17:00:30 <adamw> #startmeeting F24-blocker-review
17:00:30 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Feb 29 17:00:30 2016 UTC.  The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:30 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:30 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f24-blocker-review'
17:00:30 <adamw> #meetingname F24-blocker-review
17:00:30 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
17:00:30 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f24-blocker-review'
17:00:37 * kparal is here
17:00:38 <adamw> morning folks! time for some super fun blocker review
17:00:42 <adamw> #chair kparal
17:00:42 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw kparal
17:00:44 <RaphGro> +
17:00:49 <adamw> #chair RaphGro
17:00:49 <zodbot> Current chairs: RaphGro adamw kparal
17:01:04 <adamw> i'm gonna leave roll call open for a few minutes since QA meeting only just wound up, give everyone a chance to take a break
17:01:36 * pwhalen is here
17:01:57 * kparal pokes pschindl
17:02:21 * pschindl is here too
17:02:52 * handsome_pirate waves
17:04:10 <adamw> hi hi folks
17:04:41 <handsome_pirate> hai adamw
17:06:52 <adamw> everyone having a lovely monday morning?
17:07:15 * RaphGro bought a new graphics card in local shop. they sell crappy dead bricks!
17:07:24 <RaphGro> ^ this morning
17:07:35 <adamw> RaphGro: owch :( hope they take returns at least
17:07:43 * RaphGro hopes too
17:07:44 * handsome_pirate is a little under the weather
17:08:01 * handsome_pirate blames the lady friend; she was sick on Friday
17:08:09 <handsome_pirate> RaphGro:  ooph
17:08:32 <adamw> alright, everyone got a coffee?
17:08:49 * handsome_pirate has orange soda
17:08:49 * RaphGro has headache cause of ICU patch
17:09:31 <RaphGro> well, FeSCo discusses about getting rid of x86 anyways.
17:09:34 <adamw> graphics card fell on you?
17:09:42 <RaphGro> naa
17:10:14 <RaphGro> .bug 1307633
17:10:15 <zodbot> RaphGro: Bug 1307633 icu: Many essential codes are missing in i386, such as almost all international latin encodings - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1307633
17:10:52 <adamw> fun stuff
17:10:57 <adamw> alrighty, let's get rolling
17:10:57 <RaphGro> indeed
17:11:00 <adamw> kparal wants to get to the bar
17:11:02 <adamw> #topic Introduction
17:11:03 <adamw> Why are we here?
17:11:03 <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.
17:11:03 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
17:11:05 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
17:11:06 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
17:11:08 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
17:11:10 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
17:11:12 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Alpha_Release_Criteria
17:11:14 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Beta_Release_Criteria
17:11:16 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Final_Release_Criteria
17:11:35 <kparal> adamw: where do you think I'm working from?
17:11:41 <adamw> =)
17:11:46 <adamw> that's the kind of work ethic i like to see
17:12:14 <handsome_pirate> kparal:  The best Fedora work gets done over alcohol
17:12:30 <adamw> so we're just doing proposed blockers and accepted Alpha blockers this week, freeze is not till 2016-03-08 so we'll do FEs next week
17:12:40 <adamw> we have:
17:13:07 <adamw> #info 1 Proposed Blocker (Alpha), 3 Proposed Blockers (Beta), 3 Proposed Blockers (Final)
17:13:15 <adamw> and:
17:13:17 <adamw> #info 6 Accepted Blockers (Alpha)
17:13:46 <adamw> it's worth noting several of the accepted Alpha blockers are new automatic blockers (i.e. they become Accepted without review being necessary) for all the big breakage from this week
17:13:52 <adamw> so! moving right along to the proposed Alpha blocker...
17:14:01 <adamw> #topic (1274451) sudo with graphical apps doesn't work on wayland
17:14:01 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274451
17:14:01 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, wayland, NEW
17:14:11 <RaphGro> +1
17:14:30 <RaphGro> well, wayland is a big feature
17:14:41 <adamw> so this one's a slight guess, but at least as I understand the issue, it'll stop anaconda running on Workstation lives
17:14:47 <kparal> I think the cleanest way here is to report a bug 'anaconda does not start under wayland' and block on that one
17:14:59 <kparal> because I'm not sure we want to dictate how this gets fixed
17:15:04 <adamw> hmm, true, as it could be fixed in other ways...yeah
17:15:10 <handsome_pirate> yeah
17:15:26 <adamw> and we should check it's actually true, as well (I was inferring it)
17:15:27 <handsome_pirate> adamw:  I'm thinking this bug needs to be more of a policy decision
17:15:50 <handsome_pirate> adamw:  I was hoping to get that discussion going, but it never seems to have materialized
17:16:03 <adamw> handsome_pirate: yeah, that seems to be where this bug is going.
17:16:11 <kparal> I quite dislike this problem (and it's not even clear they want to fix it), but we can't mandate they implement this, it does not break our criteria per say
17:16:15 <handsome_pirate> ie, firmly decide yes or no to running gui applications as root
17:16:19 <kparal> it breaks user habits, that's for sure
17:16:23 <adamw> OK
17:16:49 <RaphGro> when will wayland work?
17:17:01 <kparal> RaphGro: it does work
17:17:03 <adamw> so to avoid having to hold up the meeting or wait till next week to vote on an obvious blocker, how about we say we'll vote in principle on a new bug for 'anaconda doesn't run on Workstation live', assuming we test and that turns out to be the case
17:17:04 <handsome_pirate> It already does
17:17:09 <adamw> i'd be +1 to such a bug
17:17:16 <RaphGro> kparal, ok. I keep with +1
17:17:21 <handsome_pirate> adamw:  +1
17:17:37 <kparal> adamw: it might even be an automatic blocker. but +1 of course
17:17:59 <kparal> one question though
17:18:02 <adamw> sure
17:18:11 <handsome_pirate> kparal:  42
17:18:26 <kparal> is it acceptable solution when they set Live to use X11, and installed system to use Wayland?
17:18:52 * handsome_pirate thinks the goal is wayland live
17:18:57 <kparal> can we decide we insist on Live running under the same graphics system as the installed system?
17:19:20 <handsome_pirate> I'd be +1 to that
17:19:23 <kparal> handsome_pirate: yes, but I can see somebody proposing this as a "temporary f24 measure"
17:19:41 <adamw> kparal: I don't think we could refuse that under the blocker process
17:19:48 <adamw> kparal: it would be more of a Change process thing
17:20:10 <kparal> ok
17:20:13 <adamw> i don't think *we* can insist that the Workstation live uses Wayland, but I think fesco could.
17:21:27 <kparal> so either sudo has to start working under wayland, or anaconda needs to be modified, or workstation WG/Fesco needs to decide we keep the Live running on X11
17:21:28 <adamw> so
17:21:40 <kparal> those are the options
17:22:31 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1274451 - drop blocker nomination, new bug is AcceptedBlocker in principle - we believe it makes most sense here to file a new bug for the specific "anaconda on Workstation live" case, if it is indeed broken. that new bug is accepted as a blocker in principle
17:22:41 <adamw> oh, i forgot to find a secretary
17:22:46 <adamw> anyone volunteer?
17:24:51 * adamw watches dust balls blow by
17:26:59 <kparal> sorry, distracted by other other channels
17:27:05 <kparal> ack
17:27:20 <kparal> pschindl: wanna volunteer again, nudge nudge? :)
17:27:37 <pschindl> I'll do it
17:27:43 <adamw> thanks
17:27:49 <adamw> #info pschindl will secretarialize
17:27:56 <adamw> ack/nack/patches on the proposal?
17:28:07 <pschindl> ack
17:28:35 <handsome_pirate> ack
17:28:45 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1274451 - drop blocker nomination, new bug is AcceptedBlocker in principle - we believe it makes most sense here to file a new bug for the specific "anaconda on Workstation live" case, if it is indeed broken. that new bug is accepted as a blocker in principle
17:28:46 <adamw> grr
17:28:49 <adamw> #agreed 1274451 - drop blocker nomination, new bug is AcceptedBlocker in principle - we believe it makes most sense here to file a new bug for the specific "anaconda on Workstation live" case, if it is indeed broken. that new bug is accepted as a blocker in principle
17:28:55 <adamw> alrighty, onto the beta blockers
17:29:11 <adamw> #topic (1294217) Background ignores stored orientation of images (layout is always put to landscape, even if image gets shown as portrait in an image viewer application)
17:29:11 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294217
17:29:11 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, cinnamon, NEW
17:29:28 <RaphGro> -1
17:29:38 <RaphGro> commenter is right about not primary desktop
17:29:52 <adamw> -1, per sgallagh, cinnamon is not a release blocking desktop.
17:29:55 <RaphGro> propably freeze exception
17:29:57 <handsome_pirate> -1
17:29:58 <adamw> (this probably wouldn't be a blocker even in GNOME, but hey.)
17:30:13 <handsome_pirate> not a release blocking desktop
17:30:20 <RaphGro> well, it's hard to reproduce and seen on one box only
17:30:27 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1294217 - RejectedBlocker - this is a Cinnamon bug, and Cinnamon is not a release blocking desktop.
17:30:29 * RaphGro = reporter
17:30:33 <adamw> yep, figured that. :)
17:30:45 <kparal> ack
17:30:48 <pschindl> ack
17:31:19 <Amita> Cinnamon
17:31:23 <adamw> #agreed 1294217 - RejectedBlocker - this is a Cinnamon bug, and Cinnamon is not a release blocking desktop.
17:31:25 <RaphGro> but a patch / fix would be nice, anyways
17:31:40 <adamw> we're not frozen yet, so it can still happen. :)
17:31:41 <adamw> #topic (1312956) langpack split results in all locales being lost on update/upgrade
17:31:41 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1312956
17:31:42 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, glibc, NEW
17:31:52 <RaphGro> +1
17:31:58 <adamw> this is the one i filed this morning for the langpack upgrade problem
17:32:06 <RaphGro> same issues as with ICU, ICU is even more severe
17:32:17 <RaphGro> b0rken i18n
17:32:25 <handsome_pirate> +1 to blocker
17:32:31 <handsome_pirate> sgallagh is working on it, though
17:34:01 <adamw> one more vote? kparal? pschindl?
17:34:10 * adamw closes all kparal's other IRC channels
17:34:17 * kparal reading
17:34:32 <kparal> +1
17:34:35 <pschindl> +1
17:35:09 <RaphGro> what about the propoposal to add Suggests
17:35:14 <pschindl> shouldn't it be alpha blocker?
17:35:17 <RaphGro> proposal *
17:35:32 <adamw> pschindl: this is specifically for upgrades
17:35:39 <pschindl> ah, ok.
17:35:43 <adamw> pschindl: we don't actually *know* yet what happens on a fresh install, because anaconda is broken
17:36:16 <adamw> so we can't tell for sure what langpacks you wind up with on an install with the langpack stuff. i guess we could test with a pre-split netinst, but it'll be a separate bug if there is a problem
17:36:34 <adamw> RaphGro: we're mostly concerned with deciding whether bugs are blockers, not how to fix them
17:36:38 <adamw> separation of responsibilities!
17:36:46 <RaphGro> k
17:37:06 * RaphGro calms down
17:37:15 <adamw> the 'blocker committee''s jobs are a) decide if bugs are blockers b) make sure they get fixed on time...but specifically *not* c) decide how they should be fixed, except as it relates to b)
17:37:32 <RaphGro> agreed
17:38:16 <kparal> and when you need a precise definition for something, you go to adamw :)
17:38:17 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1312956 - AcceptedBlocker - it's pretty clear from reports so far that this violates the specified criteria (upgraded systems do not meet the release criteria)
17:38:37 <pschindl> ack
17:38:45 <handsome_pirate> ack
17:38:55 <kparal> ack
17:38:59 <adamw> kparal: if you need a precise *short* definition, on the other hand, go to anyone but adamw
17:38:59 <adamw> :P
17:39:03 <adamw> #agreed 1312956 - AcceptedBlocker - it's pretty clear from reports so far that this violates the specified criteria (upgraded systems do not meet the release criteria)
17:39:13 <kparal> adamw: you would make a great lawyer
17:39:19 <adamw> why, i oughta
17:39:22 <adamw> #topic (1293055) Black screen after logout
17:39:22 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293055
17:39:23 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, sddm, NEW
17:39:24 <handsome_pirate> lol
17:39:32 <handsome_pirate> not htis again
17:39:50 <handsome_pirate> oh, this is sddm
17:39:53 <RaphGro> -0
17:39:56 <handsome_pirate> still, sddm is releas blocking
17:40:11 <RaphGro> as rex writes, it works but slow.
17:40:21 <RaphGro> not tried yet with lxqt, though
17:40:24 <handsome_pirate> Is it reproducable with kde?
17:40:35 <kparal> RaphGro: bare metal or VM?
17:40:42 <adamw> handsome_pirate: per comment #1 it is
17:40:42 <RaphGro> what? kde?
17:40:53 <adamw> "This is also reproducible when logout from a plasma5 session, using sddm here too. Now it's sddm to blame."
17:40:56 <handsome_pirate> adamw:  just saw that
17:41:04 <handsome_pirate> +1 blocker
17:41:14 <RaphGro> -+0
17:41:22 <handsome_pirate> RaphGro:  lxqt is not a release blocker; kde is
17:41:35 <RaphGro> I know, we do not even have LXQt remix
17:41:35 <adamw> well, it might be nice to have a bit more testing here
17:41:40 <kparal> RaphGro: bare metal or VM?
17:41:43 <adamw> be sure if it affects all uses
17:41:57 <adamw> if logout is broken or extremely slow for all/most KDE installs, though, i'd be +1
17:42:02 <RaphGro> kparal, vm with lxqt, no idea about kde
17:42:16 <RaphGro> you should ask more competent kde users
17:42:45 <kparal> we need more testing here first
17:42:51 <RaphGro> ack
17:43:10 <kparal> to try a default KDE install in a VM, once installer works
17:43:24 <RaphGro> +1 for beta blocker
17:44:14 * RaphGro must leave shortly
17:44:29 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1293055 - punt (delay decision) - this does smell blocker-y, but we want to have a few more people test with Plasma to be more sure of the breadth of impact before we vote on it
17:44:40 <RaphGro> ack
17:44:52 <kparal> ack
17:45:01 <pschindl> ack
17:45:08 <handsome_pirate> meh
17:45:09 <handsome_pirate> ack
17:47:42 * pwhalen is back, apologies
17:47:54 <RaphGro> here, get a cookie
17:48:28 * handsome_pirate wonders what happened to adamw
17:48:30 <adamw> sorry
17:48:34 <adamw> #agreed 1293055 - punt (delay decision) - this does smell blocker-y, but we want to have a few more people test with Plasma to be more sure of the breadth of impact before we vote on it
17:48:41 * adamw was distracted by a shiny thing
17:49:03 <adamw> alrighty, onto the final blockers
17:49:15 <adamw> #topic (1311402) Icon for show applications is missing
17:49:16 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1311402
17:49:16 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, NEW
17:50:03 <RaphGro> ongoing regressions with those icons
17:50:34 <adamw> +1, seems clear enough.
17:50:50 <handsome_pirate> +1
17:50:51 <RaphGro> -0
17:51:09 <pwhalen> +1
17:51:21 <kparal> +1
17:51:52 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1311402 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - clearly violates "All elements of the default panel (or equivalent) configuration in all release-blocking desktops must function correctly in typical use."
17:52:33 <handsome_pirate> ack
17:52:42 <RaphGro> ack
17:52:59 <pwhalen> ack
17:53:01 <kparal> ack
17:53:24 <adamw> #agreed 1311402 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - clearly violates "All elements of the default panel (or equivalent) configuration in all release-blocking desktops must function correctly in typical use."
17:53:34 <adamw> #topic (1310496) [abrt] eog: INT_cairo_region_is_empty(): eog killed by SIGSEGV
17:53:34 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310496
17:53:34 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gtk3, NEW
17:53:48 <RaphGro> wtf?
17:53:49 * linuxmodder late
17:53:52 <RaphGro> -1
17:54:19 <RaphGro> please provide a readable bug title
17:54:27 <adamw> you have to read the whole bug report
17:54:39 <adamw> also, that's auto-generated by abrt, it's not in the user's control
17:55:01 <RaphGro> "There's a patch in the upstream bug"
17:55:06 <handsome_pirate> is eog installed with gnome by default?
17:55:06 <adamw> (and it's quite useful to have the final bit of the traceback in the subject for abrt bugs in fact)
17:55:11 * handsome_pirate can't remember
17:55:13 <adamw> handsome_pirate: i believe it still is, lemme double check
17:55:17 <handsome_pirate> if so, +1 blocker
17:55:28 <RaphGro> should I now suggest all my abrt reports?
17:55:42 <adamw> yes, it's part of workstation-product
17:55:45 <handsome_pirate> RaphGro:  Only if they violate a release criteria
17:55:46 <adamw> RaphGro: er...no?
17:55:54 <adamw> RaphGro: this is a blocker because it's a crash on startup of a default installed app
17:55:55 <handsome_pirate> Then +1 blocker
17:55:57 <pwhalen> +1 then
17:56:04 <RaphGro> aho k
17:56:07 <RaphGro> +1
17:56:19 <pschindl> +1
17:56:21 <adamw> i.e. the app doesn't work at all, and we have a criterion requiring that all apps installed by default in release-blocking package sets must at least somehow work
17:56:23 <adamw> +1
17:56:27 <kparal> +1
17:56:29 * RaphGro leaves
17:56:48 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1310496 - AcceptedBlocker - eog crashing on start 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."
17:56:52 <handsome_pirate> ack
17:56:52 <adamw> RaphGro: thanks for joining :)
17:56:53 <pwhalen> ack
17:56:55 <pschindl> ack
17:56:58 <adamw> always good to have more folks around
17:56:59 <kparal> ack
17:57:04 <adamw> #agreed 1310496 - AcceptedBlocker - eog crashing on start 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."
17:57:14 <adamw> #topic (1033778) installer considers encrypted Apple Core Storage volumes as resizeable
17:57:14 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033778
17:57:14 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, NEW
17:57:20 <adamw> alrighty, saved the controversial one for last :)(
17:57:25 <RaphGro> .bug 1312675 adamw
17:57:26 <handsome_pirate> heh
17:57:27 <zodbot> RaphGro: Bug 1312675 Please disable fatal warnings in dbus user session, dbus must guess about Qt5 applications - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1312675 adamw
17:57:35 <RaphGro> wanted to mention in open discussion
17:57:38 <RaphGro> bye
17:57:46 <adamw> RaphGro: OK, we'll look at it then
17:57:55 <adamw> so this is the one we punted on last week on the basis that it clearly violates the criteria as written, but anaconda team were clearly unhappy with that
17:58:08 <adamw> i have been talking to anaconda team about it this week on anaconda-devel-list
17:58:38 <adamw> the thread is here:
17:58:38 <adamw> https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2016-February/msg00010.html
17:58:58 <adamw> lemme give a quick summary of dlehman's position.
17:59:07 <handsome_pirate> oh, my
17:59:39 <adamw> fundamentally, anaconda can't tell the difference between a volume that contains an unknown filesystem and a volume that is not formatted
17:59:59 <adamw> so what we really have here is a classic 'foot shooting' UI design conundrum
18:00:14 <handsome_pirate> aye
18:00:28 <adamw> if we disallow 'resize' of unknown volumes we might annoy some partition pokemon with a use case for resizing unformatted volumes
18:00:40 * handsome_pirate is hesitant to say a bug that causes data loss is not a blocker
18:01:00 <adamw> if we allow it, we let people with partitions we don't know anything about shoot themselves in the foot if they try hard enough (by choosing to 'resize' an "unknown" partition)
18:01:18 <kparal> I think the problem is that it's easy to assume that the resize operation is safe
18:01:21 <adamw> handsome_pirate: well, on the one hand that, on the other hand resize is a fundamentally dangerous thing that we can't take out of the installer because people would complain.
18:01:50 <kparal> so it should say "resizing an unknown partition, if you have some data on it, you'll probably lose it"
18:02:06 <adamw> so ultimately dlehman's position is that we can choose to disallow this or not, but it really shouldn't be a blocker, and the criterion should be reworded somehoiw
18:02:09 <handsome_pirate> kparal:  aye
18:02:24 <adamw> (or we can choose to throw some dumbass warning in there, yes)
18:02:32 <kparal> lets reword it that
18:02:38 <kparal> sorry, misclick
18:02:46 * kparal looking for that criterion
18:02:50 <adamw> i had a plan
18:03:00 <handsome_pirate> the cylons had a plan, too
18:03:02 <adamw> basically, make it say any resize operation *for a known partition type* must blahblahblah
18:03:11 <adamw> same wording, just restrict the coverage
18:03:17 <handsome_pirate> hrm
18:03:43 <adamw> i don't think i want to fight anaconda folks on this one, it doesn't seem clear cut enough to merit it
18:03:51 <handsome_pirate> Is it possible to differentiate between 'unknown partition type' and 'unformatted partition'?
18:03:56 <adamw> handsome_pirate: no. that's the problem.
18:04:06 <adamw> there's no handy official "this is some kind of filesystem" identifier.
18:04:10 <kparal> adamw: that rewording sounds ok to me
18:04:26 * handsome_pirate still doesn't like it
18:04:39 <kparal> but I'd suggest anaconda folks to warn about resizing unknown partitions
18:04:42 <adamw> to anaconda, a partition with nothing useful in it at all and a partition formatted with some filesystem anaconda knows nothing about look fundamentally the same.
18:04:47 <handsome_pirate> kparal:  +1
18:04:53 <kparal> because the technical issues is not the problem here, the user assumptions are
18:05:03 <adamw> well, isn't that always the case
18:05:10 <handsome_pirate> heh
18:05:10 <adamw> if we had perfect users everything would be so much easier
18:05:10 <adamw> :P
18:05:22 <handsome_pirate> adamw:  would the anaconda folks add a dumbass alert?
18:05:23 <kparal> or good UIs
18:05:34 <adamw> note, the resize screen *does* say this:
18:05:42 <adamw> handsome_pirate: possibly. that's kinda out of scope for deciding whether it's a blocker.
18:05:57 <handsome_pirate> true
18:06:10 <adamw> "There is also free space available in pre-existing file systems. While it's risky and we recommend you back up your data first, you can recover that free disk space and make it available for this installation below."
18:06:20 <adamw> so we already *have* a warning, but no-one reads it, as y'all just proved. :P
18:06:31 <handsome_pirate> heh
18:06:39 <kparal> that does not really cover what we talked about
18:06:45 <adamw> sure, i'm being flippant
18:06:51 <handsome_pirate> adamw:  It's been a whole two weeks since I've ssen anaconda!  I don't have perfect memory :)
18:06:57 <adamw> but a user assuming resize is safe is clearly a user not reading what we're telling them, where we tell them it's a fundamentally risky operation
18:07:16 <adamw> i mean, resizes of *known* filesystems are nowhere close to 100% safe, which is why the criteria don't say they must work, only they must be correctly attempted
18:07:36 <adamw> we can only be so strict about resizes, since it's a *fundamentally dangerous thing to do*
18:07:46 <handsome_pirate> hrm
18:08:13 <handsome_pirate> yeah, I think you're right
18:08:15 <handsome_pirate> -1 blocker
18:08:26 <kparal> I haven't seen a failed resize, but that's not important
18:08:35 <handsome_pirate> plus, the criteria reword
18:08:35 <adamw> but for the record: anaconda aren't saying they're not willing to make any changes. they're certainly open to adding a warning or only allowing 'resize' of known filesystems, i believe. but they do not believe the criteria should make this into a *blocker*.
18:08:55 * kparal nods
18:09:02 <kparal> -1 and criteria rewording
18:09:04 <adamw> i'm inclined to just go along with them as i don't think it's important enough to turn into a fight, so my vote is reword the criterion, -1 blocker
18:09:04 <pwhalen> agreed, -1 blocker (but would like to see some dialog added)
18:09:33 <handsome_pirate> if they can make it resize only known partitions, even better.
18:09:55 <adamw> handsome_pirate: it's technically simple to do, it's just a question of whether that's what we want to do (i.e. do we want to piss off the partition pokemons)
18:09:55 <adamw> anyhow
18:10:14 <handsome_pirate> adamw:  data safety > pissing off peoples, I think
18:10:28 <handsome_pirate> but, maybe I've spent too much time as a sysadmin
18:11:06 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1033778 - RejectedBlocker - anaconda team presented a reasonable argument that the release criteria should not be worded such that this issue is a blocker, so the criterion will be amended to only cover known filesystems, and this bug is rejected as a blocker. See bug comment for more details
18:11:28 <handsome_pirate> ack
18:11:31 <pwhalen> ack
18:12:09 <kparal> ack
18:12:32 <adamw> #agreed 1033778 - RejectedBlocker - anaconda team presented a reasonable argument that the release criteria should not be worded such that this issue is a blocker, so the criterion will be amended to only cover known filesystems, and this bug is rejected as a blocker. See bug comment for more details
18:12:35 <adamw> okely dokely!
18:12:42 <adamw> that's all the proposed blockers
18:12:59 <handsome_pirate> woohoo
18:13:03 <adamw> next we can take a look at any of the accepted Alpha blockers that might need any attention
18:13:46 * RaphGro is back
18:13:49 * kparal whispers 'boooriiing....'
18:14:22 <adamw> looking at the list, we have several that are MODIFIED or ON_QA
18:14:31 <adamw> and we have several new big ones that we know are being looked at
18:14:53 <adamw> the only one that i guess i'm really worried about is:
18:14:54 <adamw> #topic (1308771) Current Rawhide Workstation live image does not reach GDM due to mislabelled /run/systemd/inhibit and /run/user/1000
18:14:54 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308771
18:14:54 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, systemd, NEW
18:15:06 <RaphGro> +1
18:15:17 <adamw> RaphGro: we're onto accepted blocker review now
18:15:23 <RaphGro> propably not GDM only
18:15:28 <adamw> where we look at existing accepted blockers and check they're being addressed properly
18:15:34 <adamw> so we're not voting, we're checking in
18:15:39 <RaphGro> k
18:15:53 <adamw> so i bisected this one down to a specific systemd commit which changed a bit how they do selinux init
18:16:08 <adamw> however, systemd folks seem to be more or less saying 'we need someone selinux-y to figure out what's going on', best i can tell
18:16:37 <adamw> there is discussion of this bug at https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/2508 also (which is the systemd PR for the change that broke things)
18:16:37 <handsome_pirate> is anyone selinux-y looking at it?
18:16:43 <RaphGro> /run is mounted as tmpfs, right?
18:16:50 <adamw> i am not sure, but the lack of progress is concerning
18:17:05 <adamw> my plan, unless anyone has a better idea, is just to email the selinux-y types I know and ask them to look at the issue
18:17:05 <handsome_pirate> yes, it is
18:17:05 * RaphGro remembers something with tmpfs vs. selinux
18:17:18 <handsome_pirate> /run is tmpfs
18:17:40 <RaphGro> in past, they said "unsupported feature"
18:18:03 <RaphGro> but it wasn't about /run
18:18:07 <kparal> pestering selinux people sounds like a way to go
18:18:29 <handsome_pirate> +1
18:18:38 <adamw> okey dokey then
18:18:47 <adamw> #info this is a major bug and the lack of progress is concerning
18:18:54 <adamw> #action adamw to poke selinux folks to try and get some movement on this bug
18:19:08 <adamw> did anyone have anything on any of the other accepted Alpha blockers?
18:21:07 * kparal shakes his head
18:21:11 <RaphGro> well, selinux had a big update recently
18:21:28 <RaphGro> maybe somehow related to .bug 1308771
18:21:49 <adamw> RaphGro: doesn't seem that way, at least, you can switch the bug on and off across a single systemd commit
18:22:06 <RaphGro> well, that's how systemd works
18:22:11 <adamw> i suppose it's possible it would've worked with the systemd change with an older selinux, i haven't checked that, but it's definitely a systemd change which triggers the breakage
18:22:58 <adamw> welp, we'll figure it out
18:22:59 <adamw> onto open floor
18:23:04 <adamw> #topic Open Floor
18:23:11 <RaphGro> .bug 1312675
18:23:12 <zodbot> RaphGro: Bug 1312675 Please disable fatal warnings in dbus user session, dbus must guess about Qt5 applications - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1312675
18:23:22 <RaphGro> prevents new packages
18:23:31 <RaphGro> or at least delays them
18:23:53 <RaphGro> found via recent mass rebuild
18:24:16 <RaphGro> I tend to propose as alpha freeze exception
18:24:24 <adamw> as in, the test suites fail so you have to work around the bug in the spec or disable the tests?
18:24:32 <RaphGro> yes
18:24:41 <adamw> k
18:24:41 <RaphGro> no idea how that influences production
18:24:46 <adamw> that's pretty bad
18:25:02 <RaphGro> but I have UAT there, so production may suffer also
18:25:09 <adamw> production what?
18:25:19 <RaphGro> daily usage of those applications *
18:25:23 <adamw> oh, i see
18:25:31 <RaphGro> they just crash
18:25:32 <adamw> seems like one to keep an eye on for sure
18:26:11 <RaphGro> maybe qt5 won performance improvements over qt4, so dbus did not care that all
18:26:35 <RaphGro> but that's a shoot in blue sky
18:27:16 <RaphGro> latest dbus update but those fatal warnings (whatever) been there longer
18:27:37 <RaphGro> fixing every indiviual qt5 application is a PITA
18:29:03 <adamw> ok, i think this wouldn't quite constitute a blocker at present but we should keep an eye on it and it may indeed need an FE if it doesn't get fixed before freeze
18:29:04 <RaphGro> and: google chrome suffers too, linked upstream bug
18:29:20 <RaphGro> well, the patch is doable
18:29:29 <RaphGro> s|1|0|
18:29:35 <adamw> #info 1312675 looks like it might be bad for package builds and possibly regular use of Qt 5 apps, we will keep an eye on it
18:29:42 <RaphGro> ack
18:31:24 <RaphGro> any other thoughts?
18:31:40 <adamw> not right now
18:31:43 <adamw> anyone have any other bugs?
18:31:46 <adamw> or open floor topics?
18:33:01 <RaphGro> ICU i386 maybe?
18:33:14 <RaphGro> but I tend to ignore that
18:33:49 * RaphGro gets headaches about looking into this very old code
18:34:54 <adamw> we don't care about i386 any more for release blocking purposes
18:34:59 <adamw> it's explicitly not release blocking
18:35:27 <RaphGro> k
18:35:52 * RaphGro fixes trojita then to skip tests
18:38:01 <adamw> okely dokely, sounds like we're done
18:38:21 <RaphGro> thanks
18:38:32 <adamw> btw, did everyone know there is a Ned Flanders-themed metal band called Okilly Dokilly?
18:38:33 <adamw> http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/there-is-a-ned-flanders-themed-metal-band-called-okilly-dokilly-10453357.html
18:38:48 <pwhalen> lol
18:39:10 <RaphGro> http://interestingengineering.com/man-creates-a-128-gb-floppy-disk/
18:39:28 <adamw> thanks for coming, folks!
18:39:29 * adamw sets the fuse
18:39:52 <tflink> "the world's only Nedal band"
18:40:16 <adamw> i like their discussion of the Simpscene
18:40:39 <adamw> “Not as fast as Bartcore, and a little cleaner than Krusty Punk,”
18:41:11 <adamw> see you next week, same Ned-time, same Ned-channel
18:41:13 <adamw> #endmeeting