17:00:12 <adamw> #startmeeting F24-blocker-review
17:00:12 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Nov 23 17:00:12 2015 UTC.  The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:12 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:12 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f24-blocker-review'
17:00:13 <adamw> #meetingname F24-blocker-review
17:00:13 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
17:00:13 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f24-blocker-review'
17:00:35 * roshi is here
17:00:39 <kparal> finally, another meeting
17:00:40 <adamw> ahoyhoy folks, it's time for more meeting fun with me (cries secretly)
17:00:46 <adamw> kparal: isn't this just the BEST
17:00:54 <adamw> #chair kparal roshi
17:00:54 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw kparal roshi
17:00:59 * pschindl is here
17:01:28 * pschindl has to switch from cable to wifi
17:02:38 <adamw> #topic Introduction
17:02:38 <adamw> Why are we here?
17:02:38 <adamw> #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.
17:02:38 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
17:02:40 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
17:02:40 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
17:02:43 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
17:02:44 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
17:02:46 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Alpha_Release_Criteria
17:02:48 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Beta_Release_Criteria
17:02:50 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Final_Release_Criteria
17:03:03 <adamw> #info 2 Proposed Alpha Blockers, 3 Proposed Final Blockers
17:03:11 <adamw> #info 1 Accepted Alpha Blocker
17:03:15 <adamw> #info 0 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
17:03:15 <adamw> #info 0 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
17:03:29 <adamw> who wants to secretarialize?
17:04:22 <pschindl> I don't want to, but I will do it :)
17:05:02 <adamw> thanks pschindl
17:05:11 <adamw> #info pschindl will secretarialize
17:05:26 <adamw> starting with the Alpha proposals:
17:05:27 <adamw> #topic (1283348) Black screen on KDE live session (with qemu-kvm)
17:05:27 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283348
17:05:27 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, plasma-workspace, NEW
17:06:00 <adamw> this sounds like what satellit was talking about in the QA meeting
17:06:08 <satellit> +1
17:06:24 <adamw> on the face of it, it sure sounds blocker-y, would be good to reproduce on bare metal too
17:06:51 <pschindl> +1
17:07:14 <adamw> i'm gonna vote +1 on the assumption it's not KVM-specific, we can revisit if it turns out to be more limited than it seems
17:07:36 <pschindl> +1 to that too
17:07:46 <kparal> +1
17:08:25 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1283348 - AcceptedBlocker (Alpha) - this looks like a violation of "All release-blocking images must boot in their supported configurations."
17:08:47 <pschindl> ack
17:08:56 <kparal> ack
17:09:03 <satellit> ack
17:09:06 <adamw> #agreed 1283348 - AcceptedBlocker (Alpha) - this looks like a violation of "All release-blocking images must boot in their supported configurations."
17:09:12 <adamw> #topic (1264364) During installation there is no dns-server set: systemd-tmpfiles creates /etc/resolv.conf as a broken symlink, NetworkManager does not overwrite it
17:09:12 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264364
17:09:12 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, systemd, NEW
17:09:46 <adamw> huh, this was one i was batting around a lot with NM/systemd folks a few weeks back, but not sure of current status
17:10:04 * satellit afk
17:11:06 <roshi> +1
17:11:20 <roshi> though, I'm not sure where the best place to fix this is
17:11:22 <adamw> well, this doesn't seem to happen in a 2015-11-19 nightly
17:11:29 <pschindl> +1
17:11:35 <adamw> network works there, /etc/resolv.conf is a symlink to NM's file
17:11:46 <adamw> i'm not sure who changed what, so i can look into it, but i'd suggest punting this for now...
17:12:25 <roshi> I'm fine with punting
17:12:34 <pschindl> ok
17:13:24 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1264364 - punt (delay decision) - this is/was a bad bug, but does not seem to be affecting current nightly images; adamw will investigate what changed and see if bug needs to remain open
17:13:42 <pschindl> ack
17:15:03 <adamw> any other acks?
17:15:31 <roshi> ack
17:15:34 <pschindl> ack
17:15:36 <pschindl> :)
17:15:42 <kparal> ack
17:15:45 <adamw> #agreed 1264364 - punt (delay decision) - this is/was a bad bug, but does not seem to be affecting current nightly images; adamw will investigate what changed and see if bug needs to remain open
17:15:53 <adamw> alright, onto Final blockers
17:16:00 <adamw> #topic (1283365) Can't launch gnome-abrt (ImportError: cannot import name 'HTMLParseError')
17:16:00 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283365
17:16:01 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-abrt, POST
17:17:06 <kparal> +1
17:17:15 <adamw> +1, sounds like it affects workstation
17:17:20 <roshi> +1
17:17:40 <pschindl> +1
17:18:21 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1283365 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - clearly violates "All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical mechanism of a release-blocking desktop after a default installation of that desktop must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test."
17:18:31 <roshi> ack
17:18:45 <pschindl> ack
17:19:24 <adamw> kparal: ?
17:19:30 <kparal> ack
17:19:31 <adamw> #agreed 1283365 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - clearly violates "All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical mechanism of a release-blocking desktop after a default installation of that desktop must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test."
17:19:32 <adamw> #topic (1278562) sealert's GUI doesn't work
17:19:32 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278562
17:19:33 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, setroubleshoot, NEW
17:20:06 <pschindl> +1
17:20:29 <adamw> +1, i can reproduce this here (doesn't look like a py3.5 issue as i'm still on 3.4)
17:21:14 <kparal> +1
17:21:18 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1278562 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - clearly violates "All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical mechanism of a release-blocking desktop after a default installation of that desktop must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test."
17:21:37 <kparal> ack
17:21:40 <pschindl> ack
17:22:30 <adamw> roshi: ?
17:22:45 <roshi> ack
17:22:51 <adamw> #agreed 1278562 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - clearly violates "All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical mechanism of a release-blocking desktop after a default installation of that desktop must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test."
17:22:58 <adamw> #topic (1276432) [abrt] yelp: init_compose_table_thread_cb(): yelp killed by SIGSEGV
17:22:58 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276432
17:22:58 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, yelp, NEW
17:23:32 <kparal> +1
17:23:37 <roshi> wasn't this fixed already?
17:23:40 <roshi> +1 anyhow
17:23:43 <pschindl> +1
17:24:37 <adamw> we 'fixed' it in f23 by downgrading yelp
17:24:41 <adamw> f24 still has the broken yelp
17:24:50 <adamw> so, seems like a +1 indeed.
17:25:20 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1276432 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - clearly violates "Any element in the installer interface(s) which is clearly intended to display 'help' text must do so correctly when activated."
17:25:28 <roshi> ack
17:25:35 <pschindl> ack
17:25:58 <kparal> ack
17:26:21 <adamw> #agreed 1276432 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - clearly violates "Any element in the installer interface(s) which is clearly intended to display 'help' text must do so correctly when activated."
17:26:32 <adamw> alrighty folks, that's all the proposals on the list
17:26:47 <adamw> shall we wind up in record time?
17:26:50 <adamw> #topic Open floor
17:26:57 <adamw> any other f24 / blocker related business?
17:27:04 <kparal> I wonder if we're not having the blocker bug meetings a bit too soon? most of these issues will be resolved in a few weeks anyway, and f24 branch is in february. how early did we start having blocker bug meetings for f23?
17:27:18 * roshi has nothing
17:27:24 <adamw> i figured we may as well start so long as we had proposals
17:27:33 <adamw> early meetings are short and it stops us having a backlog if we start later
17:27:56 <pschindl> Better to spend 30 minutes now than 3 hours in month
17:28:19 <adamw> that was my thinking, yeah
17:28:23 <roshi> this is true
17:28:31 <roshi> it worked pretty well the last cycle
17:28:32 <kparal> I do not oppose it, just wondered if it wouldn't better to start e.g. 1 month ahead of branch
17:29:15 <kparal> if you think this is beneficial, no problem
17:29:43 <adamw> personally i'm ok with a quick meeting whenever there's say >1 proposed blocker, but we could do it on a schedule basis too...
17:29:53 <adamw> we can kick it around on list if anyone wants to change, i guess
17:29:59 <adamw> for now, i think some of us have a phone call to be on :P
17:30:39 <kparal> ok, just wanted to hear your opinions
17:30:42 <kparal> that's all from me
17:30:59 * adamw doesn't really mind either way.
17:31:42 <adamw> alrighty, i know this will make kparal sad, but we don't have any more meetings this morning
17:32:05 <adamw> it's okay though, kparal. it's okay, you can make it.
17:32:08 * adamw sets the fuse
17:32:37 <kparal> I'll manage somehow
17:33:26 <adamw> thanks for coming, folks!
17:33:29 <adamw> #endmeeting