16:00:22 <adamw> #startmeeting F24-blocker-review
16:00:22 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Mar 14 16:00:22 2016 UTC.  The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:22 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:22 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f24-blocker-review'
16:00:22 <adamw> #meetingname F24-blocker-review
16:00:22 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f24-blocker-review'
16:00:22 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
16:00:27 <adamw> ahoyhoy, who's around for blocker meeting funt
16:00:30 <adamw> also fun
16:00:37 <sgallagh> .hello sgallagh
16:00:38 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
16:00:44 * kparal is here just for funt
16:00:47 * handsome_pirate fistpumps
16:00:50 <jkurik> .hello jkurik
16:00:52 <handsome_pirate> Let's do it!
16:00:52 <zodbot> jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' <jkurik@redhat.com>
16:01:02 * garretraziel is here for saying "good."
16:01:03 * handsome_pirate gets Krunk
16:01:12 * satellit_e listening
16:01:31 <kparal> garretraziel: the formal term is 'ack'
16:01:31 <lupinix> .hello lupinix
16:01:32 <zodbot> lupinix: lupinix 'Christian Dersch' <lupinix@mailbox.org>
16:01:39 <adamw> #chair sgallagh jkurik
16:01:39 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw jkurik sgallagh
16:01:39 <garretraziel> kparal: good.
16:01:49 <Southern_Gentlem> .hello jbwillia
16:01:50 <zodbot> Southern_Gentlem: jbwillia 'Ben Williams' <vaioof@yahoo.com>
16:01:59 <adamw> morning everyone, thanks for coming out
16:02:18 <adamw> #topic Introduction
16:02:19 <adamw> Why are we here?
16:02:19 <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.
16:02:19 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:02:19 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:02:20 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:02:22 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:02:24 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:02:26 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Alpha_Release_Criteria
16:02:28 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:02:30 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Final_Release_Criteria
16:02:47 <adamw> we have 3 proposed Alpha and 2 proposed Beta blockers, and 3 proposed Alpha freeze exceptions
16:03:00 <adamw> who's willing to be secretary?
16:03:23 <kparal> oh damn, no pschindl here?
16:03:30 <handsome_pirate> I would except I'll be gone in twenty minutes :(
16:03:57 <kparal> ok, I'll do it
16:04:03 <adamw> kparal: *sigh* did you lose him *again*?
16:04:15 <adamw> #info kparal to secretarialize
16:04:22 <adamw> kparal: go check the gutter outside the nearest bar
16:04:23 <kparal> he seems to get lost at the most inconvenient times
16:04:34 <kparal> or most convenient, depending on POV
16:05:29 <adamw> hehe
16:05:34 <adamw> ok, let's start with Alpha proposed blockers
16:05:46 <adamw> #topic (1315494) C.UTF-8 doesn't actually work as a default locale
16:05:46 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315494
16:05:47 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:05:58 <adamw> so this one is slightly odd
16:06:13 <adamw> in that the bug exists in anaconda f24-branch and in the package build that's in updates-testing right now
16:06:31 <adamw> but as things stand we are *not* pulling that build into composes, as it's not needed to fix any other alpha blocker or FE
16:06:55 <adamw> so it's kind of a "potential" blocker - if we need a build of anaconda for any other reason, we will also need to get this fixed
16:07:08 <sgallagh> Why don't we come back to it at the end
16:07:21 <adamw> but if we can ship Alpha with anaconda-24.13-1.fc24 , we don't need to fix it
16:07:22 <handsome_pirate> +1
16:07:25 <sgallagh> Because we have other anaconda-adjacent proposed blockers and FEs
16:07:34 <adamw> only one, but sure.
16:07:48 <adamw> oh, maybe two.
16:07:59 <adamw> #info we will circle back to this at the end
16:08:05 <adamw> #topic (1160891) Only uses upper left part of the display
16:08:05 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160891
16:08:05 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, initial-setup, ASSIGNED
16:08:35 <adamw> so this is initial-setup, the blocker case for which is basically ARM installs
16:08:42 <adamw> pwhalen: have you been seeing this bug?
16:09:04 <kparal> I saw it on pschindl's screen
16:09:13 <kparal> not sure whether VM or bare metal
16:09:19 <kparal> but definitely not arm
16:09:23 <handsome_pirate> I saw it in avm
16:09:41 <adamw> non-ARM cases for initial-setup aren't so significant
16:09:44 <handsome_pirate> x86_64
16:09:58 <kparal> this might get fixed once we revert wayland, though
16:10:30 <adamw> i don't think we ever had wayland 'on' for non-Workstation, did we?
16:10:43 <adamw> and this was filed back in 2014-11
16:10:47 <kparal> hm, no, sorry, I might be confused. I think we saw anaconda itself do that, not initial setup
16:10:54 <adamw> though it might have changed a bit since then
16:11:42 <adamw> so anyhow...i'm probably slightly -1 on this because it does *work*, it just looks bad
16:11:50 <adamw> i can live with that for alpha
16:12:06 <sgallagh> Yeah, I'd call this at most an FE
16:12:17 <handsome_pirate> Needs to be fixed for Final, though
16:12:25 <kparal> is there some screenshot somewhere?
16:12:33 <kparal> what I saw was barely useable
16:12:33 <sgallagh> Assuming that it's scaled properly and not just missing 1/2 of the content
16:12:40 <lbrabec> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299869
16:13:05 <kparal> lbrabec: thanks
16:13:09 <adamw> sgallagh: not 'assuming',. the report says that.
16:13:19 <kparal> look at this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1116168
16:13:49 <sgallagh> ok
16:14:27 <sgallagh> I'm -1 alpha blocker, +1 Alpha FE
16:14:35 <kparal> it gets bigger if you use the scrollbars and click on some spoke
16:14:55 <adamw> hmm, kinda sucks that you can't see the important bits at first
16:16:21 <kparal> lbrabec: does it happen always or just sometimes?
16:16:39 <kparal> I could live with this on Alpha, if it does not happen every time
16:17:21 <lbrabec> always, it is pita, but "usable"
16:17:33 <kparal> if you know that the content is hidden
16:17:38 <adamw> yeah...
16:17:54 <adamw> still, it's an alpha. kinda puts me on the fence
16:17:55 <sgallagh> Well, let's put it to the Go/No-Go test:
16:18:09 <kparal> I can live with this in Alpha
16:18:12 <sgallagh> Would the Go/No-Go team be likely to fudge it if it was the last blocker? I think yes.
16:18:29 <jkurik> hm.. the bug (1160891) is there since F21, if I am not mistaken
16:18:46 <jkurik> so, why we should consider it now as a blocker for F24 ?
16:18:53 <adamw> i think it's changed somewhat over time
16:19:04 <adamw> maybe would've been better to keep the new report instead of closing it as a dupe, but oh well
16:19:34 <kparal> so if it is not Alpha, what milestone are we going to block?
16:19:51 <adamw> i'd definitely block Final, possibly Beta
16:19:58 <adamw> quick, everyone yell out a milestone!
16:20:06 <kparal> Gamma
16:20:35 <kparal> +1 to Final, +0.5 to Beta, +0 to Alpha
16:20:41 <Southern_Gentlem> beta,final
16:20:52 <jkurik> adamw: ok, blocking Final seems reasonable for me
16:21:16 * handsome_pirate is +1 Final
16:21:21 <kparal> garretraziel: lbrabec: you also get to vote :)
16:21:25 <jkurik> I am not sure about blocking Beta
16:21:46 <sgallagh> I'm +1 final, 0 beta
16:21:56 <garretraziel> I'm -1 on Alpha
16:21:58 <handsome_pirate> anyway, I must take my leave
16:22:13 <handsome_pirate> See y'all later
16:22:15 <garretraziel> +1 on Final
16:22:43 <adamw> cya pirate
16:22:49 <adamw> alright, seems we have a consensus for Final
16:22:52 <jkurik> +1 to Final, +0 to Beta, -1 to Alpha
16:22:59 <adamw> let's go with that and if anyone wants to push for Beta we can do it another time
16:23:05 <kparal> sounds good
16:23:07 <lbrabec> -1 alpha, +1 final
16:23:09 <jkurik> ok
16:23:57 <adamw> oh, and Alpha FE I guess?
16:23:58 <sgallagh> ok
16:24:01 <adamw> everyone OK with that?
16:24:04 <kparal> +1 to Alpha FE
16:24:06 <sgallagh> I'm +1 alpha FE (again)
16:24:15 <garretraziel> yup, +1 Alpha FE
16:24:18 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 Alpha FE
16:24:26 <lbrabec> +1 alpha FE
16:24:39 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1160891 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Alpha) - this definitely impairs use of initial-setup, but it is possible to do what you need to; we agreed it makes sense to make it a Final blocker, Alpha users can be expected to cope. If not fixed it will be documented in Common Bugs
16:24:53 <sgallagh> Ack
16:24:56 <jkurik> ack
16:24:59 <kparal> ack
16:25:07 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
16:25:27 <garretraziel> ack
16:25:31 <lbrabec> ack
16:25:35 <adamw> #agreed 1160891 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Alpha) - this definitely impairs use of initial-setup, but it is possible to do what you need to; we agreed it makes sense to make it a Final blocker, Alpha users can be expected to cope. If not fixed it will be documented in Common Bugs
16:25:43 <adamw> kparal: can you throw a CommonBugs at it?
16:25:54 <kparal> adamw: already did, thanks for mentioning that
16:26:03 <adamw> #topic (1315541) pyanaconda.packaging.PayloadInstallError: Failed to mount the install tree
16:26:03 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315541
16:26:03 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, lorax, NEW
16:26:41 <Southern_Gentlem> without this the lives will not build ?
16:26:50 <adamw> hmm, today's KDE live seems to have worked OK, according to openQA
16:26:59 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: no, when the bug happens you can't install from the image.
16:27:56 <kparal> comment 17 is helpful
16:28:21 <kparal> "In lorax-25.1-1 I've turned this into an error instead of a warning. After Alpha I'll do the same for F24."
16:28:21 <adamw> so i mean i guess we have the option of just keeping on building till we get a compose with working KDE and Workstation lives, in the worst case...
16:28:45 <kparal> can't we approve the same change in F24 lorax?
16:29:00 <sgallagh> kparal: Well, it's not really a *fix*
16:29:05 <sgallagh> It's an earlier failure.
16:29:21 <kparal> I understand. but at least those images won't build
16:30:33 <kparal> I'd accepted this as a FE for lorax. if repeated the images compose at the end, so it's not really a blocker
16:30:39 <kparal> *accept
16:31:00 <adamw> the image always composes
16:31:11 <sgallagh> adamw: Not if we accept this as an FE
16:31:18 <sgallagh> adamw: Then it will at least fail to compose
16:31:22 <adamw> oh, iswym
16:31:34 <adamw> well, if bcl is willing to make that change.
16:31:37 <adamw> lemme ask him
16:32:10 <kparal> it would save us time debugging the same failure repeatedly
16:32:56 <sgallagh> Right, and if it consistently fails to compose, now it becomes a clear blocker to find the root cause
16:33:58 <jkurik> kparal: sgallagh: ack, seems to be a good way how to deal with it from my POV
16:34:14 <Southern_Gentlem> +! alpha +1 FE +Beta +Final
16:34:38 <adamw> bcl didn't reply yet.
16:34:44 <adamw> anyhow, i'm ok with that plan for now
16:34:46 <adamw> +1 FE
16:34:59 <kparal> +1 FE
16:35:20 <sgallagh> +1 FE
16:35:27 <garretraziel> +1 FE
16:35:31 <lbrabec> +1 FE
16:35:41 <jkurik> +1 FE
16:36:37 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1315541 - RejectedBlocker (Alpha) AcceptedFreezeException (Alpha) - this appears to be an intermittent issue, so we think in the worst case we can just keep composing till it works. We're accepting it as a freeze exception to allow an F24 lorax build with the change to make compose fail when the bug happens, so it's easy to know when we need to rebuild
16:36:55 <kparal> ack
16:36:56 <sgallagh> Ack
16:36:57 <kparal> well said
16:37:18 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
16:37:21 <adamw> #agreed 1315541 - RejectedBlocker (Alpha) AcceptedFreezeException (Alpha) - this appears to be an intermittent issue, so we think in the worst case we can just keep composing till it works. We're accepting it as a freeze exception to allow an F24 lorax build with the change to make compose fail when the bug happens, so it's easy to know when we need to rebuild
16:37:24 <jkurik> acl
16:37:37 <adamw> ok, that's all the alpha blockers, onto beta
16:37:38 <jkurik> uff, late and wrong :-)
16:37:42 <adamw> #info moving onto beta blockers
16:37:44 <adamw> #topic (1315515) Server DVD cannot install Server product
16:37:45 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315515
16:37:45 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, distribution, NEW
16:38:08 <adamw> i think we may have fixed this already in fact...
16:38:43 <sgallagh> I just finished downloading the latest build.
16:38:46 <sgallagh> /me fires it up
16:38:46 <adamw> yeah, it looks like it, the default package set in today's Server DVD install test was 'Fedora Server'
16:39:39 <jkurik> so, not a blocker \o/
16:39:44 <Southern_Gentlem> so Server doesnt block for Alpha?
16:40:09 <sgallagh> This should clearly have been an Alpha proposal
16:40:35 <adamw> nope
16:40:48 <sgallagh> Oh, I guess if the *any* environment installed, I guess that would pass
16:40:52 <adamw> the requirement for Alpha is that it installs *something*
16:40:54 <sgallagh> But it would be completely missing the point
16:40:58 <adamw> it's only a Beta requirement that it installs the right thing
16:41:15 <adamw> there's a slight grey area in that we never actually conceived of the possibility that the right thing wouldn't be available at all
16:41:21 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 beta so we keep it in our sights that its fixed
16:41:22 <adamw> but no need to argue about it too much since it's fixed...
16:41:39 <adamw> #info this bug has been fixed, closing and moving on
16:41:46 <jkurik> ack
16:42:09 <adamw> sorry, thought sgallagh had confirmed the fix...
16:42:14 * adamw sucks at reading today
16:42:22 <sgallagh> Confirmed
16:42:41 <Southern_Gentlem> sgallagh, confirmed fix or borked
16:42:42 <sgallagh> Installing now to ensure it actually puts the right bits on the system
16:43:03 <sgallagh> "Fedora Server" is available and I am running an installation
16:43:17 <sgallagh> If it fails to boot, that will be a different blocker, so let's move on
16:43:43 <adamw> alrighty
16:43:51 <adamw> #topic (1293055) Black screen after logout
16:43:51 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293055
16:43:51 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, sddm, MODIFIED
16:43:51 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
16:44:57 <kparal> reproduced in comment 12
16:45:02 <adamw> well, #c12 says it affects a clean f24 kde install
16:45:17 <adamw> i wish there wasn't quite as much confusing chatter on this bug, but i'm willing to wave a +1 at it on that basis...
16:45:17 <kparal> therefore +1
16:46:32 * jkurik is KDE user, so +1 for a blocker
16:46:48 <sgallagh> This feels like two different bugs here though
16:47:04 <sgallagh> The initial report was sddm and lxqt
16:47:11 <sgallagh> But a fix is going into plasma-workstation
16:47:16 <sgallagh> So it's really not fixing the original report.
16:47:20 <adamw> yeah, it's not really clear what's going on there.
16:47:45 <sgallagh> I'd like to see this bug get split
16:47:55 <Southern_Gentlem> has it been fixed for KDE ?
16:48:25 <adamw> sgallagh: that seems like a good idea, yeah
16:48:30 <Southern_Gentlem> if so not a blocker but i agree its a bug for lxqt  but thats not a blocker
16:49:02 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: there's an update listed as fixing the bug. it's not in any compose yet and no-one's left any feedback in the bug so we don't know.
16:50:20 <adamw> propose #agreed 1293055 - split, new bug is AcceptedBlocker (Alpha) - per comment #12 it appears there is a bug preventing log out in a clean F24 KDE install from working, that bug is accepted as a blocker. We agree that a new report will be filed to separate the KDE case from the lxqt case and the new KDE bug will be the blocker
16:50:49 <sgallagh> ack
16:50:54 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
16:50:56 <kparal> wouldn't be easier to keep the current one as the KDE blocker, since the update is already marked for it
16:51:05 <kparal> and ask people to report a new one against lxqt
16:51:22 <sgallagh> kparal: That seems rather disingenuous of us, considering we co-opted their bug
16:51:41 <kparal> right, right, but it would be easier for me :)
16:51:45 <kparal> *sigh*
16:51:51 <adamw> kparal: sorry :P we'll just have to ask the kde folks to edit the update
16:51:59 <kparal> ack
16:52:00 <adamw> and by 'we' I mean 'you'
16:52:05 <adamw> #agreed 1293055 - split, new bug is AcceptedBlocker (Alpha) - per comment #12 it appears there is a bug preventing log out in a clean F24 KDE install from working, that bug is accepted as a blocker. We agree that a new report will be filed to separate the KDE case from the lxqt case and the new KDE bug will be the blocker
16:52:09 <Southern_Gentlem> reporter co opted the bug report
16:52:38 <adamw> #info moving on to Alpha freeze exceptions
16:52:40 <adamw> #topic (1316601) change the icon used for "ok" in the dasd dialog
16:52:40 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316601
16:52:40 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, NEW
16:53:34 <adamw> I can be +1 for this, but we'll have to note that any new anaconda build requires a fix for the C.UTF-8 issue...
16:54:13 <sgallagh> Honestly, I'm -1 on this, since we *know* it's going to introduce other fallout.
16:54:30 <sgallagh> And I suspect the anaconda folks won't want to do a specialized build to fix just this.
16:54:56 <adamw> ...except it's an 'anaconda folk' proposing it
16:55:10 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 since they proposed it
16:55:11 <sgallagh> It also only affects s390, so my interest level cannot be measured on even the most sensitive of equipment.
16:55:19 <adamw> and i don't know what you mean by 'introduce other fallout', the fallout is already there, it's just the case that for now we can use a build from before it.
16:55:40 <sgallagh> adamw: Right, so unless something else forces our hand there, I'd rather not pull this in.
16:55:54 <jkurik> sgallagh: +1
16:55:55 <adamw> meh.
16:56:00 <sgallagh> adamw: I mean "introduce other fallout into the actual frozen set"
16:56:02 <garretraziel> -1, even he says that "this obviously isn't a blocker"
16:56:14 <sgallagh> garretraziel: Well, we're doing Freeze Exception review now
16:56:21 <garretraziel> oh, mea culpa
16:56:34 <mkolman> just for the record - I have the Initial Setup issue happening on my testing VM here
16:56:40 <sgallagh> Which basically amounts to  "We would allow this after freeze because it's sufficiently important and we don't think it will break stuff"
16:56:47 <adamw> sgallagh: meh, the fix for the locale issue is a simple revert
16:56:49 <mkolman> so I have everything needed to fix it
16:56:49 <sgallagh> But this *will* cause the known breakage to land, so I'm -1
16:56:54 <adamw> no it won't
16:56:55 <Southern_Gentlem> well after the freeze they can push the fix anyways correct?
16:57:06 <adamw> we wouldn't pull in any anaconda package without the locale change reverted
16:57:14 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: yes, but they want to fix it sooner.
16:57:35 <sgallagh> Southern_Gentlem: Fixes in anaconda that don't get into freeze don't get tested until the next milestone
16:57:53 <Southern_Gentlem> the current is a cosmetic fix so i will say -1
16:58:06 <adamw> i think the point here is not really about getting the fix into Alpha composes, but they just want a sign off to land it in git so their automated tests are no longer broken.
16:58:37 <sgallagh> adamw: I don't see why they can't do that upstream without us accepting it
16:59:03 <sgallagh> Or do they use our updates-testing repo to run tests against?
16:59:14 <sgallagh> Either way, it doesn't necessitate our strict approval.
16:59:21 <adamw> well, if they land it 'upstream' it will wind up in any f24 build
16:59:35 <adamw> though now i think of it, in the past they've forked off the main f24 git branch for freezes
16:59:40 <adamw> so i could just suggest doing that again
16:59:44 * jkurik needs to leave for an hour
17:00:45 <adamw> can everyone vote again?
17:00:49 <sgallagh> adamw: To me, this would be conditional; I wouldn't want to accept this and have the side-effect causing the other changes to land, particularly since we know that at least some amount of work needs to be done to fix known issues.
17:01:30 <sgallagh> If they had other FEs on the table for stuff that is in the current build, then I'd be more swayed.
17:02:41 <sgallagh> So I'm remaining -1
17:02:47 <Southern_Gentlem> -1
17:03:43 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1316601 - RejectedFreezeException (Alpha) - this seems like a small cosmetic issue and only affects a secondary arch, as we know there is breakage on f24-branch right now we're not inclined to accept such a minor issue as a freeze exception
17:04:08 <sgallagh> ack
17:04:34 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:04:52 <adamw> #agreed 1316601 - RejectedFreezeException (Alpha) - this seems like a small cosmetic issue and only affects a secondary arch, as we know there is breakage on f24-branch right now we're not inclined to accept such a minor issue as a freeze exception
17:04:53 * garretraziel got to leave now
17:06:03 <adamw> so i think all we have left is circling back to 1315494
17:06:09 <adamw> #info back to outstanding Alpha blocker
17:06:13 <adamw> #topic (1315494) C.UTF-8 doesn't actually work as a default locale
17:06:13 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315494
17:06:13 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
17:06:30 <adamw> so yeah, not really sure how to account for this. it's not technically a blocker at present, but if we do take an anaconda build for any other reason, this must be fixed
17:06:43 <adamw> i guess we can leave it as a proposed blocker and add a note
17:06:46 <sgallagh> adamw: Well, that still might depend on the fix for 1315434
17:06:58 <adamw> no, it doesn't
17:07:06 <adamw> that got fixed from pungi end too so we don't need the anaconda fix
17:07:18 <adamw> that's actually *why* we never wound up having to take the current anaconda package into a compose
17:07:35 <sgallagh> OK
17:07:40 <sgallagh> Well, that wasn't clear from reading it
17:07:46 <adamw> sorry, it needs an updat.e
17:07:48 <sgallagh> I was just about to test the latest compose for the kernel
17:08:29 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 Beta
17:09:24 <sgallagh> adamw: Yeah, let's leave it as proposed for now
17:09:33 <kparal> just a note sounds good
17:09:40 <sgallagh> If we greenlight Alpha this week, we'll make it a Beta blocker
17:10:04 <Southern_Gentlem> i am fine with leaving it as a proposed blocker so it can be reexamined down the road
17:10:33 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1315494 - punt (delay decision) - this isn't a regular "need more info" punt, but the status is that the current stable anaconda does not have this bug so it is not technically a blocker, but if we need a new anaconda package for any other blocker fix, this becomes a blocker and must be fixed
17:10:40 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: there isn't really any re-examination needed
17:10:52 <adamw> the issue is simply whether we wind up needing a new anaconda build for Alpha or not
17:10:56 <sgallagh> adamw: Well, re-examination might be needed if another blocker lands this week
17:11:11 <adamw> no 're-examination' would be needed, this would just magically become a blocker at that point.
17:11:16 <sgallagh> Fair enough
17:11:24 <kparal> ack
17:11:39 <sgallagh> ack
17:11:42 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:12:03 <adamw> #agreed 1315494 - punt (delay decision) - this isn't a regular "need more info" punt, but the status is that the current stable anaconda does not have this bug so it is not technically a blocker, but if we need a new anaconda package for any other blocker fix, this becomes a blocker and must be fixed
17:12:41 <adamw> welp, that's all the bugs we have
17:12:43 <adamw> #topic Open floor
17:12:55 <kparal> I see some more proposed FEs?
17:12:56 <sgallagh> OK, time to create some more bugs, then
17:12:59 <adamw> kparal: where?
17:13:05 <adamw> oh shoot, sorry
17:13:06 <adamw> mised that
17:13:12 <adamw> #topic Alpha freeze exceptions again
17:13:14 <adamw> grr
17:13:25 <adamw> #topic (1307633) icu: Many essential codes are missing in i386, such as almost all international latin encodings
17:13:26 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307633
17:13:26 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, icu, NEW
17:13:31 <adamw> oh, this freaking one
17:14:00 <kparal> comment 31 replies to our request
17:14:25 <kparal> if you can understand it, I'm not so sure myself
17:14:27 <adamw> well, more or less, it still doesn't really explain what icu is *actually* used for
17:14:59 <kparal> charset conversions, it seems
17:15:12 <sgallagh> Yeah, conversions to and from unicode
17:15:33 <kparal> I think it sounds serious enough to grant it +1 FE
17:15:42 <Southern_Gentlem> yeah +1 FE
17:15:46 <adamw> i know what character set conversions are, yes.
17:15:57 <adamw> but it doesn't explain what *actual software in Fedora* is *actually using ICU to do character set conversions*.
17:16:14 <adamw> i dunno why it's so hard for people to just say "because of this bug application X does Y instead of Z"
17:16:36 * adamw is actually inclined to -1 without someone pointing to an actual damn bug and saying "that's the bug"
17:16:37 <kparal> unfortunately dnf doesn't really help with this much, but if I try to remove libicu, it wants to remove my almost whole desktop
17:16:38 <Southern_Gentlem> putthat in the bug
17:16:42 <sgallagh> adamw: A lot
17:16:49 <adamw> kparal: yeah, but that only explains what uses the lib, not what it uses it for.
17:17:00 <sgallagh> adamw: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/339746/75814145/
17:17:11 <adamw> sgallagh: see above.
17:17:20 <RaphGro> .hello raphgro
17:17:20 <zodbot> RaphGro: raphgro 'Raphael Groner' <projects.rg@smart.ms>
17:17:25 <kparal> sgallagh: what was the command?
17:17:37 <sgallagh> dnf repoquery  --whatrequires "libicudata.so.56()(64bit)"
17:17:44 <adamw> ICU does all of this:
17:17:45 <adamw> http://site.icu-project.org/
17:17:46 <kparal> ok
17:17:57 <RaphGro> iconv -l lists all available codes, and there are too few for i386. compared in the bug.
17:18:06 <adamw> just because an app is using ICU for *something* does not mean it is affected by this report, at least so far as I can tell.
17:18:25 <RaphGro> this bug is only about x86
17:18:28 <adamw> yes, we know.
17:18:37 <sgallagh> adamw: I strongly suspect that 389 is using it to convert all input data to the native UTF-8 charset
17:18:38 <sgallagh> (FWIW)
17:19:19 <RaphGro> qt depends on icu
17:19:31 <sgallagh> anyway, the conversation seems mostly academic, as there's no obvious patch in sight and hopefully we're Go on Thursday.
17:19:43 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 FE
17:19:56 <sgallagh> I
17:19:58 <Southern_Gentlem> i dont see this as a alpha blocker
17:20:05 <sgallagh> I'd prefer to defer until a possible fix shows up
17:20:18 <sgallagh> I'd want to see how disruptive it ended up being
17:20:26 <RaphGro> I've proposed a patch but noone likes it
17:20:33 <sgallagh> But I guess FE doesn't mean we *have* to take it
17:20:33 <Southern_Gentlem> i can agree to that
17:20:40 <adamw> sgallagh: hah.
17:20:52 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: we're not voting on blocker, we're voting on FE.
17:20:57 <adamw> it can't be a blocker because it's i686.
17:21:14 <Southern_Gentlem> yes
17:21:30 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1307633 - AcceptedFreezeException (Alpha) - this is accepted as a freeze exception because lots of stuff depends on ICU, or something? I don't know, I just write the summaries
17:21:42 <adamw> patches welcome. ;)
17:21:43 <sgallagh> patch
17:22:16 <Southern_Gentlem> next its getting lunchtime
17:22:24 <sgallagh> proposed #agreed 1307633 - AcceptedFreezeException (Alpha) - Missing charset conversions can have wide and varied misbehaviors, so we'd consider a patch during freeze to address this issue.
17:22:30 * kparal is getting a banana
17:22:36 <adamw> fine
17:22:36 <adamw> ack
17:22:41 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:22:44 <kparal> ack
17:22:50 <adamw> #agreed 1307633 - AcceptedFreezeException (Alpha) - Missing charset conversions can have wide and varied misbehaviors, so we'd consider a patch during freeze to address this issue
17:23:01 <adamw> #topic (1315438) Mouse click issues with dual monitors
17:23:01 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315438
17:23:01 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, xorg-x11-server, NEW
17:24:08 <adamw> eh
17:24:09 <sgallagh> I need to retest today, but I *think* the upstream patch I referenced here got pulled into 1.18.2, so this may already be in u-t
17:24:18 <kparal> looks reasonable
17:24:24 <kparal> +1
17:24:29 <adamw> the only freeze-y impact of this would be using workstation live on Wayland, wouldn't it?
17:24:35 <adamw> which...i don't even know if you can do that any more.
17:24:57 * adamw is a weak -1
17:25:03 <kparal> adamw: it breaks on X11, not Wayland
17:25:11 <sgallagh> kparal: Incorrect
17:25:13 <adamw> kparal: no, it breaks with X11 apps on Wayland.
17:25:21 <adamw> "2. Start a GNOME session on Wayland"
17:25:28 <kparal> ah
17:25:33 <kparal> alright
17:25:40 <Southern_Gentlem> but the fix fixes it
17:25:52 <Southern_Gentlem> +1
17:26:06 <sgallagh> I'm actually going to be -1 here despite proposing it
17:26:25 <Southern_Gentlem> change to -1
17:26:25 <sgallagh> If the patch was alone, I'd be happier, but I don't want to pull in a rebase just for this.
17:26:27 <kparal> it depends whether our Lives will be running wayland or not
17:26:41 <sgallagh> Too much potential for unplanned fallout
17:27:03 <Southern_Gentlem> kparal, i thought that had already been pushed to f25
17:27:25 <adamw> kparal: they aren't.
17:27:34 <kparal> adamw: it's already reverted? good
17:27:52 <adamw> yeah
17:28:02 <kparal> in that case -1 makes sense
17:28:21 <kparal> wayland can't be tested on Live easily anyway
17:28:42 <kparal> if it's not the default, of course
17:29:11 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1315438 - RejectedFreezeException (Alpha) - this only affects Wayland and all deliverables use X11 by default, so an update should be sufficient for addressing this
17:29:38 <kparal> ack
17:30:00 <sgallagh> ack
17:30:36 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:33:09 <adamw> #agreed 1315438 - RejectedFreezeException (Alpha) - this only affects Wayland and all deliverables use X11 by default, so an update should be sufficient for addressing this
17:34:00 <adamw> #topic Open floor
17:34:05 <kparal> \o/
17:34:07 <adamw> so there's a bug dgilmore wants as an FE
17:34:14 <adamw> i told him we'll wait a couple minutes for him to file
17:34:24 <kparal> /o\
17:34:34 <adamw> AIUI, short story is: a bug in lorax templates means we don't get any compose for ppc arch
17:34:37 <adamw> maybe s390 also
17:34:50 <adamw> arches with no docker, basically
17:34:57 <Southern_Gentlem> ***belly grumbles***
17:35:16 <sgallagh> Southern_Gentlem: Sure, just give me your proxy vote and I'll take care of things ;-)
17:35:39 <Southern_Gentlem> i can wait a few more minutes
17:36:59 <Southern_Gentlem> if you have seen my pics my belly is big enough it can wait
17:37:01 <sgallagh> /me feels untrusted.
17:37:31 <sgallagh> Southern_Gentlem: We've met in person in Rochester
17:37:32 <adamw> so if anyone wants to leave, i guess we can do votes-in-principle
17:37:38 <adamw> just vote whether you're +1 or -1 FE for a bug whose impact is "ppc composes fail entirely"
17:37:42 * adamw +1
17:37:53 <adamw> ooh, the bug's here
17:37:58 <sgallagh> I generally trust dgilmore not to land broken lorax updates, so +1 here
17:38:07 <sgallagh> /me backpedals rapidly
17:38:19 <adamw> #topic (1317632) lorax fails to build install trees on ppc and s390
17:38:25 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317632
17:38:33 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, lorax, NEW
17:38:38 <adamw> so yeah, I'm +1
17:38:53 <dgilmore> I am +1 also
17:38:59 <kparal> +1
17:39:02 <sgallagh> +1
17:39:07 <adamw> thanks dgilmore
17:39:21 <sgallagh> fix looks sane and not risky to the primary arches
17:39:30 <Southern_Gentlem> +1
17:39:43 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1317632 - AcceptedFreezeException (Alpha) - this is obviously a fatal issue for secondary arches, so it's a clear freeze exception in order to fix up compose for those arches
17:40:01 <sgallagh> adamw: So... RC request today? We look like we're in good shape; only need to pull in plasma-workspaces
17:40:12 <sgallagh> And this lorax fix
17:40:40 <kparal> ack
17:40:42 <sgallagh> ack
17:40:45 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:41:15 <adamw> #agreed 1317632 - AcceptedFreezeException (Alpha) - this is obviously a fatal issue for secondary arches, so it's a clear freeze exception in order to fix up compose for those arches
17:41:38 <adamw> sgallagh: i'd rather check on test coverage first, but yeah, it's possible. the biggest problem is we still haven't decided how we are actually going to do non-nightly composes.
17:41:47 <adamw> i'm going to talk to dgilmore about when he's done with his lunch.
17:41:52 <adamw> #topic Open floor
17:42:06 * Southern_Gentlem gone to lunch
17:42:41 <adamw> so yeah, we've been discussing it on test@ and releng@
17:42:56 <sgallagh> adamw: Well, I guess my point was that almost nothing will change from the latest nightly to tomorrow, right?
17:43:19 <sgallagh> So presumably if I start testing the nightly for Server, the results will carry over?
17:43:21 <adamw> sure.
17:43:48 <adamw> i am kind of inclined to file a ticket called 'Create Fedora 24 Alpha candidate' and request dgilmore do a compose labelled Alpha-1.1
17:44:17 <adamw> and we kinda see where we get from there...
17:44:45 <sgallagh> worksforme
17:45:10 <adamw> not to mention i don't think we actually have the mechanism for pulling side builds into composes yet
17:45:18 <adamw> oh well, we'll do...something...
17:45:55 <tflink> i thought the idea was to make the side repo go away
17:46:15 <adamw> the idea was we'd have something like it. that's about as far as we'd got.
17:47:42 <sgallagh> I feel like this is turning into a Trump speech: "That's an excellent question, and I'll tell you I'm thinking about it a lot. It keeps me up at night and we need to make sure we do something about that..."
17:47:57 <adamw> welcome to my life
17:52:25 <dgilmore> adamw: I plan to do the composes from f24-compase tags
17:52:36 <dgilmore> and have inhertance turned on
17:52:50 <adamw> dgilmore: so that's gonna be the override mechanism?
17:53:30 <dgilmore> adamw: yeah
17:53:39 <adamw> okay
17:53:46 <adamw> well, we'll figure it out, i guess
17:53:48 * adamw sets the fuse
17:54:39 <adamw> thanks for coming, everyone
18:07:33 <sgallagh> #endmeeting