16:03:55 <adamw> #startmeeting F24-blocker-review
16:03:55 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Mar 21 16:03:55 2016 UTC.  The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:03:55 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:03:55 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f24-blocker-review'
16:03:55 <adamw> #meetingname F24-blocker-review
16:03:55 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f24-blocker-review'
16:03:55 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
16:04:03 <adamw> ahoyhoy folks, who's around for blocker fun
16:04:04 <sgallagh> .hello sgallagh
16:04:05 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
16:04:26 * satellit_e listening
16:05:15 <maxamillion> .hello maxamillion
16:05:16 <zodbot> maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' <maxamillion@gmail.com>
16:06:28 <sgallagh> Hmm, attendance is lacking today.
16:06:30 * pschindl_ is here
16:08:04 <adamw> sgallagh: kparal will be along in a bit
16:08:18 <sgallagh> Yeah, I saw that.
16:08:23 <adamw> releng folks are probably splitting time with another meeting again
16:10:05 * pwhalen is here
16:10:52 <adamw> alrighty, let's get rolling and see where we get to
16:11:22 <sgallagh> /me looks for his paddle
16:12:00 <adamw> #chair sgallagh pwhalen
16:12:00 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw pwhalen sgallagh
16:12:07 <adamw> #topic Introduction
16:12:07 <adamw> Why are we here?
16:12:07 <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.
16:12:07 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:12:07 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:12:08 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:12:10 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:12:12 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:12:14 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Alpha_Release_Criteria
16:12:16 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:12:20 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Final_Release_Criteria
16:13:00 <adamw> we have:
16:13:28 <adamw> #info 5 Proposed Blockers (Alpha), 3 Proposed Blockers (Beta), 6 Proposed Blockers (Final)
16:13:45 <adamw> #info 1 Accepted Blockers (Alpha)
16:13:54 <adamw> #info 7 Proposed Freeze Exceptions (Alpha)
16:14:12 <adamw> who wants to secretarialize?
16:14:20 <adamw> or shall i nominate kparal to do it when he shows up? ;)
16:15:58 <sgallagh> /me cannot stick around for the full meeting, so that rules me out
16:18:21 <adamw> ok
16:18:28 <adamw> #info kparal will secretarialize when he appears
16:18:29 <sgallagh> So here's a fun question: if we don't have quorum for a blocker bug meeting, do we default to assuming that bugs are or are not blockers? :)
16:18:30 <adamw> thanks, kparal! ;)
16:18:40 <adamw> sgallagh: we default to beating people with sticks until they show up
16:18:53 <sgallagh> /me hefts his clue-by-four
16:19:38 <adamw> #info (1315494) C.UTF-8 doesn't actually work as a default locale - the story here is the same as always, this isn't a blocker unless we need a new anaconda build for something else, we are keeping it on the list for tracking that
16:19:44 <adamw> #topic (1319590) Fedora 24 Alpha 1.6 (Server - DVD): Can't close help window, once opened
16:19:44 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319590
16:19:44 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST
16:19:57 <adamw> I'm -1 blocker on this, it's a real bug but it's workaroundable and OK for an Alpha
16:20:11 <adamw> per sgallagh's reasoning probably -1 FE as well, we should just commonbugs it and fix for Beta
16:20:15 <sgallagh> I am also -1 blocker on this and -1 FE
16:20:23 <pschindl_> -1 too
16:20:54 <pwhalen> -1 fe/blocker ..
16:22:14 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1319590 - RejectedBlocker (Alpha), RejectedFreezeException (Alpha) - this is not severe enough to constitute the installer failing to complete, for Alpha (it's a conditional violation only in the case of opening Help, and it's workaroundable). we might usually accept it as FE, but as it's late in the cycle and there is known risk of breakage elsewhere in anaconda with new builds, we are rejected it as FE as well
16:22:22 <adamw> s/rejected/rejecting/ at the end there
16:22:48 <sgallagh> ack
16:22:52 <pschindl_> ack
16:23:30 <adamw> #agreed 1319590 - RejectedBlocker (Alpha), RejectedFreezeException (Alpha) - this is not severe enough to constitute the installer failing to complete, for Alpha (it's a conditional violation only in the case of opening Help, and it's workaroundable). we might usually accept it as FE, but as it's late in the cycle and there is known risk of breakage elsewhere in anaconda with new builds, we are rejecting it as FE as well
16:23:31 <pwhalen> ack
16:23:37 <adamw> #topic (1319770) New backgrounds require desktop-backgrounds change
16:23:37 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319770
16:23:37 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, desktop-backgrounds, NEW
16:23:46 <adamw> sigh, seeing this clown car show up every Alpha makes me sad, but +1.
16:23:57 <adamw> *toot toot*
16:24:02 <sgallagh> +1; I'm attempting to shepherd this through today.
16:24:15 <sgallagh> Hopefully we should have something ready for a compose in the next couple hours.
16:24:15 <adamw> thanks for that sgallagh
16:24:28 <sgallagh> (We're waiting on KDE; poor rdieter was blindsided)
16:25:22 <pwhalen> +1 :/
16:25:37 <pschindl_> +1
16:26:24 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1319770 - AcceptedBlocker (Alpha) - clear violation of "The default desktop background must be different from that of the last two stable releases."
16:26:37 <pwhalen> ack
16:27:18 <sgallagh> ack
16:27:32 <adamw> #agreed 1319770 - AcceptedBlocker (Alpha) - clear violation of "The default desktop background must be different from that of the last two stable releases."
16:27:49 <adamw> #topic (1319043) Include F24 Alpha backgrounds in next RC
16:27:49 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319043
16:27:49 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, f24-backgrounds, MODIFIED
16:28:03 <maxamillion> (is everyone allowed to +/-1 on things or is there a specific set of people who can vote like FESCo or the Council?)
16:28:05 <adamw> ed. note: this one we already took as an FE with async voting and is in Alpha 1.6, but it's technically a blocker too
16:28:15 <sgallagh> maxamillion: Everyone can vote
16:28:18 * kparal joins
16:28:18 <maxamillion> sgallagh: ah, thanks
16:28:20 <sgallagh> This meeting strives for consensus
16:28:27 <maxamillion> sgallagh: rgr that
16:28:38 <kparal> what have I joined into? have I already received some duties?
16:28:41 <adamw> there is not an absolutely nailed down policy for who can vote and how we decide close votes
16:29:05 <adamw> in theory the stakeholder groups for the meeting are qa, releng and devel (i also count project management - i.e. FPL and FPM - but i don't know if i ever wrote that down in the SOP)
16:29:07 <sgallagh> I thought we agreed last week that adamw has the final say on close votes :)
16:29:14 <adamw> kparal: yes, you're the secretary. :P
16:29:20 <adamw> sgallagh: well, i mean, obviously
16:29:31 <adamw> you didn't know I have the casting vote in everything?
16:29:35 <kparal> pschindl_: we shall talk!
16:29:40 <adamw> best be nice to me if you don't want to wind up with Trump
16:29:44 <sgallagh> But honestly, that rarely comes up. Consensus is more common
16:29:47 <adamw> right
16:29:57 <adamw> so usually we just take votes from whoever shows up and aim for rough consensus
16:30:12 <adamw> aaanyhoo, yeah, this bug! votey time
16:30:23 <sgallagh> That being said, maxamillion if you want to take on the "official" rel-eng vote today, have at it
16:30:30 <kparal> +1 blocker
16:30:47 <sgallagh> +1 blocker
16:31:13 <pschindl_> +1
16:31:19 <maxamillion> sgallagh: I dunno if I'd want to do all that ... it's been an embarrasing amount of time since I participated in Fedora QA in the capacity I'd like to be able to (time permitting) ... I'm mostly just trying to get back into it a bit
16:31:20 <sgallagh> I still feel like we should just have transitive blocker approval: a bug that blocks fixing an approved blocker should just get approved automatically
16:31:21 <pwhalen> +1
16:31:43 <pwhalen> sgallagh, agreed
16:32:06 <sgallagh> But I suppose the process we have usually isn't heavyweight in those situations
16:32:57 <adamw> sgallagh: in fact that's technically the case already, but if you nominate the bug directly it'll get discussed.
16:33:11 <sgallagh> ah, good to know
16:33:28 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1319043 - AcceptedBlocker (Alpha) - clear violation of "The default desktop background must be different from that of the last two stable releases."
16:33:38 <pschindl_> ack
16:34:14 <pwhalen> ack
16:34:15 <sgallagh> ack
16:34:19 <adamw> #agreed 1319043 - AcceptedBlocker (Alpha) - clear violation of "The default desktop background must be different from that of the last two stable releases."
16:34:28 <adamw> #topic (1318541) kde (e.g kscreenlocker) crashes in driDestroyScreen/llvmpipe_destroy_screen/pthread_barrier_destroy
16:34:29 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318541
16:34:29 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, mesa, NEW
16:34:31 <adamw> so, here's the fun one
16:34:38 <adamw> this is the one we were undecided on at go/no-go
16:35:22 <adamw> we've nailed it down a bit harder since then, it appears to be specific to llvmpipe, so probably most virtualization scenarios and metal with no hardware accel
16:35:31 <adamw> ajax is looking at it atm
16:36:04 <sgallagh> I'm not sure how many people run KDE in VMs.
16:36:20 <sgallagh> The bare-metal case to me seems like diminishing value; I wouldn't block if it was *only* that case.
16:36:40 <sgallagh> Since for the last several years even embedded graphics have had accel
16:37:43 <kparal> does the fact that this is KDE and not GNOME influence our opinion? and should it?
16:38:50 <sgallagh> It does further reduce the number of people that will hit it (according to mattdm's statistics, I think we established that KDE was second-most-popular, but it was a distant second)
16:39:02 <adamw> maybe a bit
16:39:15 <adamw> i'm not sure i have real strong feelings on it, it's totally a judgment call, i can live with -1
16:39:16 <pwhalen> likely means it would affect the arm images. (i havent tested kde)
16:39:42 <sgallagh> adamw: I guess I'm leaning towards "If this was the last thing left, would we block on it?" and coming up with "probably not"
16:39:56 <adamw> i'm +1 FE, obviously.
16:39:57 <sgallagh> pwhalen: Don't the ARM images block on XFCE, not KDE?
16:40:03 <sgallagh> Yes, clearly +1 FE
16:40:11 <pwhalen> sgallagh, right. thankfully
16:40:21 <pwhalen> +1 FE
16:40:30 <maxamillion> what's FE?
16:40:38 <kparal> I don't have a strong opinion here. but I would be more +1 if this was GNOME, and that makes me feel a bit guilty
16:40:38 <sgallagh> maxamillion: Freeze Exception
16:40:40 <maxamillion> ah
16:41:00 <sgallagh> Basically, we would be willing to pull in a fix if it was timely and we believed the actual patch was low-risk
16:41:08 <dgilmore> sgallagh: ARM images block on Xfce
16:41:12 <sgallagh> But we won't hold up the release for it
16:41:26 <sgallagh> dgilmore: Right, that's what I thought.
16:41:40 <adamw> kparal: for a conditional violation it's reasonable to factor it how commonly used the image is
16:41:42 <dgilmore> Xfce and Minimal
16:41:51 * adamw brb, call of nature
16:43:13 <dgilmore> +1 FE, given that KDE really requires hardware acceleration support to work well. I doubt there are many users outside of virt
16:43:30 <dgilmore> and then I suspect most virt are just testing and not using as a daily driver
16:43:47 <sgallagh> Yeah, that's my thought as well.
16:43:50 <dgilmore> I am +0.001 on blocker
16:44:17 <rdieter> related issue, last I checked, plasma (essentially) required working accelerated opengl, with an impliciation that llvmpipe was not sufficient.  I'll double check, but if that's still true, then we may have to conclude plasma+virt isn't supported (or blockable)
16:44:36 <dgilmore> rdieter: pretty much my thoughts
16:44:37 <sgallagh> I'm a weak -1 to blocker. I think we'd probably agree to fudge it at Go/No-Go if this was all that was left.
16:45:30 <adamw> rdieter: for this particular case, though, it seems like a general mesa bug, not KDE specific (as you found)
16:45:46 <rdieter> <nod>
16:46:25 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1318541 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException (Alpha) - it's a close call, but we feel the overall impact of this conditional violation is not quite sufficient enough to constitute an Alpha blocker. It's clearly worth a freeze exception, however
16:46:34 <sgallagh> ack
16:46:35 <pwhalen> ack
16:46:38 <dgilmore> ack
16:46:44 <adamw> #agreed 1318541 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException (Alpha) - it's a close call, but we feel the overall impact of this conditional violation is not quite sufficient enough to constitute an Alpha blocker. It's clearly worth a freeze exception, however
16:47:06 <adamw> OK, since we're focused on Alpha right now and there's several of them, I propose we do the Alpha FEs next rather than Beta/Final blockers
16:47:08 <adamw> how does that sound?
16:47:40 <sgallagh> Sounds sensible
16:47:50 <kparal> ok
16:47:59 <pwhalen> wfm
16:48:14 <adamw> OK
16:48:24 <adamw> #info moving onto Alpha proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:48:42 <adamw> #topic (1318615) gnome-initial-setup crashes after choosing a language
16:48:42 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318615
16:48:42 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-initial-setup, NEW
16:49:02 <adamw> i couldn't reproduce this one when I tried...
16:50:09 <adamw> it's kind FE-ish on the face of it, but doesn't seem to be going anywhere
16:50:37 <kparal> +1 FE and we will evaluate the fix if ready
16:50:54 <sgallagh> Yeah, FE doesn't require us to take it. +1 FE
16:51:08 <adamw> fair enough...
16:51:45 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1318615 - AcceptedFreezeException (Alpha) - though this one seems a bit vague at present, there's certainly a potential serious issue here, so we accept it as FE and if a clearly reproducible case is found and fixed, we will look at taking the fix
16:52:03 <pwhalen> sure, +1 FE if someone can reproduce and it can be fixed
16:52:04 <pwhalen> ack
16:52:06 <pschindl_> ack
16:52:31 <kparal> ack
16:52:38 <adamw> #agreed 1318615 - AcceptedFreezeException (Alpha) - though this one seems a bit vague at present, there's certainly a potential serious issue here, so we accept it as FE and if a clearly reproducible case is found and fixed, we will look at taking the fix
16:52:50 <kparal> pschindl_: try to provide the traceback
16:52:52 <adamw> #topic (1319506) Can't close initial-setup's help window
16:52:52 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319506
16:52:52 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, initial-setup, NEW
16:52:57 <adamw> is this same as the anaconda help bug?
16:53:34 <kparal> sounds likely
16:54:20 <sgallagh> Seems pretty likely.
16:54:38 <sgallagh> I suspect that the help application is expecting full gnome-shell chrome to be present which isn't there yet in anaconda/g-i-s
16:55:14 <adamw> this isn't g-i-s, it's i-s. two different things.
16:55:37 <adamw> hmm, even if it's basically the same bug, if i-s does its own X / WM setup, it could fix this without anaconda changes being needed...
16:55:38 <pwhalen> i just tested on arm xfce, happens there too. +1 FE
16:55:56 <adamw> we rejected the anaconda one because we don't want to change anaconda, but if we can fix it in i-s without touching anaconda that might be +1 for me
16:56:29 <sgallagh> Yeah, I'm fine with +1 FE for now and deciding later if the actual fix is risky.
16:56:47 <kparal> I'd expect this to be a shared code, no?
16:57:12 <adamw> kparal: the X/WM init isn't, necessarily
16:57:20 <adamw> not sure where exactly the fix for this would be
16:57:29 <adamw> i can ask #anaconda briefly
16:57:40 <adamw> or we can just accept it and say it's OK if it can be fixed without touching anaconda
16:58:15 <sgallagh> I'm fine with just having the anaconda caveat
16:59:23 <adamw> ok
17:00:03 <pwhalen> sounds reasonable
17:00:03 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1319506 - AcceptedFreezeException (Alpha) - this is obviously a serious issue that can't be fixed with an update. If it can be fixed without touching anaconda, we will likely take the fix. However, if the fix requires change to anaconda (the bug is the same as #1319590) we won't
17:00:12 <pwhalen> ack
17:00:49 <sgallagh> ack
17:00:54 <kparal> ack
17:00:59 <pschindl_> ack
17:01:58 <adamw> #agreed 1319506 - AcceptedFreezeException (Alpha) - this is obviously a serious issue that can't be fixed with an update. If it can be fixed without touching anaconda, we will likely take the fix. However, if the fix requires change to anaconda (the bug is the same as #1319590) we won't
17:02:38 <kparal> it's also proposed Beta blocker
17:02:48 <kparal> no, FinalBlocker
17:03:09 <adamw> we'll get there later if we have time
17:03:18 <kparal> ok
17:03:21 <adamw> #topic (1319516) The default browser on LXDE is broken
17:03:21 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319516
17:03:21 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, LiveCD - LXDE, NEW
17:03:37 <adamw> sure, +1 FE.
17:03:53 * kparal mumbles that it kinda breaks his secretarializing workflow
17:04:46 <sgallagh> This is pretty limited in scope, so sure. +1 FE if they want to squeeze it in
17:04:59 <adamw> kparal: you can always leave two comments :P
17:06:05 <kparal> somebody tell Giulio he can propose CommonBugs without proposing FEs
17:06:21 <kparal> but sure, +1 FE
17:06:53 <adamw> yeah, just did that
17:07:01 <pschindl_> +1 FE
17:07:05 <adamw> if this is only a spin-kickstarts change it doesn't even need an FE, but hey.
17:07:47 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1319516 - AcceptedFreezeException - this is a major issue which cannot be fixed with an update for LXDE lives, so it's accepted as a freeze exception issue, so long as any changes needed to address it are limited in scope to the LXDE packages
17:08:03 <kparal> ack
17:08:39 <pschindl_> ack
17:08:40 <satellit_e> ack
17:08:49 <sgallagh> adamw: Doesn't spin-kickstarts no longer exist?
17:08:55 <sgallagh> Isn't everything pungi-fedora now?
17:09:00 <adamw> sgallagh: no?>
17:09:12 <sgallagh> Oh, lovely.
17:09:13 <adamw> #agreed 1319516 - AcceptedFreezeException - this is a major issue which cannot be fixed with an update for LXDE lives, so it's accepted as a freeze exception issue, so long as any changes needed to address it are limited in scope to the LXDE packages
17:09:28 <adamw> pungi-fedora pulls in the kickstarts from spin-kickstarts and flattens them (at least afaik)
17:09:38 <adamw> or, pungi does. or whatever! something.
17:09:39 <sgallagh> Yay, yet another running chainsaw to juggle
17:09:45 <adamw> RRRRRrrrrRRRRR
17:09:56 <adamw> #topic (1318303) rolekit cannot deploy domain controller due to missing nss_myhostname
17:09:56 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318303
17:09:56 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, rolekit, NEW
17:10:09 <adamw> I'm +1 FE for this, although it doesn't look like a fix is particularly likely to show up soon
17:11:04 <sgallagh> Yeah, this is turning into a mess
17:12:26 <sgallagh> If I get some time today, I might throw together a rolekit-specific hack for this.
17:12:35 <sgallagh> And bypass the systemd-glibc argument entirely
17:13:19 <adamw> any other votes?
17:13:58 <kparal> +1 FE
17:14:14 <pschindl_> +1 FE
17:14:32 <sgallagh> +1 FE
17:14:42 <sgallagh> /me just realized he hadn't actually voted
17:15:00 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1318303 - AcceptedFreezeException (Alpha) - this is clearly a significant issue for Server that cannot be fully fixed with an update. It's accepted as a freeze exception, if a sufficiently targeted fix is found it will be accepted
17:15:40 <sgallagh> ack
17:15:59 <kparal> ack
17:16:55 <adamw> #agreed 1318303 - AcceptedFreezeException (Alpha) - this is clearly a significant issue for Server that cannot be fully fixed with an update. It's accepted as a freeze exception, if a sufficiently targeted fix is found it will be accepted
17:17:01 <adamw> #topic (1317709) live Workstation install doesn't have a rescue mode entry in the grub menu
17:17:01 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317709
17:17:01 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, spin-kickstarts, NEW
17:17:52 <kparal> +1 fe
17:18:40 * adamw not really keeping up to date with this one, but if someone wants to change it, it seems worth an FE if the fix is safe
17:18:57 <sgallagh> I'm -1 FE here. I think it's too late in the alpha cycle to be mucking about with changes to the kernel boot in grub
17:19:28 <kparal> valid concern
17:19:45 <kparal> it's Alpha, I'm fine with -1 either
17:20:05 <adamw> any other votes?
17:20:18 <sgallagh> If we weren't already slipped, I might be a little more open to it, but I'm wary of changes that go this deep so close to Go/No-Go
17:21:33 <adamw> well, i don't think the change goes that deep, does it? it's just adding a package to the live
17:21:39 <adamw> but i'm kinda easy
17:22:05 <sgallagh> adamw: I don't know, but I have a deep-rooted awe and fear of the boot process
17:22:27 <pwhalen> +1 FE
17:23:31 <adamw> welp, i'm gonna vote +1 FE just to move us along. :P
17:24:36 <sgallagh> Fair enough. I reserve the right to say "I told you so" in the event of an issue ;-)
17:24:36 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1317709 - AcceptedFreezeException - if we decide the rescue kernel is desired and important to live images, it's reasonable to allow a fix as a freeze exception so long as it's simple, targeted and testable (if it requires package changes to anything boot-related we likely won't take it)
17:24:50 <sgallagh> ack
17:24:52 <kparal> ack
17:24:58 <pwhalen> ack
17:24:58 <satellit_e> ack
17:29:02 <kparal> adamw: have we lost you?
17:29:08 <adamw> sorry!
17:29:10 <adamw> #agreed 1317709 - AcceptedFreezeException - if we decide the rescue kernel is desired and important to live images, it's reasonable to allow a fix as a freeze exception so long as it's simple, targeted and testable (if it requires package changes to anything boot-related we likely won't take it)
17:29:22 <pwhalen> ack
17:29:27 <adamw> #topic (1299088) XPad starts automatically at login (because it provides /etc/xdg/autostart/xpad.desktop file)
17:29:27 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299088
17:29:27 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, xpad, ON_QA
17:29:55 <sgallagh> Seems relatively simple; just drop one file from the package.
17:29:57 <sgallagh> +1 FE
17:31:15 <kparal> is it on some install medium?
17:31:22 <kparal> otherwise the FE is not needed
17:31:59 * satellit_e looks like it autostarts on boot...for me  is this fixable in .ks
17:32:51 <adamw> yeah, that's what I was wondering...
17:32:53 <kparal> satellit_e: but is it installed by default?
17:33:02 <adamw> seems like maybe it's in LXDE?
17:33:11 <sgallagh> Fedora-Live-LXDE-x86_64-rawhide-20160115.iso
17:33:20 <satellit_e> it autostarts on live and after install for me
17:33:23 <sgallagh> That sounds like it's default on the live
17:33:53 <kparal> in that case +1 FE
17:34:02 <satellit_e> +1 fe
17:34:10 <adamw> sure
17:34:25 <pwhalen> +1 fe
17:34:37 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1299088 - AcceptedFreezeException - this is a visible issue on LXDE lives and cannot be fixed with an update, the fix is pretty simple and isolated, thus its accepted as a freeze exception issue
17:34:52 <pwhalen> ack
17:34:59 <satellit_e> ack
17:35:29 <sgallagh> ack
17:35:32 <kparal> ack
17:35:37 <adamw> #agreed 1299088 - AcceptedFreezeException - this is a visible issue on LXDE lives and cannot be fixed with an update, the fix is pretty simple and isolated, thus its accepted as a freeze exception issue
17:35:48 <adamw> OK, that's all the Alpha stuff...
17:35:57 <adamw> we have some more time so let's move onto Beta blockers
17:36:02 <adamw> #info going on to Beta blockers
17:36:11 <adamw> #topic (1288850) [abrt] gnome-settings-daemon: CD_IS_DEVICE(): gnome-settings-daemon killed by SIGSEGV
17:36:12 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288850
17:36:12 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-settings-daemon, ASSIGNED
17:37:54 <adamw> you know, i think this might be the thing that causes the Workstation upgrade tests in openQA to fail, which i've been meaning to figure out forever...
17:38:13 <sgallagh> This has been driving me absolutely nuts.
17:38:14 <kparal> g-s-d crashing is pretty bad
17:38:26 <kparal> +1 to Beta seems appropriate
17:38:28 <adamw> funny thing is, i don't see it on my production install, so i'm not sure what triggers it
17:38:29 <sgallagh> It crashes on startup for me every time
17:38:36 <adamw> but given the number of people affected on the bug, +1 Beta blocker
17:38:48 <sgallagh> +1 blocker
17:38:53 <adamw> do we want to give it an Alpha FE too, since there seems to be a fix upstream?
17:39:07 <adamw> or is it ok to fix with an update?
17:40:13 <adamw> hmm, seems like there's like five commits right after 3.19.92 that look relevant
17:40:16 <adamw> https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-settings-daemon/log/
17:40:23 <kparal> it would be risky, but it fixes a serious issue
17:41:26 <pwhalen> +1 BB, fix with an update sounds reasonable for alpha
17:42:03 <adamw> sgallagh: hum, are you using a Wayland session?
17:42:16 * adamw wonders if that's related
17:42:39 <sgallagh> adamw: I've actually had it happen on both sessions
17:42:45 <sgallagh> But yes, I'm currently under wayland
17:42:51 <adamw> ok
17:42:53 <sgallagh> Every time I boot, I have to start g-s-d manually
17:43:01 <adamw> so we're solid +1 beta blocker, need more votes on alpha FE
17:44:14 <kparal> +1 Alpha FE
17:44:33 <kparal> well, it can be fixed with an update
17:44:35 <sgallagh> adamw: I'm not so sure about Alpha
17:44:50 <sgallagh> Yeah, I think I'd be okay with this coming in as an update.
17:45:00 <kparal> sounds reasonable
17:45:03 <sgallagh> Because it's rare that individual fixes get backported to GNOME
17:45:18 <sgallagh> So pulling this in would probably mean grabbing an awful lot of other changes as well
17:45:32 <adamw> well, two things to that:
17:45:41 <adamw> i can always do the backport, they usually let me do that. :P
17:45:51 <adamw> 2) there aren't actually many other interesting changes between 3.19.92 and 3.20 anyway
17:46:10 <adamw> well, hmm, i take that back, more than i noticed
17:46:17 <adamw> they're all in the same general area...
17:46:29 <adamw> still, maybe I'm more -1 FE given the amount of change
17:47:03 * kparal nods
17:47:55 <adamw> the only solid votes we have so far are -1 from me and an initial +1 from kparal
17:47:56 <adamw> any other votes?
17:48:03 <kparal> -1
17:48:17 <sgallagh> -1
17:48:31 <sgallagh> It's annoying, but fixable in an update
17:48:41 <pwhalen> -1 FE
17:48:46 <pschindl_> -1
17:49:14 <adamw> ok
17:49:51 <adamw> proposeed #agreed 1288850 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is clearly a serious issue (g-s-d crashing has all sorts of consequences). It's not entirely clear exactly what triggers it, but certainly multiple people have run into it, so the impact seems severe enough to accept as a blocker
17:50:03 <adamw> not bothering to document the FE decision as it wasn't formally proposed
17:50:39 <sgallagh> ack
17:50:55 <pwhalen> ack
17:50:56 <kparal> ack
17:51:17 <adamw> #agreed 1288850 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is clearly a serious issue (g-s-d crashing has all sorts of consequences). It's not entirely clear exactly what triggers it, but certainly multiple people have run into it, so the impact seems severe enough to accept as a blocker
17:51:26 <adamw> #topic (1318067) [anaconda] non-bootable system after fresh install of current F24 on bare metal
17:51:26 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318067
17:51:26 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, grub2, NEW
17:51:39 <adamw> i think this one could do with a bit more detail and specific reproduction steps...
17:52:53 <kparal> we need more people to reproduce this. but I remember one more person complaining about similar issue on irc a week ago
17:53:27 <adamw> ok, so sounds like we should look into it
17:53:31 <adamw> and by 'we' i mean 'kparal'
17:53:35 <adamw> :P
17:54:09 * kparal is hungry, and when he's hungry, he's not polite, so beware!
17:54:31 <kparal> this will likely affect only certain hardware, otherwise more people would see it
17:54:37 * satellit_e reusing existing partitions...?
17:54:49 <kparal> I think anaconda forces you to reformat /boot anyway
17:55:03 <kparal> only /home can stay unformatted
17:55:23 <kparal> let's punt it and wait for more reports
17:56:04 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1318067 - punt (delay decision) - this is certainly potentially a blocker bug, but currently single-sourced and slightly vague, we can make a decision only with more information and tests
17:56:38 <pwhalen> ack
17:56:43 <satellit_e> ack
17:56:57 <kparal> ack
17:57:00 <adamw> #agreed 1318067 - punt (delay decision) - this is certainly potentially a blocker bug, but currently single-sourced and slightly vague, we can make a decision only with more information and tests
17:57:06 <adamw> #topic (1318303) rolekit cannot deploy domain controller due to missing nss_myhostname
17:57:07 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318303
17:57:07 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, rolekit, NEW
17:57:14 <adamw> this does seem to be a Beta blocker per the criteria.
17:57:15 <adamw> +1
17:57:23 <pschindl_> +1
17:57:31 <sgallagh> +1
17:57:37 <pwhalen> +1
17:58:01 <kparal> +1
17:59:15 <sgallagh> Sorry folks, two hours is my limit.
18:00:00 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1318303 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - clear violation of "The core functional requirements for all Featured Server Roles must be met, without any workarounds being necessary."
18:00:07 <adamw> this is the last beta blocker
18:00:08 <kparal> ack
18:00:12 <pwhalen> ack
18:00:15 <pschindl_> ack
18:00:28 <adamw> #agreed 1318303 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - clear violation of "The core functional requirements for all Featured Server Roles must be met, without any workarounds being necessary."
18:01:22 <adamw> so we also have six proposed final blockers, anyone aside from the contemptible sgallagh wanna go through 'em? :)
18:01:46 <sgallagh> /me shakes his fist
18:01:51 <kparal> not really...
18:03:37 <adamw> well fine then, that just means you have to do them next time
18:03:40 <adamw> :P
18:03:58 <adamw> #info we're stopping there due to everyone being a bunch of lightweights who don't like three hour meetings or something
18:04:04 <adamw> .fire everyone
18:04:04 <zodbot> adamw fires everyone
18:04:18 <kparal> holidays!
18:04:19 <adamw> #topic Open floor
18:04:26 <adamw> so, any other business?
18:04:53 <adamw> i don't think we have anything else to settle for Alpha, just gonna be a case of getting the backgrounds changes and any FEs rounded up and doing another compose then testing it, i guess..
18:07:32 <adamw> alllrighty then
18:07:34 * adamw sets the fuse
18:07:50 <pwhalen> thanks adamw et al!
18:08:15 <adamw> thanks for coming out, folks
18:09:08 <kparal> see you
18:10:58 <adamw> #endmeeting