their stuff 17:47:30 <kalev> if they choose to use a different theme, good for them 17:48:08 <adamw> the bug report wasn't 'checkboxes don't show up in anaconda' 17:48:12 <adamw> the bug report was 'fix your themes' 17:48:21 <adamw> kalev: oh, but they don't even change the theme permanently - only during installation 17:48:37 <adamw> kalev: post-install it still uses the MATE theme, which will presumably still have invisible checkboxes everywhere 17:48:44 <adamw> er, only during live boot* 17:48:50 <jreznik> yep 17:48:57 <roshi> cinnamon had a similar issue 17:49:07 <adamw> roshi: the other desktops all went and actually fixed their themes, i think 17:49:17 <jreznik> it's not a good example of what should land in .x.y.z release :( 17:49:26 <adamw> anyway, there's not really any action for us here, i'm just venting :) 17:49:49 <kalev> yes, I very much agree this fix isn't in the right place and done the right way, but it's not really up to the meeting here to be the worlds police 17:50:07 <kalev> it's not one of the primary products either, and not a blocking spin either 17:50:17 <roshi> so we need an FE until all themes are updated? or just one? 17:50:24 <roshi> how many themes are we talking about? 17:50:36 <adamw> roshi: mate ships a truckload 17:50:43 <adamw> the FE would just be for the one the installer uses 17:51:00 <roshi> the installer uses and the one it installs by default? 17:51:03 <adamw> i might still find time to go fix it, iunno. i guess i don't care hugely. 17:51:12 <adamw> roshi: they're the same, i think, this Bluementa thing 17:51:45 <amita> editing the kickstart did not help as he claims 17:51:54 <roshi> ok, but then the hack fix that's there doesn't fix the issue - so we still need an FE to get the *actual* in 17:52:32 <roshi> +1 FE to fix the right theme 17:53:21 <adamw> i think the hack will 'fix' the very specific case of checkboxes in the live installer, it just doesn't fix anything else. 17:53:35 <roshi> right 17:53:42 <roshi> but the theme still remains the issue 17:53:45 <adamw> i guess I'm +1 FE so i can ninja in a sane fix if i get time to make one 17:53:53 <adamw> it can only affect MATE anyway, it's not gonna break Workstation 17:54:05 <satellit__e> +1 FE it is not blocking 17:54:26 <kalev> +1 FE if the fix is in mate theme, -1 if someone submits a build that patches gtk3 :-) 17:54:57 <adamw> kalev: :P 17:55:37 <adamw> $ git branch -d rewrite-gtk3-for-mate 17:55:48 <adamw> well, i guess i need a new plan. 17:55:52 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1136994 - AcceptedFreezeException - A fix to the theme used in MATE during both installation and the default theme post install (shold be the same theme for both) will be accepted during freeze. 17:56:24 <adamw> ack 17:56:28 <kalev> ack 17:56:36 <jsmith> ACK 17:56:37 <roshi> #agreed - 1136994 - AcceptedFreezeException - A fix to the theme used in MATE during both installation and the default theme post install (shold be the same theme for both) will be accepted during freeze. 17:56:38 <jreznik> ack 17:56:58 <roshi> next is similar 17:56:59 <roshi> #topic (1136985) theme must be updated for GTK+ 'checked' state (not 'active') for checkboxes 17:57:02 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136985 17:57:04 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, oxygen-gtk3, ON_QA 17:57:24 <kalev> I would be +1 blocker to that one, actually. KDE is a blocking spin. 17:57:46 <kalev> but since the fix is available, +1 FE 17:57:51 <roshi> it needs pulled in, that update is already there and working 17:57:55 <roshi> +1 FE 17:58:45 <satellit__e> +1 FE 17:59:46 <roshi> proposed #agreed - AcceptedFreezeException - The existing fix should be pulled in during freeze as it fixes anaconda usability issues for KDE. 18:00:11 <jreznik> ack 18:00:17 <kalev> ack 18:00:19 <satellit__e> ack 18:00:23 <adamw> ack 18:00:26 <roshi> #agreed - AcceptedFreezeException - The existing fix should be pulled in during freeze as it fixes anaconda usability issues for KDE. 18:00:43 <roshi> #topic (1134861) sanlock missing on i668 and armv7 architectures 18:00:43 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134861 18:00:43 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, sanlock, ON_QA 18:01:44 <jsmith> +1 from me 18:02:32 <pwhalen> +1 18:02:58 * roshi doesn't know what sanlock is 18:03:05 * adamw either 18:03:19 <adamw> roshi: can you add https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134566 to the FE review list? 18:03:45 <roshi> sure 18:04:05 <kalev> +1 from me, looks safe and shouldn't affect any produced media and fixes an annoyance (broken dep mails going out to the libvirt list every day) 18:04:22 <jreznik> +1, as kalev said 18:04:26 <adamw> yeah, small thing but i don't mind taking it for that 18:04:35 <roshi> that's enough +1s for me 18:05:49 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1134861 - AcceptedFreezeException - The small fix has already been pushed and shouldn't break any other media. 18:06:17 <adamw> ack 18:06:24 <adamw> wait, what do you mean 'already been pushed'? 18:06:36 <roshi> to updates-testing 18:06:41 * roshi changes the words 18:06:42 <adamw> oh, i'd say 'is already available' 18:07:01 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1134861 - AcceptedFreezeException - The small fix is available and shouldn't break any other media. 18:07:06 <kalev> ack 18:07:14 <jreznik> ack 18:07:23 <pwhalen> ack 18:07:29 <roshi> #agreed - 1134861 - AcceptedFreezeException - The small fix is available and shouldn't break any other media. 18:07:53 <roshi> #topic (1134128) [abrt] shotwell hangs during any import operation 18:07:56 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134128 18:07:59 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, shotwell, ON_QA 18:08:09 <kalev> +1 18:09:08 <jreznik> +1 18:09:17 <roshi> +1 for the same reason as the cheese FE 18:09:28 <adamw> yeah, again this is something people are likely to try on a live or immediately post-install 18:09:30 <adamw> +1 18:09:40 <pwhalen> +1 18:10:20 <roshi> proposed #agreed - AcceptedFreezeException - Shotwell is a very visible default application that should work on the live images and get plenty of testing. 18:10:36 <kalev> ack 18:10:45 <pwhalen> ack 18:10:55 <jreznik> ack 18:11:03 <roshi> it could do w/o the testing bit I think, but it works 18:11:33 <roshi> #agreed - AcceptedFreezeException - Shotwell is a very visible default application that should work on the live images and get plenty of testing. 18:11:50 <roshi> #topic (1139962) Fedora 21, FreeIPA 4.0.2: sssd does not find user private group from server 18:11:53 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1139962 18:11:56 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, sssd, NEW 18:13:44 <roshi> +1 because FreeIPA is a key F21 feature 18:14:17 <adamw> we don't have the fix yet, but it should at least be restricted to sssd and hence reasonably easy to scope for testing 18:14:43 <roshi> and if you have a reproducer that's easy to do 18:14:51 <roshi> testing should be quick on any fixes down the line 18:15:00 * roshi keeps meaning to mess with freeIPA, but hasn't yet 18:17:21 <adamw> freeipa! freeipa! 18:17:25 <adamw> any other votes? + or -? 18:17:41 <adamw> i wish i had done a bit more research into the actual consequences of the bug, but i was too busy working out the cause 18:17:50 <roshi> just mine I think 18:18:23 * sgallagh returns 18:18:55 <adamw> just in time 18:20:23 <roshi> I presume you're +1 adamw 18:20:32 <roshi> pwhalen, kalev, jreznik ? 18:20:39 <adamw> i'm about +0.8 (see what i mean about conflict of interest) 18:20:49 <roshi> haha 18:20:54 * roshi rounds up 18:20:57 <adamw> sometimes Blocker/FE-Nominating-AdamW and Blocker/FE-Voting-AdamW have arguments 18:21:04 * sgallagh studies the bugs quickly 18:21:12 <adamw> (yeah, that nominating-adamw guy is a douche!) 18:21:43 <roshi> lol 18:21:51 <adamw> sgallagh: so if you have a user account that's only a member of a user private group, not any public groups, sssd fails to find that group membership 18:21:51 <kalev> sorry, wandered off to the kitchen 18:21:59 <adamw> at least i'm pretty sure that's the extent of the bug 18:22:10 <sgallagh> Geez, that came up again? 18:22:16 <kalev> let's just punt it and vote in the ticket when the fix is available? 18:22:25 <sgallagh> I fixed almost that exact bug back in 2011 :-/ 18:22:26 <adamw> i believe the client system falls back to just knowing it has a gid but it doesn't know what the hell group it is, i don't know what the practical effects of that are 18:22:50 <sgallagh> Punting until a fix is known is probably reasonable 18:23:04 * roshi is fine with punting 18:23:14 <roshi> I don't grok what all this could touch 18:24:08 <sgallagh> roshi: For anyone enrolled in a domain, any change to how SSSD processes group memberships can have significant consequences 18:24:28 <sgallagh> It could change how authorization decisions turn out or just generally break POSIX permissions. 18:24:45 <sgallagh> So I'd be -0.5 right now without a patch I myself could test :) 18:24:47 <adamw> roshi: so far the consequence I know is 'when I do ls /home, /home/user001 has group (somelongnumericstring) not user001' 18:24:49 <roshi> that's no good 18:25:04 <adamw> i am fairly sure this implies rather worse consequences are lurking around the place, but i can't *prove* it :) 18:25:11 <adamw> oh, and you get an error message every time you log in 18:25:35 <adamw> sgallagh: https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2436#comment:5 18:25:55 <roshi> punt +1 for me 18:26:01 <adamw> i'm fine with punt till we have a fix to look at 18:26:09 <kalev> punt +1 18:26:33 <adamw> i can quite easily test that a fix fixes the bug, but testing whether it has unexpected consequences in more complex environments is a bit more work (though i can at least also test any fix on my production domain) 18:26:33 <pwhalen> +1 punt 18:27:20 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1139962 - Punt - We'll wait to decide on FE status until a fix is available because the full extent of what this bug represents isn't clear at this time. 18:28:23 <kalev> +1 18:28:23 <sgallagh> BTW, one late-addition to the FEs: BZ #1117432 18:28:29 <sgallagh> Ack 18:28:32 <kalev> ack 18:28:41 <pwhalen> ack 18:28:52 <roshi> that's two additional FE after this one we need to go over 18:28:57 <roshi> #agreed - 1139962 - Punt - We'll wait to decide on FE status until a fix is available because the full extent of what this bug represents isn't clear at this time. 18:29:14 <adamw> ack 18:29:15 <adamw> doh 18:29:27 <roshi> #topic (1134566) - pungi/lorax: failed to open magic file: could not find any valid magic files 18:29:35 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134566 18:29:49 <roshi> #info Proposed FreezeException, lorax, NEW 18:30:42 <kalev> sure, the patch only touches ppc codepaths 18:31:30 <kalev> +1 FE 18:31:37 <adamw> i believe there's a matching pungi bug too 18:31:38 <gustavold> notice that bz includes a patch for pungi and a patch for lorax 18:31:40 <adamw> lemme find that one 18:31:48 <roshi> +1 18:32:00 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136535 is the pungi bug 18:32:03 <gustavold> the pungi bz is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136535 (though it is just a clone) 18:32:05 <gustavold> :) 18:32:10 <adamw> i'm +1 FE to both as long as they don't touch non-PPC code 18:32:21 <adamw> it'd be nice to unblock the compose process for PPC folks so they can work on their alpha 18:32:25 <pwhalen> +1 fe 18:32:56 <roshi> so, everyone fine with applying their +1's to both bugs? 18:33:16 <adamw> +1 to that. +1s all around! +1+1+1 18:33:23 <pwhalen> heh 18:33:27 <roshi> I see your +1, and i +1 it 18:33:28 <adamw> it's like one of those 'gift' super mario levels around here 18:33:35 <adamw> 1-ups everywhere 18:33:45 <sgallagh> +1 18:33:47 <kalev> +1 to both, yes 18:35:22 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1134566 - AcceptedFreezeException - Pulling in this fix to all the PPC folks to get their Alpha out, provided the fix doesn't touch code for any other arch. 18:35:44 <roshi> use the same reasoning for 1136535? 18:35:56 <adamw> i'd just put both bugs in the agreement 18:36:01 <adamw> efficiency! 18:36:06 <roshi> works for me 18:36:20 * adamw already marked them both as acceptedFE, so...:P 18:36:53 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1134566, 1136535 - AcceptedFreezeException - Pulling in these fixes to allow the PPC folks to get their Alpha out, provided the fixes don't touch code for any other arch. 18:37:18 <roshi> well, if that's the case I should skip the proposed step 18:37:19 <sgallagh> Ack 18:37:31 <kalev> Ack 18:37:32 <pwhalen> ack 18:37:39 <roshi> #agreed - 1134566, 1136535 - AcceptedFreezeException - Pulling in these fixes to allow the PPC folks to get their Alpha out, provided the fixes don't touch code for any other arch. 18:37:43 <roshi> last one 18:38:02 <roshi> #topic (1117432) - split qrcode funnctionality out to a optional package 18:38:11 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117432 18:38:33 <roshi> #info Proposed FreezeException, python-qrcode, ASSIGNED 18:38:37 <sgallagh> Short version: FreeIPA recently grew support for one-time-passwords and uses a QRCode to set up Google Authenticator/FreeOTP 18:38:52 <sgallagh> The dependency chain for python-qrcode is enormous and is pulling in way too many packages 18:39:23 <sgallagh> It's being split to reduce the dependency set for the core functionality. 18:39:42 <adamw> +1 18:39:43 <sgallagh> We asked for this as an FE on the grounds that it will shrink the size of the install media as well as the installed system 18:39:53 <roshi> is anything broken now? or just pulling in more than we'd like for minimal? 18:39:56 <sgallagh> Which is difficult to accomplish post-install 18:40:03 <sgallagh> roshi: Pulling in a lot more than we want. 18:40:05 <adamw> i noticed yesterday that when i do a minimal install it's ~260 packages, when I do a minimal install with freeipa-client it's ~350 18:40:24 <sgallagh> adamw: IIRC, about 150 of those are due to this dep. 18:40:28 <roshi> is that something we usually break freeze for? 18:40:31 <pwhalen> ouch 18:40:41 <adamw> roshi: for making the install images not needlessly bloated? i'd say sure 18:40:45 <roshi> (I'm not against it - just wondering what the history is for this kinda thing) 18:40:48 <adamw> it's not something that's come up much before, but seems reasonable 18:41:11 <pwhalen> +1 18:41:17 <roshi> yeah, I just didn't know what the precedence was - it makes sense to me to split it out 18:41:24 <roshi> +1 18:41:33 <adamw> i can't actually recall us having something like this as an FE before, oddly enough 18:41:43 <adamw> (it might have happened, but it doesn't stick out in my memory) 18:42:22 <kalev> we used to have a desktop spin blocker for getting it under 1000 MB and pulled in a lot of similar fixes there 18:42:29 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1117432 - AcceptedFreezeException - To keep the minimal package set down it makes sense to break freeze for this package to be split. 18:42:42 <jsmith> ACK 18:43:06 <sgallagh> Ack 18:43:07 <kalev> ack, althought for the record I'll say I was +0 earlier since there's no actual fix to look at 18:43:17 <roshi> #agreed - 1117432 - AcceptedFreezeException - To keep the minimal package set down it makes sense to break freeze for this package to be split. 18:43:21 <sgallagh> kalev: I just built the fix 15 minutes ago 18:43:23 <pwhalen> ack 18:43:31 <roshi> and that's all we got for today 18:43:47 <roshi> and we're about out of time 18:44:03 <roshi> are there any accepted blockers or FE's that people want to look at with the remaining time? 18:44:30 <roshi> #info this is the first blocker review meeting that used the whole timeslot for F21 18:44:46 <kalev> wohoo, achievement unlocked 18:45:27 <roshi> :) 18:46:05 <adamw> =) 18:46:10 <adamw> er, acceptedblockers 18:46:28 <roshi> ? 18:46:48 <adamw> hold on, just checking the list 18:46:53 <roshi> np 18:48:47 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1139015 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134524 are the ones really holding us up 18:48:56 <adamw> and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1088933 is *still* lying around 18:50:09 <adamw> it worries me that both 1139015 and 1134524 are kinda releng-y, could be causing more slippage 18:50:17 <roshi> 1088933 needs pinged 18:50:17 <adamw> jreznik: anything we can do there? 18:50:24 <adamw> i'll ping it 18:51:30 <roshi> well, 1139015 is the one we just talked about today 18:51:50 <roshi> and AIUI the other filtered groups bug is being worked on 18:52:49 <jreznik> ops, sorry - I had to go out with my dog 18:53:14 <adamw> 1139015 has been known for some days, though, and we haven't really figured out the problem 18:53:42 <roshi> true 18:53:53 <adamw> the 'make netinst work' is indeed being worked on, i'd be happy if we could somehow throw more resources than just dgilmore at it but i think he's happier doing it himself 18:53:59 <jreznik> 933 - dgilmore promised to finish the patch, it should be corner cases he's working on 18:54:01 <roshi> what truncates composes? 18:54:52 <jreznik> so maybe the question is, if we really want all corner cases covered or some initial patch should be ok for alpha 18:56:09 <kalev> in today's meeting, fesco briefly discussed the possibility to drop some deliverables to just get something out and get past the alpha release 18:56:50 <kalev> nothing got decided though, just some discussion 18:56:54 <adamw> kalev: unless 'both net installers' were in that list, it doesn't really help :) 18:57:16 <adamw> i can see dropping WS netinst for alpha, dropping server netinst seems less plausible 18:57:30 <jreznik> yep 18:57:48 <adamw> and honestly, at least as I understand the plan for fixing netinst, i'd really like it to be in at alpha so we can test it 18:58:06 <adamw> it's not hugely complex but i'd feel happier having it there all the way through the cycle so we catch any gremlins 18:58:27 <roshi> true 18:58:32 <kalev> yep 18:59:03 <jreznik> still it would be nice to release this year:) 18:59:11 <adamw> sure 18:59:33 <sgallagh> adamw: Actually, we *did* discuss dropping both netinsts for Alpha (only) 18:59:33 <adamw> we definitely need to do more testing on TC6 and catch other outstanding blockers 18:59:34 <jreznik> I'll reping Dennis again for 1088933, maybe we really don't need perfect patch for Alpha 18:59:42 <adamw> we don't want to sit around and twiddle thumbs on the netinst bug 18:59:44 <sgallagh> But that if-and-only-if it's the last thing holding up release 18:59:52 <sgallagh> Which it is not, currently 19:00:07 <adamw> jreznik: i've pinged the bug 19:00:08 <jreznik> sgallagh: almost it is 19:00:19 <adamw> jreznik: i'm actually kinda working on the assumption that's not *really* blocking alpha atm, but imbw 19:01:40 <roshi> is there anything we can do from this meeting now? 19:01:47 <adamw> go forth and test 19:01:54 <roshi> works for me 19:01:59 <adamw> find the alpha validation tests we haven't run and run 'em, stat 19:02:03 <roshi> gonna make a sandwich first though 19:02:15 <roshi> thanks for coming folks! 19:02:19 <roshi> #endmeeting