16:00:02 <roshi> #startmeeting F26-blocker-review 16:00:02 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Apr 24 16:00:02 2017 UTC. The chair is roshi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:02 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:00:02 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f26-blocker-review' 16:00:02 <roshi> #meetingname F26-blocker-review 16:00:02 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f26-blocker-review' 16:00:02 <roshi> #topic Roll Call 16:00:09 <roshi> who's around for blocker funtimes! 16:00:25 <roshi> it's the best time you'll have this side of the Mississippi* 16:00:49 <roshi> * All claims not actual, YMMV 16:01:34 * kparal is here, despite his previous email 16:02:09 * garretraziel is lurking around 16:02:45 <roshi> #chair kparal adamw garretraziel 16:02:45 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw garretraziel kparal roshi 16:03:37 * roshi waits a couple minutes for people to refill their coffee and get back to their seats 16:04:12 <adamw> i'm here 16:04:28 <dustymabe> .hello dustymabe 16:04:29 <zodbot> dustymabe: dustymabe 'Dusty Mabe' <dustymabe@redhat.com> 16:04:58 <roshi> #chair dustymabe 16:04:58 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw dustymabe garretraziel kparal roshi 16:05:10 <roshi> #topic Introduction 16:05:10 <roshi> Why are we here? 16:05:10 <roshi> #info Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs. 16:05:14 <roshi> #info We'll be following the process outlined at: 16:05:16 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting 16:05:19 <roshi> #info The bugs up for review today are available at: 16:05:21 <roshi> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current 16:05:24 <roshi> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: 16:05:26 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Alpha_Release_Criteria 16:05:29 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Beta_Release_Criteria 16:05:32 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Final_Release_Criteria 16:05:41 <roshi> so we've got 3 proposed for Beta 16:05:52 <roshi> let's get started 16:06:01 <roshi> #topic (1444651) Unable to print on HP Printers after upgrade from Fedora 25 to Fedora 26 Alpha 16:06:04 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444651 16:06:06 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, cups, NEW 16:07:26 <dustymabe> was this one officially proposed as blocker using the tool? 16:07:34 <dustymabe> doesn't it usually add a comment to the bug? 16:07:47 <roshi> nope 16:07:49 <adamw> probably just needs the plugin reinstalled, that's normal on upgrade 16:07:55 <adamw> and yeah, there's no blocker justification 16:08:00 <adamw> we don't really cover...anything about printing at all 16:08:03 <roshi> you can propose it just by adding the right block 16:08:08 <roshi> yeah 16:08:09 <adamw> as things stand this seems pretty -1 to me 16:08:19 <roshi> -1 from me as well 16:08:53 <garretraziel> -1 since it looks like it doesn't break any criteria 16:08:54 <kparal> I would consider it if it involves all or most printers 16:09:02 <Kohane> Hi! Sorry for my lateness. 16:09:08 <Kohane> .fas lailah 16:09:08 <zodbot> Kohane: lailah 'Sylvia Sánchez' <BHKohane@gmail.com> 16:09:12 <kparal> in the current state, -1 16:09:29 <dustymabe> would this be eligible for FE? 16:10:02 <roshi> I would consider it for FE, but not blocker - since there's no criteria 16:10:13 <adamw> i'd want at least a little more indication it's a real bug before giving it FE. 16:10:30 <roshi> and adding a "must print" criteria just feels like a huge PITA to have a list of "supported printers" and then we have a real cost to testing 16:10:33 <dustymabe> adamw: yeah, assuming it was a real bug 16:10:40 <roshi> home printing is expensive, lol 16:10:42 <dustymabe> -1 16:10:49 <Kohane> I think it's annoying but not to the point of considering a blocker. 16:10:52 <adamw> home printing is killing...signs? 16:11:51 <roshi> proposed #agreed - RejectedBlocker - RHBZ#1444651 - This bug doesn't violate any release criteria and isn't considered a blocker. If this can be reproduced on a variety of print setups, we will consider it as an FE. 16:12:12 <adamw> ack 16:13:04 <roshi> more acks? 16:13:07 <roshi> nacks? 16:13:16 <dustymabe> ack 16:13:17 <kparal> ack 16:13:19 <roshi> #agreed - RejectedBlocker - RHBZ#1444651 - This bug doesn't violate any release criteria and isn't considered a blocker. If this can be reproduced on a variety of print setups, we will consider it as an FE. 16:13:26 <roshi> #topic (1443206) gnome-shell consistently crashes in the middle of first-login gnome-initial-setup 16:13:29 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443206 16:13:31 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, NEW 16:14:01 <adamw> so for me this is 100% reproducible in KVMs (std and qxl graphics) and on my test laptop (which is a third-gen xps 13) 16:14:12 <adamw> it causes quite a lot of the openqa tests to fail every day 16:14:51 <Kohane> Well, I see this one as a blocker indeed. 16:14:54 <roshi> +1 16:15:11 <garretraziel> +1 blocker 16:15:12 <Kohane> +1 16:15:21 <kparal> +1 16:15:32 <adamw> be good to know if others can reproduce on other hardware too, for info 16:15:49 <dustymabe> +1 16:16:36 <roshi> proposed #agreed - AcceptedBlocker - RHBZ#1443206 - This bug is a clear violation of the following criterion: "A system installed with a release-blocking desktop must boot to a log in screen where it is possible to log in to a working desktop using a user account created during installation or a 'first boot' utility." 16:17:30 <kparal> +1 16:17:32 <kparal> ack 16:17:34 <dustymabe> ack 16:17:38 <Kohane> ack 16:17:48 <roshi> #agreed - AcceptedBlocker - RHBZ#1443206 - This bug is a clear violation of the following criterion: "A system installed with a release-blocking desktop must boot to a log in screen where it is possible to log in to a working desktop using a user account created during installation or a 'first boot' utility." 16:17:54 <roshi> #topic (1227736) Minimal grub after a kernel update with gnome-software 16:17:57 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227736 16:18:00 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, plymouth, NEW 16:18:24 <adamw> we discussed this two weeks ago 16:18:36 <Kohane> ? 16:18:44 <kparal> I think we forgot to appoint a secretary. but I'm not volunteering :) 16:19:10 <roshi> coremodule said before the meeting that he would do it after the meeting 16:19:17 <adamw> we seem to have been waiting for: "<cmurf> I suggest punting until we hear from plymouth folks." 16:19:25 <adamw> which...i think we still didn't 16:19:47 <roshi> sounds right 16:20:02 <Kohane> Yeah, sounds fine to me too. 16:20:11 <Kohane> But I still have a small question. 16:20:19 <roshi> punt again? with an action item to chase down an answer? 16:20:44 <dustymabe> wow, lots of info in this bug 16:20:56 <roshi> it's an old bug 16:21:12 <dustymabe> +1 for delay I guess 16:22:09 <adamw> what's the question, kohane? 16:22:19 <Kohane> Ah! 16:22:50 <Kohane> I never use Gnome Software to update so... what exactly is a minimal grub? 16:22:57 <Kohane> It never happened to me. 16:23:19 <adamw> basically it just means boot fails to work properly and you wind up in grub's interactive environment, which isn't much use to most people :)P 16:23:30 <adamw> that only happens in a specific case, though (no /boot partition, / partition is xfs) 16:23:36 <Kohane> Ah, now I get it 16:24:02 <Kohane> Oh, okay, that explains why I never met this bug 16:24:06 <Kohane> Thanks adamw 16:24:29 <roshi> so punt I guess seems to be the consensus 16:24:35 <adamw> yeah 16:24:44 <Kohane> Yeah, agree. 16:25:06 <roshi> proposed #agreed - Punt - RHBZ#1227736 - We're still waiting on more information regarding this bug. We'll look at it again next blocker review meeting. 16:25:12 <garretraziel> ack 16:25:35 <adamw> ack 16:25:47 <roshi> #agreed - Punt - RHBZ#1227736 - We're still waiting on more information regarding this bug. We'll look at it again next blocker review meeting. 16:26:06 <roshi> #topic Onto the Final proposals 16:26:10 <roshi> we have 4 of them to go through 16:26:14 <roshi> first up: 16:26:19 <roshi> #topic (1439282) [e10s] Tabs crash on loading large sites. 16:26:19 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1439282 16:26:19 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, firefox, NEW 16:27:30 <adamw> i still haven't seen this. anyone else? 16:27:37 <Kohane> Nope. 16:27:52 <roshi> nope 16:28:20 <dustymabe> Not yet - i'm on F25 16:28:29 <dustymabe> I think people reported seeing the problem there 16:29:16 <adamw> yeah, seems that way 16:29:32 <kparal> we seem to have sufficient coverage to begin worrying about this 16:29:37 <Kohane> Well... my machine is not the most powerful thing but didn't have any crashes in firefox up to now. 16:29:43 <adamw> so the bug has...four people claiming to be affected 16:29:49 <roshi> looks like more people are seeing it 16:29:56 <adamw> perhaps this would be a good one to send out mails about 16:30:00 <adamw> i could do that 16:30:06 <adamw> (requesting more feedback) 16:30:18 <kparal> ack 16:30:21 <roshi> sounds good 16:30:41 <roshi> #action adamw to send out an email looking for more info on RHBZ#1439282 16:31:22 <roshi> proposed #agreed - Punt - RHBZ#1439282 - We're going to ask for more feedback from the mailing lists, and if more people see this bug we'll accept it as a blocker. 16:31:45 <adamw> ack 16:31:47 <Kohane> ack 16:32:03 <roshi> #agreed - Punt - RHBZ#1439282 - We're going to ask for more feedback from the mailing lists, and if more people see this bug we'll accept it as a blocker. 16:32:10 <roshi> #topic (1404285) [abrt] gjs: sqlite3DbMallocRawNN(): gjs-console killed by SIGSEGV: TAINTED 16:32:13 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404285 16:32:16 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, gjs, NEW 16:33:10 <adamw> yeah, i've seen this one too 16:33:18 <adamw> +1 on the 'no avcs in a normal boot/install/boot cycle' criterion 16:33:38 <Kohane> This looks cryptic to me. Sorry. I only understand the general description. :-/ 16:33:50 <roshi> seems +1 to me 16:34:32 <roshi> proposed #agreed - AcceptedBlocker - RHBZ#1404285 - This bug is a clear violation of the following criterion: "There must be no SELinux denial notifications or crash notifications on boot of or during installation from a release-blocking live image, or at first login after a default install of a release-blocking desktop." 16:34:46 <kparal> ack 16:34:47 <Kohane> ack 16:35:04 <adamw> Kohane: you don't need to understand the details of the denial to vote on it :) 16:35:05 <adamw> ack 16:35:11 <garretraziel> ack 16:35:11 <roshi> #agreed - AcceptedBlocker - RHBZ#1404285 - This bug is a clear violation of the following criterion: "There must be no SELinux denial notifications or crash notifications on boot of or during installation from a release-blocking live image, or at first login after a default install of a release-blocking desktop." 16:35:14 <dustymabe> ack 16:35:22 <roshi> #topic (1442631) crash on login following software update; (gnome-shell) of user 1000 dumped core 16:35:25 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1442631 16:35:28 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, NEW 16:35:54 <Kohane> Uhm.... I saw this one. 16:36:30 <adamw> this one could well be the same as the g-i-s bug, the tracebacks look very similar 16:36:36 <adamw> but we're not totally sure yet 16:36:59 <roshi> yeah 16:37:30 <roshi> this one is losing data though, sounds like 16:37:33 <dustymabe> hey guys, got to run grab some food before next meeting 16:37:42 <roshi> gl hf dustymabe - thanks for coming 16:37:43 <dustymabe> see you next week :) 16:37:58 <dustymabe> ping me if anything atomic/cloud specific comes up 16:37:59 <Kohane> see you ! 16:39:01 <adamw> cya dusty 16:39:06 <roshi> +1 from me, under either of the criterion really 16:39:08 <adamw> hi amita 16:39:22 <Amita> hey hi adamw 16:39:35 <roshi> welcome Amita :) 16:39:42 <Kohane> Hi Amita 16:39:52 <Amita> hello roshi hey Kohane 16:39:54 <adamw> it'd be nice to have confirmation from anyone else, but it's definitely bad that just one person is hitting this, since it's a complete crash-to-gdm 16:40:59 <roshi> yeah 16:41:05 <roshi> votes? 16:41:17 <roshi> and I guess votes for criterion as well, since there's two that seem to fit 16:41:22 <adamw> i'm either +1 or punt and try to get more info (reproduce) 16:41:23 <Kohane> +1 16:41:33 <adamw> people could try to reproduce this in a VM, it shouldn't be terribly hard... 16:41:38 <roshi> I'm +1 and get more info 16:41:47 <kparal> it's another crash in libweather, no? 16:41:53 <kparal> wasn't the first crash also about this? 16:42:36 * kparal talking about 1443206 16:42:56 <adamw> i did say that 16:43:02 <adamw> but we're not sure yet if they're really the same 16:43:06 <Kohane> I'm getting lost... 16:43:08 <kparal> ah, sorry, was on the call 16:43:31 <kparal> ok, now I see it in the scrollback :) 16:43:35 <Kohane> what bug are we discussing now 16:43:38 <Kohane> ? 16:43:45 <kparal> the one in title 16:43:53 <Kohane> ah 16:44:25 <kparal> sorry for confusion, seems close enough, +1 from me if cmurf can reproduce on will 16:48:24 <roshi> seems we're mostly +1 on this 16:48:43 <roshi> how strongly do people feel about punting for more info? 16:48:53 <adamw> i don't mind if we +1 it, we can always change our minds 16:49:51 <kparal> people, welcome your qa overlords! 16:49:56 * kparal rubs his hands 16:50:05 <roshi> lol 16:50:12 <Kohane> To me is a +1 16:50:21 <Kohane> LOL 16:50:29 <adamw> i like to keep people on their toes 16:51:16 <roshi> proposed #agreed - AcceptedBlocker - RHBZ#1442631 - This bug is a clear violation of the following criterion: "No part of any release-blocking desktop's panel (or equivalent) configuration may crash on startup or be entirely non-functional." However, we may reconsider this if it turns out to not impact as many people as we fear. 16:52:22 <Kohane> ack 16:52:38 <adamw> ack 16:52:51 <kparal> ack 16:52:51 <roshi> #agreed - AcceptedBlocker - RHBZ#1442631 - This bug is a clear violation of the following criterion: "No part of any release-blocking desktop's panel (or equivalent) configuration may crash on startup or be entirely non-functional." However, we may reconsider this if it turns out to not impact as many people as we fear. 16:52:56 <roshi> #topic (1429711) [abrt] setroubleshoot-server: sighandler(): service.py:647:_message_cb:SystemError: <built-in function isinstance> returned a result with an error set 16:53:00 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429711 16:53:03 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, setroubleshoot, NEW 16:53:04 <roshi> last one :) 16:53:54 <Kohane> Uhm! I don't know this one. 16:54:16 <roshi> +1 16:54:57 <Kohane> +1 16:55:38 <adamw> well, it's a crash in setroubleshoot 16:55:49 <adamw> but 16:56:05 <adamw> if this was happening every time, openqa ought to be seeing it.. 16:56:14 <kparal> we have 77 total crash count on F26 16:56:20 <adamw> sgallagh: are you seeing this consistently? 16:56:23 <kparal> https://retrace.fedoraproject.org/faf/reports/1518755/ 16:56:35 <kparal> 56 unique, not sure if it means unique users 16:57:15 <sgallagh> adamw: I haven't been keeping track 16:58:40 <adamw> when i saw it, it was an i686 install 16:58:44 <adamw> i686 isn't release blocking... 16:59:11 <roshi> ah, I missed that it was 32bit 16:59:24 <Kohane> I didn't see it at all, for what is worth. 17:00:55 <adamw> well, the bug has the arch set to x86_64 17:00:56 <kparal> it's interesting that FAF only contains x86_64 reports 17:00:58 <adamw> which i think is done automatically 17:01:04 <sgallagh> I saw it on x86_64 17:01:20 <kparal> so the one from Adam wasn't counted by FAF 17:02:14 <kparal> so wait until we see it more often? 17:02:36 <adamw> maybe just ask people (that is, *you* people) to run some installs and see if it happens 17:02:45 <adamw> 77 hits is...quite a lot, though... 17:04:09 <Kohane> So...? What are we going to do? 17:05:26 <adamw> panic? 17:05:43 <roshi> I say +1 with an admonition to get more reproducers 17:05:44 <adamw> i think i'd be happiest if we try and look into this ourselves a bit, but i can go with a +1. 17:05:56 * roshi is fine with a punt as well 17:06:05 <roshi> +1 punt, and dig into it a big more 17:06:13 <roshi> s/big/bit/g 17:06:27 <Kohane> +1 to punt. 17:07:52 <roshi> proposed #agreed - Punt - RHBZ#1429711 - We'd like to have some more people reproduce this before we accept it as a blocker. 17:08:06 <kparal> ack 17:08:57 <adamw> ack 17:09:11 <roshi> #agreed - Punt - RHBZ#1429711 - We'd like to have some more people reproduce this before we accept it as a blocker. 17:10:32 <roshi> #topic Open Floor 17:10:38 <roshi> that's all we have for today 17:11:03 <roshi> anyone have an accepted blocker they want to look at before we adjorn, or do we just want to get back to our regularly scheduled programming? 17:11:11 <adamw> i think i'm good 17:12:04 * roshi sets the fuse... 17:12:07 <roshi> thanks for coming folks! 17:12:10 <roshi> 3... 17:12:15 <kparal> thanks everyone 17:12:30 <Kohane> Welcome! See you! 17:12:34 <adamw> thanks roshi! 17:12:41 <roshi> np :) 17:12:42 <roshi> 2... 17:12:54 <roshi> I'm just typing the words, I have the easy job :D 17:13:04 <roshi> 1... 17:13:26 <roshi> #endmeeting