16:01:06 <roshi> #startmeeting F23-blocker-review
16:01:06 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Sep 28 16:01:06 2015 UTC.  The chair is roshi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:01:06 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:01:06 <roshi> #meetingname F23-blocker-review
16:01:06 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f23-blocker-review'
16:01:07 <roshi> #topic Roll Call
16:01:15 <roshi> who's around?
16:01:50 <beadle> is visiting
16:01:53 * satellit listening
16:02:18 <roshi> welcome beadle :)
16:02:35 <beadle> roshi: thanks so much!
16:02:52 <roshi> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:02:59 <roshi> beadle: ^^ is the SOP for this meeting
16:03:27 <roshi> and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process for the overall process
16:03:51 <beadle> roshi: I opened it will read asy you guys do what you do  :)
16:03:56 <roshi> adamw: ? sgallagh ?
16:04:01 <adamw> oh, hi.
16:04:11 * adamw hides whiskey
16:04:12 <roshi> sounds good - if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask
16:04:36 * roshi proudly sets his mason jar of whiskey out for all to see
16:05:07 <roshi> #topic Introduction
16:05:07 <roshi> Why are we here?
16:05:07 <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.
16:05:11 <roshi> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:05:14 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:05:16 <roshi> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:05:19 <roshi> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:05:21 <roshi> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:05:24 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_23_Alpha_Release_Criteria
16:05:27 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_23_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:05:30 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_23_Final_Release_Criteria
16:05:52 <roshi> well, we've got 2 proposed and 12 accepted
16:06:03 <roshi> so, we'll go through these two - then check in on the others
16:06:15 <roshi> #topic (1252596) AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'type'
16:06:18 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1252596
16:06:21 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:08:36 <adamw> sounds like this maybe happens if you re-use an existing EFI system partition?
16:08:43 <adamw> which i think we actually do by default in some situations
16:08:44 * danofsatx is back.
16:09:28 <roshi> yeah
16:09:53 <adamw> i'm inclined to +1, it'd be nice if there was a definitive reproducer in the bug, but this number of duplicate reports of the same crash screams blocker
16:10:11 <roshi> yeah, +1
16:10:57 <adamw> i'd go with https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_23_Final_Release_Criteria#Windows_dual_boot with maybe a side order of 'must not crash'
16:11:09 <adamw> (and one wafer-thin mint)
16:11:11 <danofsatx> I count 3 replications (well, users)
16:11:26 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1252596 - AcceptedBlocker Final - This bug is a clear violation of the following Beta criterion: "When using the custom partitioning flow, the installer must be able to: Reject or disallow invalid disk and volume configurations without crashing."
16:11:36 <adamw> danofsatx: 4 total, yeah
16:11:43 <adamw> sure, that works
16:11:43 <adamw> ack
16:11:48 <danofsatx> ack
16:12:31 <roshi> I just used the criterion in the bug
16:12:40 <roshi> #agreed - 1252596 - AcceptedBlocker Final - This bug is a clear violation of the following Beta criterion: "When using the custom partitioning flow, the installer must be able to: Reject or disallow invalid disk and volume configurations without crashing."
16:12:50 <roshi> #topic (1264872) Fedora 23 Workstation x86_64 Beta-1 fails to boot
16:12:53 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264872
16:12:56 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, xorg-x11-drv-nouveau, NEW
16:13:40 <adamw> we got some more info on this, but so far nothing to indicate it's a widespread issue
16:13:49 <adamw> i found a couple of upstream reports with similar-ish error messages and referenced them
16:13:57 <adamw> my inclination is -1 here
16:14:13 <danofsatx> -
16:14:18 <danofsatx> -1
16:14:48 * danofsatx curses at the stupid logitech "Let's remove the numlock key to save battery life" idea
16:15:00 <danofsatx> s/key/indicator
16:15:12 <roshi> -1
16:15:14 <beadle> :)
16:16:37 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1264872 - RejectedBlocker Final - While this is a serious bug, it seems to be very hardware specific. If it can be reproduced on more varied hardware configurations, please repropose.
16:17:17 <danofsatx> ack
16:17:24 <adamw> ack
16:17:52 <roshi> #agreed - 1264872 - RejectedBlocker Final - While this is a serious bug, it seems to be very hardware specific. If it can be reproduced on more varied hardware configurations, please repropose.
16:17:59 <roshi> that's it for the proposals
16:18:21 <roshi> #topic (1183880) wrongly permits deletion of shared EFI System partition
16:18:24 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183880
16:18:27 <roshi> #info Accepted Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED
16:18:42 <roshi> we're now just checking status on accepted blockers - just so we're clear
16:19:56 <adamw> seems like anaconda team is working on this
16:20:04 <adamw> don't think there's any action required
16:20:04 <roshi> yep
16:20:32 * satellit afk  have to leave
16:20:47 <roshi> have a good day satellit
16:20:57 <roshi> nothing more needed from us on this, it seems
16:21:16 <roshi> onto the next...
16:21:19 <roshi> #topic (1224048) anaconda does not include package download and filesystem metadata size in minimal partition size computation and hard reboots during installation
16:21:22 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224048
16:21:25 <roshi> #info Accepted Blocker, anaconda, ON_QA
16:21:58 <roshi> looks like something needs testing
16:22:08 <roshi> TC1 testing should get it the karma it needs
16:24:04 <roshi> next
16:24:06 <adamw> yeah, TC1 should be coming today or tomorrow
16:24:17 <roshi> #topic (1252756) repository definition nor product branding works with nfsiso
16:24:20 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1252756
16:24:22 <roshi> #info Accepted Blocker, anaconda, ON_QA
16:24:55 <adamw> same deal
16:25:05 <roshi> yep
16:25:14 <roshi> #topic (1256531) dnf install crashes if terminal window is too small
16:25:17 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256531
16:25:20 <roshi> #info Accepted Blocker, dnf, ON_QA
16:25:26 <roshi> this bug is still hilarious to me
16:25:50 <danofsatx> and I'm still -100 on it.
16:26:06 <adamw> but it's being fixed, so whatevs.
16:26:26 <roshi> .fire danofsatx for not just hopping on the band wagon and drinking his kool-aid
16:26:26 <zodbot> adamw fires danofsatx for not just hopping on the band wagon and drinking his kool-aid
16:26:35 <roshi> :p
16:26:58 <roshi> this we can test before TC1
16:27:12 <danofsatx> you forgot to spike it. You wouldn't have drank it, either.
16:27:52 <adamw> yeah, right, needs testing and karma.
16:27:55 <roshi> our kool aid is dehydrated whiskey - just add whiskey
16:28:12 <adamw> you know where the kool-aid reference comes from, right? lot stronger than whiskey.
16:28:26 <beadle> roshi: LOL
16:28:45 <roshi> the part that bugs me is these robes and the creepy music - but what can you do?
16:28:57 <roshi> #topic (1263677) it's very easy to end up with a partially-upgraded system
16:29:00 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263677
16:29:02 <roshi> #info Accepted Blocker, dnf-plugin-system-upgrade, NEW
16:30:38 <adamw> we kinda covered this
16:30:43 <adamw> fesco will be talking about it wednesday
16:31:59 <roshi> ok
16:32:12 <roshi> next one then
16:32:12 <roshi> #topic (1241704) systemd no longer able to run checkisomd5 in initramfs
16:32:15 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241704
16:32:18 <roshi> #info Accepted Blocker, dracut, NEW
16:34:01 <adamw> i guess we'll need to poke dracut folks about this
16:34:34 <adamw> and maybe see if there's a relation to the other media check bug?
16:34:38 <roshi> yeah - it *was* being worked on
16:34:45 <roshi> I could see that
16:35:03 <roshi> adamw: you want to poke them or should I?
16:35:11 <danofsatx> aren't this one and 1250414 (the next one) dupes?
16:35:24 <adamw> not sure, that's what i was asking
16:35:33 * roshi opens the next up
16:37:53 <danofsatx> the logs in comment #1 of both are exactly the same
16:37:58 <adamw> roshi: either way
16:38:19 <roshi> yeah, they look like dupes
16:38:56 <roshi> I'll ask  Zbigniew about them
16:39:06 * danofsatx volunteers adamw for secretarializing
16:39:06 <roshi> find out from him if they're dupes as well
16:39:37 <adamw> danofsatx: gee, thanks
16:39:42 <adamw> roshi: certainly looks that way
16:39:47 <danofsatx> sure, any time
16:39:53 <roshi> #topic (1250440) media check times out when booting physical DVD
16:39:54 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250440
16:39:54 <roshi> #info Accepted Blocker, dracut, POST
16:40:03 <roshi> lotso media check errors...
16:41:23 <roshi> looks like a fix, just waiting on it to land?
16:41:26 <beadle> my ride is here so gots to go.  thanks for the chance to observe!
16:41:49 <adamw> roshi: that commit looks...odd?
16:41:55 <roshi> yeah
16:41:56 <roshi> I dunno
16:41:58 <adamw> why is it talking about a 3 minute timeout when the code says 3000 seconds?
16:42:06 <roshi> I'll add this to the poke list
16:42:09 <adamw> some days i just want to burn dracut into tiny little pieces
16:42:11 <adamw> sounds like a plan
16:42:15 <roshi> I was wondering the same thing?
16:42:23 <roshi> 3 minute != 3000 seconds
16:42:28 <roshi> by a long shot
16:42:30 <adamw> oh, i see
16:42:33 <adamw> i think he means the default is 3 minutes
16:42:37 <adamw> and that causes the problem
16:42:46 <adamw> so the commit bumps it to a much bigger timeout to try and avoid the problem
16:42:47 <roshi> ah, that makes more sense
16:43:09 <adamw> so i guess we need to find out a) if it landed b) if the thing it landed in is in f23 c) if it actually works
16:43:23 <roshi> that feels like a hackypatch to me, but w/e
16:43:58 <danofsatx> a 50 minute timeout seems a tad...excessive
16:44:08 <adamw> danofsatx: it's to give the media check time to complete.
16:44:24 <danofsatx> still...
16:44:27 <adamw> it can take quite a while on an actual optical disc, especially on a slightly dodgy drive (like, er, almost all optical drives, now)
16:44:35 <roshi> yeah
16:45:00 <roshi> #topic (1262600) Plasma live session notifies for available updates
16:45:03 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262600
16:45:06 <roshi> #info Accepted Blocker, plasma-pk-updates, NEW
16:46:09 <roshi> so it's extra confirmed, but no fixes yet
16:46:34 <adamw> yeah, but rex is the guy to deal with it, so i'm okay with figuring he's working on it
16:46:46 <roshi> wfm
16:47:03 <roshi> #topic (1252902) inst.repo=hd: is not working
16:47:03 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1252902
16:47:03 <roshi> #info Accepted Blocker, python-blivet, ON_QA
16:47:32 <roshi> got a fix to karma for this too
16:47:34 <roshi> nice
16:47:57 * danofsatx wonders if we can disable kparal's bz account
16:48:19 <roshi> lol
16:48:30 <roshi> #topic (1170765) systemd: all processes in scopes (including user sessions) SIGKILLed immediately on shutdown with no opportunity to shut down cleanly
16:48:33 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170765
16:48:35 <roshi> #info Accepted Blocker, systemd, ON_QA
16:49:13 <roshi> same deal
16:49:13 <adamw> danofsatx: no, we don't want to cancel it, that's too obvious
16:49:26 <roshi> just pipe to /dev/null
16:49:31 <adamw> danofsatx: we need to redirect it to a dummy instance of bugzilla where convincing activity is generated by a bot
16:49:32 <danofsatx> notice I didn't say "cancel"
16:49:51 <danofsatx> isn't there a staging instance somewhere that the public can't see?
16:50:00 <roshi> lol
16:50:01 <roshi> #topic (1256712) System freezes after login when monitor is connected to docking station of laptop
16:50:02 * adamw starts work on ApoplexyBot, designed to generate comments by harald
16:50:05 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256712
16:50:07 <roshi> #info Accepted Blocker, xorg-x11-drv-intel, NEW
16:50:36 <adamw> hmm, probably need to bring this one up with kernel/gfx folks, see what the deal is
16:50:45 <adamw> oh, i see #c9 now
16:50:47 <adamw> so in progress
16:51:05 <roshi> yeah, that's good
16:51:11 <roshi> and also, all the blockers
16:51:15 <roshi> #topic Open Floor
16:51:22 <roshi> anyone have anything?
16:51:42 <danofsatx> FEs?
16:51:53 <roshi> no need now - not in freeze
16:52:09 * danofsatx thought we looked at everything and shuts up.
16:52:48 <roshi> sometimes we do - but we haven't been doing FE's until we get close to freeze
16:52:55 * roshi looks up when it is
16:53:13 <adamw> well, meeting's been pretty short and there's only 4
16:53:29 <adamw> and anaconda team seems to be only taking fixes for accepted blocker/FE bugs now, so we should probably run through them to smooth things out
16:53:38 <roshi> ah, 13 october is final freeze
16:53:47 <roshi> works for me
16:53:59 <roshi> onto the FEs!
16:53:59 <roshi> #topic (1261002) ValueError: Group users already exists
16:54:00 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1261002
16:54:00 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, MODIFIED
16:55:13 <adamw> sure, i'm OK with this at this point. installer issue, cna't be fixed with update
16:56:07 <roshi> yeah
16:56:11 <danofsatx> +1
16:57:34 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1261002 - AcceptedFreezeException Final - This is a bug we'd like to see fixed for F23. It's an installer issue, so can't be fixed with an update at a later date. We'll consider the fix if it happens during freeze.
16:57:53 <danofsatx> ack
16:58:46 <adamw> ack
16:59:27 <roshi> #agreed - 1261002 - AcceptedFreezeException Final - This is a bug we'd like to see fixed for F23. It's an installer issue, so can't be fixed with an update at a later date. We'll consider the fix if it happens during freeze.
16:59:39 <roshi> #topic (1264981) Storage errors in text mode print markup to console
16:59:42 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264981
16:59:45 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, POST
17:00:24 <adamw> "String freeze exception requested."
17:00:28 <adamw> we're not the string freeze.
17:00:56 <adamw> but i'm fine with granting this a milestone freeze exception while we're here.
17:01:08 <roshi> yeah
17:01:23 <danofsatx> +1
17:02:21 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1264981 - AcceptedFreezeException Final - We'd consider a fix during a milestone freeze for this.
17:02:29 <danofsatx> ack
17:02:35 <roshi> should I mention a string exception still needs to happen?
17:02:36 <adamw> ack
17:02:43 <adamw> nah, i'll do it in-bug.
17:02:47 <roshi> #agreed - 1264981 - AcceptedFreezeException Final - We'd consider a fix during a milestone freeze for this.
17:02:50 <roshi> kk
17:02:52 <roshi> thanks
17:02:59 <roshi> #topic (1245838) Upgrade to F23 crashes early in upgrade boot
17:02:59 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245838
17:02:59 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, fedup, MODIFIED
17:03:51 <roshi> +1
17:04:27 <adamw> sure (to be clear, +1 for the change to remove upgrade.img from the trees)
17:04:50 <roshi> yeah
17:05:37 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1245838 - AcceptedFreezeException Final - We'd accept this change to remove upgrade.img from the trees during freeze if it's not complete before.
17:06:47 <adamw> ack
17:07:46 <roshi> #agreed - 1245838 - AcceptedFreezeException Final - We'd accept this change to remove upgrade.img from the trees during freeze if it's not complete before.
17:07:58 <roshi> #topic (1265310) No icon in application menu
17:07:58 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265310
17:07:58 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, xfburn, ASSIGNED
17:08:19 <adamw> sure, straightforward one.
17:09:06 <roshi> doesn't seem like it'll need FE status
17:09:09 <roshi> but sure
17:09:45 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1265310 - AcceptedFreezeException Final - If this is still an issue at Final freeze, we'd consider a fix.
17:09:53 <adamw> ack
17:10:02 <adamw> we have a new proposed blocker: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199868
17:10:10 <roshi> what? who did that?
17:10:19 <roshi> #agreed - 1265310 - AcceptedFreezeException Final - If this is still an issue at Final freeze, we'd consider a fix.
17:11:07 * nirik wonders about this... the Xfce arm image is blocking now? or ?
17:11:32 <sgallagh> nirik: It is, yes
17:12:01 <adamw> however, we no longer have the old polish criteria
17:12:09 <roshi> yeah
17:12:11 <adamw> we have a criterion saying Workstation has to meet https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Guidelines/Applications_and_Launchers
17:12:18 <nirik> right, so it should just not be a blocker/fe at all.
17:12:20 <adamw> so we're kinda missing *any* polish criteria for KDE and Xfce, i guess
17:12:25 <sgallagh> I fail to see what nationality the criteria is matters.
17:12:27 <adamw> nirik: eh, we can choose to give it an FE, and we just did!
17:12:39 <nirik> sure.
17:12:51 <adamw> sgallagh: Vegas says don't call us, we'll call you
17:12:56 <sgallagh> heh
17:13:04 * nirik goes back to doing what he was doing. I'll likely fix it today anyhow.
17:13:16 <adamw> sgallagh: however, you've been booked as a host for SNL
17:13:27 <adamw> apparently that's more comedy talent than they've stolen from Canada in the last five years
17:13:59 <adamw> roshi: new blocker?
17:14:11 <roshi> sure thing - was reading it
17:14:34 <roshi> #topic Bug 1199868 - Anaconda does not exclude packages specified in kickstart files
17:14:41 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199868
17:14:57 <sgallagh> So, this definitely sounds like DNF's API not functioning as documented.
17:15:12 <roshi> #info Proposed Final Blocker, dnf, NEW
17:15:13 <sgallagh> Do we have an explicit criterion for package exclusion, though?
17:15:32 <adamw> no, we have crappy kickstart criteria in general
17:15:38 <adamw> sgallagh: ahaha, documented.
17:15:58 * adamw looked at all this stuff a few months ago, can't recall exactly why though
17:16:11 <adamw> i'm kinda borderline on this as a blocker, definitely FE
17:17:04 <sgallagh> Yeah, I'm +1 FE, but without explicit exclusion criteria, I'm firmly -1 blocker
17:17:24 <danofsatx> does ks exclusions prevent deps from being installed?
17:17:24 <sgallagh> Because nothing is likely to be *broken* by having extra packages around,.
17:17:33 <sgallagh> It's just inconvenient.
17:17:39 <sgallagh> danofsatx: No, it does not.
17:17:42 * danofsatx wonders how to make that sentence more englishy
17:17:46 <roshi> it might cause issues with the cloud image being generated
17:17:46 <sgallagh> At least in the traditional yum behavior.
17:17:56 <roshi> bloat is a no go for the cloud image
17:18:09 <roshi> and iirc, it relies on exludes in the kickstart
17:18:11 <sgallagh> It's a guideline for the depsolver. It basically means "exclude this unless doing so would break the dep resolver"
17:18:33 <adamw> but the issue here is not that the packages are being pulled back in via deps. it's just broken.
17:18:41 <danofsatx> ....then again, nothing deps on apper, so it shouldn't be an issue in this instance
17:18:43 <sgallagh> In effect, it amounts to taking the package out of the 'yum install <pkgs>' line, but it doesn't stop them from being pulled in as a dep
17:19:00 <sgallagh> Right, I'm explaining the expected behavior of the kickstart feature
17:19:17 * danofsatx goes back to his corner
17:19:48 <adamw> sgallagh: yeah, looks like fedora-cloud-base.ks does several exclusions...
17:20:05 <adamw> that is processed by anaconda, right? cloud image builds work by running the installer, right?
17:20:10 <sgallagh> adamw: fedora-install-server does several as well
17:20:29 <roshi> it might be the cause of some of our bloat we've beenseeing too
17:21:22 <sgallagh> Yeah, that could explain some of what mattdm was worried about on devel@
17:21:28 <adamw> ok, so i'm slightly +1 now
17:21:39 <roshi> same here
17:21:43 <adamw> for the record, we said like 1 or 2 releases ago that we'd basically take kickstart cases as they come since we haven't written good criteria
17:21:56 <roshi> +1 since it impacts several things
17:21:57 <danofsatx> +1
17:22:02 <sgallagh> I'm still -1 blocker
17:22:03 <adamw> we really ought to write good criteria, but absent that, my subjective feel-y vote here is +1, seems like we use this function widely enough that it ought to be blocking
17:22:20 <sgallagh> "Increasing the size of the cloud image" is unfortunate, but not blocking in itself.
17:22:50 <sgallagh> Extra packages aren't generally harmful, just annoying.
17:23:05 <sgallagh> I'd absolutely not be calling this a blocker at a Go/No-Go meeting
17:23:19 <roshi> what's the criteria? I don't see it in the bug
17:23:28 <adamw> sgallagh: as i said, there isn't a solid enough rule for kickstart functions. we're not voting that this is a blocker because it increases the size of the cloud image exactly, we're voting ad hoc that this kickstart function is sufficiently significant, and the cloud case is an example.
17:23:35 <adamw> like i keep trying to say, there isn't noe.
17:23:43 <adamw> we never wrote good kickstart criteria.
17:23:50 <roshi> eh, I'd expect pushback from cloud on this not being a blocker
17:23:55 <sgallagh> Sure, and I'm disagreeing that the fallout from this is in any way blocker-worthy
17:23:56 <adamw> if anyone wants to volunteer...:)
17:24:12 <roshi> oh right - sorry, muscle memory from not seeing a criteria took over there for a second
17:24:14 <sgallagh> Annoying, sure.
17:24:21 <adamw> and again, we're not directly voting on the known fallout, we're using it as an example of why this part of kickstart capability is significant.
17:24:52 <sgallagh> The workaround is to start a ks from @minimal and move up from there
17:24:54 <adamw> the basic idea has always been that we'd define some particular subset of kickstart functionality as 'blocking', we just didn't know which subset.
17:24:59 <sgallagh> Rather than starting bigger and taking stuff out...
17:25:13 <adamw> sgallagh: you can exclude beyond minimal if you like, that's what the cloud kickstarts do.
17:25:21 <adamw> except, now you can't (apart from doing it post-install)
17:26:10 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1199868 - AcceptedBlocker Final - This bug is an example of kickstart functionality we need to work for several different Fedora Editions (server, cloud) and we'd really like to get this fixed. More discussion is need to solidify kickstart criteria, but we feel this is a blocking issue which should be addressed.
17:26:15 <sgallagh> adamw: I would still not block on this at Go/No-Go
17:27:12 <adamw> for now i'm gonna ack that.
17:27:44 <danofsatx> ack
17:27:54 <roshi> when was the last ks discussion regarding the criteria?
17:27:59 * roshi suspects it was before me
17:28:24 <roshi> #agreed - 1199868 - AcceptedBlocker Final - This bug is an example of kickstart functionality we need to work for several different Fedora Editions (server, cloud) and we'd really like to get this fixed. More discussion is need to solidify kickstart criteria, but we feel this is a blocking issue which should be addressed.
17:28:34 <roshi> #topic Open Floor
17:29:05 <roshi> anyone have anything else?
17:29:12 <danofsatx> <crickets>
17:29:21 <roshi> we should probably open up the ks criteria discussion again
17:29:52 <adamw> roshi: dunno, you'd have to grab all the old logs and grep 'em or something
17:30:01 <adamw> roshi: the best way to re-open it would be a criteria proposal
17:30:14 <adamw> we kicked it around enough already, kicking it around won't achieve anything, someone needs to *do* something
17:30:58 <roshi> I'll try to find the old discussion
17:31:19 <adamw> (s)
17:31:20 <adamw> :P
17:31:50 <roshi> do you have a daterange I can look at first?
17:31:57 <roshi> 2 years ago, 3, 5?
17:32:18 <danofsatx> 10
17:32:22 <adamw> honestly? nope.
17:32:37 <danofsatx> since the beginning of (Fedora) time!
17:32:39 <adamw> kparal posted a proposal in december 2012
17:32:48 <roshi> lol
17:32:51 <roshi> ok, that works
17:32:53 <adamw> "On our QA meeting we have agreed that we will judge kickstart issues for Fedora 18 on a case-by-case basis. Once Fedora 18 is out, I'll revive this topic and ask anaconda developers to participate here too."
17:32:56 * roshi to grep all the things
17:33:03 <adamw> displaying our usual efficiency
17:33:26 <roshi> welp, guess I'll set the fuse
17:33:30 <roshi> 3...
17:33:46 <roshi> Nature is on the line, and it's a call I should really take :p
17:33:48 <roshi> 2...
17:34:17 <tflink> adamw: well, a minimal amount of time was spent on the topic since that happened ... so it could be seen as a kind of efficiency :)
17:34:30 <adamw> tflink: i'll take it!
17:34:36 <adamw> roshi: don't get the fuse wet.
17:34:36 <roshi> 1...
17:34:44 * roshi will do his best
17:34:48 <roshi> thanks for coming folks!
17:34:51 <roshi> #endmeeting