16:00:23 #startmeeting F26-blocker-review 16:00:23 Meeting started Mon May 22 16:00:23 2017 UTC. The chair is roshi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:23 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:00:23 The meeting name has been set to 'f26-blocker-review' 16:00:23 #meetingname F26-blocker-review 16:00:23 The meeting name has been set to 'f26-blocker-review' 16:00:23 #topic Roll Call 16:00:33 * pschindl is here 16:00:39 who's around for some blocker funtimes? 16:00:42 .hello jkurik 16:00:43 jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' 16:00:53 * jkurik is available for approx. 1 hour 16:01:04 welcome pschindl and jkurik :) 16:01:08 .hello sgallagh 16:01:09 sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' 16:01:45 #chair jkurik pschindl sgallagh adamw kparal 16:01:45 Current chairs: adamw jkurik kparal pschindl roshi sgallagh 16:01:54 * kparal is here 16:02:38 seems like we have enough to get started :) 16:02:50 #topic Introduction 16:02:50 Why are we here? 16:02:51 #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. 16:02:54 #info We'll be following the process outlined at: 16:02:57 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting 16:02:59 #info The bugs up for review today are available at: 16:03:02 #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current 16:03:04 #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: 16:03:07 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Alpha_Release_Criteria 16:03:10 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Beta_Release_Criteria 16:03:13 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Final_Release_Criteria 16:03:35 alright, 3 proposals for Beta 16:03:37 #topic (1452866) FreeIPA fails to work properly after Fedora 25 - Fedora 26 upgrade, logs show ns-slapd errors 16:03:41 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452866 16:03:43 #info Proposed Blocker, 389-ds-base, NEW 16:05:31 adamw: This is consistent for all upgrades? 16:06:24 if freeipa is part of the default install, I think the upgrade criterion doesn't actually apply 16:06:30 *is not 16:06:43 as adamw notes in his proposal 16:06:59 Hmm 16:07:27 Right, FreeIPA isn't part of the default package set. 16:07:46 we can talk whether it should 16:07:50 block 16:07:56 Presumably, one can uninstall and reinstall FreeIPA successfully 16:07:58 but I think it's not currently covered 16:08:08 Since the cause of the issue is the lack of network in the special upgrade boot 16:08:27 So yeah, I think probably this is -1 with the current criteria, though I'd be strongly +1 FE 16:08:41 Is there a Final criterion for upgrades? 16:08:54 I'd be somewhat more likely to vote blocker for Final on this 16:08:57 -1 blocker under that logic, and +1 FE 16:08:59 nothing extra from beta, I think 16:09:41 This is a really lousy bug though. 16:09:47 yeah 16:09:55 * sgallagh will propose it for the Prioritized Bugs list 16:09:58 can always propose a criteria change 16:10:07 actually I might revert my opinion 16:10:13 I mean, I could see a "Fedora Roles must be upgradable" criterion 16:10:37 the upgraded system must meet all criteria. and a criterion for a new install is that freeipa must work 16:10:42 roshi: Well, we explicitly asked for that not to happen because upgrades were touchy when we first started the role plans. 16:10:43 so the upgraded system should also meet that 16:10:49 And now we're looking at replacing them. 16:10:56 eventually that'd be a goal though, right? 16:11:05 kparal: No, the criterion is that it must be possible to deploy a FreeIPA role that works. 16:11:08 if you asked for it not to be, seems a clear -1 16:11:34 roshi: Well, the fact that we didn't amend it once upgrades started to mostly work is ambiguous :) 16:11:41 the default package set talks about what we're upgrading, but doesn't necesarilly mean that other criteria outside of the set no longer apply 16:11:41 lol 16:11:47 I'm -1 blocker and +1 FE for now too. 16:12:06 * roshi gives kparal time to convince others 16:12:23 so if a new install must be able to deploy a working freeipa role, the upgraded default system must also be able to do that 16:12:28 does that make sense? 16:12:35 kparal: I don't think this is quite serious enough to block Beta, but I'd almost certainly vote +1 blocker on Final if it were to be re-proposed after Beta ships... 16:12:51 the upgraded one can *deploy* one, just not upgrade the previous deployment, aiui 16:12:54 sure, punt to Final since it's not that serious 16:13:16 hm 16:13:19 words :) 16:13:31 I am +1 to block on final and +1 to make it FE for beta 16:13:32 I'll phrase it 16:14:04 jkurik++ 16:14:04 kparal: Karma for jkurik changed to 5 (for the f25 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 16:14:19 that actually meant I support his proposal :) 16:14:44 I wonder... 16:14:47 jkurik-- 16:14:50 proposed #agreed - RHBZ#1452866 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException - This bug doesn't actually violate the upgrade criterion. However, it's a nasty bug that we'd consider a FE for fixing. Please repropose for Final, as if this doesn't get fixed before then we'd want to re-evaulate. 16:15:12 that get everything in there? 16:15:12 roshi: I'd s/actually/strictly/ 16:15:51 can the secretary, whoever that it, immediately repropose to Final so that it's not forgotten? 16:16:16 proposed #agreed - RHBZ#1452866 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException - This bug doesn't strictly violate the upgrade criterion. However, it's a nasty bug that we'd consider a FE for fixing. Please repropose for Final, as if this doesn't get fixed before then we'd want to re-evaulate. 16:16:23 ack 16:16:24 ack 16:16:30 ack 16:17:01 ack 16:17:02 I can do the secretary work, but I'm not sure, if I'll be here to the end. 16:17:12 pschindl++ 16:17:12 kparal: Karma for pschindl changed to 1 (for the f25 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 16:17:15 thanks pschindl 16:17:24 let me know which ones you don't get and I'll finish up 16:17:35 roshi: ok. 16:17:59 #agreed - RHBZ#1452866 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException - This bug doesn't strictly violate the upgrade criterion. However, it's a nasty bug that we'd consider a FE for fixing. Please repropose for Final, as if this doesn't get fixed before then we'd want to re-evaulate. 16:18:09 #topic (1451630) anaconda does not fall back to text mode for non-graphical systems 16:18:13 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451630 16:18:15 #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW 16:19:29 I'm -1 on this based on comment #6 16:19:39 This one is kind of ambiguous. 16:20:13 It's definitely -1 if it is only happening on a non-blocking medium though 16:20:14 needs clarification, either punt or -1 and repropose if needed 16:20:24 But if it turns up on a blocking arch, we should revisit 16:21:06 -1 for now. 16:21:06 I'd punt and see about other arches 16:21:17 votes to punt? 16:21:25 it'll get re-looked at on Thursday 16:21:27 proposed #agreed RejectedBlockerBeta Right now, this issue is only reported on non-blocking architectures. Please re-propose if it can be reproduced on a blocking install medium. 16:21:30 (Go/No-Go meeting) 16:21:43 ack 16:21:46 * roshi is fine with that 16:21:54 ack 16:21:57 Actually, that's not in the right format, but I'll let roshi fix it 16:21:58 I didn't know there was a fallback either until this bug 16:22:11 gonna make me type all that? jeez man 16:22:12 :p 16:22:28 roshi: You *do* know about copy-paste, right? 16:22:54 never heard of that never heard of that never heard of that never heard of that never heard of that never heard of that never heard of that never heard of that never heard of that never heard of that never heard of that never heard of that never heard of that 16:23:09 proposed #agreed - RHBZ#1451630 - RejectedBlocker - Right now this issue is only reported on non-blocking architectures. Please re-propose if it can be reproduced on a blocking install medium. 16:23:19 ack 16:23:25 yeah, but the line breaks in irssi mean I need to clean it up *anyways* 16:23:34 kparal: It would be funnier if you recorded yourself typing all of that by hand 16:23:36 I paste into, but rarely from irc 16:23:41 lol 16:23:42 ack 16:23:56 #agreed - RHBZ#1451630 - RejectedBlocker - Right now this issue is only reported on non-blocking architectures. Please re-propose if it can be reproduced on a blocking install medium. 16:24:05 #topic (1451754) Software selection checkbox stays unchecked 16:24:05 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451754 16:24:05 #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, MODIFIED 16:25:28 +1 FE Beta, +1 Blocker final. 16:25:53 same 16:25:54 Same, +1 FE Beta, +1 Blocker final 16:25:55 same 16:26:15 same 16:27:00 I dislike making that call subjectively, but I think this is one of those times that intuition supersedes the strict reading of the rules 16:27:51 sgallagh: yes, at least for me :) 16:27:52 proposed #agreed - RHBZ#1451754 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedBlocker (Final) - We'd like to get this fixed for Beta, but are not willing to block Beta on polish (since it does *work*), but we would block for Final release. 16:28:19 ack 16:28:21 ack 16:28:38 ack 16:28:52 #agreed - RHBZ#1451754 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedBlocker (Final) - We'd like to get this fixed for Beta, but are not willing to block Beta on polish (since it does *work*), but we would block for Final release. 16:29:01 that's it for blocker proposals for Beta 16:29:09 #info moving onto the FE proposals 16:29:29 we've got 5 to look at 16:29:29 #topic (1452415) Updated f26-backgrounds for beta release 16:29:29 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452415 16:29:30 #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, f26-backgrounds, NEW 16:29:36 Hang on 16:29:48 There's one more possible Beta blocker to discuss (not on the list yet) 16:29:56 But it was raised to the QA list about an hour ago 16:30:06 I asked mcatanzaro to stop in and discuss it with us 16:30:10 ah 16:30:11 #undo 16:30:11 Removing item from minutes: INFO by roshi at 16:29:30 : Proposed Freeze Exceptions, f26-backgrounds, NEW 16:30:14 #undo 16:30:14 Removing item from minutes: 16:30:18 #undo 16:30:18 Removing item from minutes: 16:30:50 bz id? 16:31:00 sgallagh: want to set the topic and whatnot? 16:31:04 .bug 1449752 16:31:04 sgallagh: Bug 1449752 – blivet-gui desktop file should not be installed by default in Fedora Workstation - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1449752 16:32:00 we might need to finish the discussion on test list first 16:32:04 * kparal just replied 16:32:14 Hi 16:32:19 Well, sometimes it's useful to have a more interactive discussion, but I'll bow to the will of the council 16:32:32 currently there's no criterion to block this on, correct? 16:32:34 We discussed this at the Workstation WG meeting today. 16:33:13 "All applications installed by default in Fedora Workstation must comply with each MUST and MUST NOT guideline in the Applications and Launchers policy." 16:33:15 it doesn't violate a criterion, and we already do it with anaconda 16:33:25 * roshi thought it was great that it was installed already 16:33:32 I honestly thought it was a feature 16:33:42 We approved a modification to the applications and launchers policy: "App launchers installed by default must be approved by the Workstation WG." 16:34:30 mcatanzaro: I'm actually a little concerned by that, because its inclusion on that page feels a little out of place. 16:34:45 if it's already approved, we can block 16:34:47 Better would be to simply cite the aspect of those guidelines that Blivet-GUI fails to meet and that should be a blocker 16:35:01 there should also be something where QA gets notified of changes - I didn't see anything 16:35:05 Anyway, I'm supposed to ask for feedback from QA before adding that text to the policy page. I guess that's you all. It is sort of out of place, indeed. 16:35:07 (but I could have just missed it) 16:35:15 mcatanzaro: it's not on the wiki yet 16:35:18 mcatanzaro: Right, but it also might not be necessary 16:35:35 The problem is that blivet-gui does not violate any of the current guidelines there, I don't think. 16:35:45 ah 16:35:51 We don't have any guideline that says "must be a nice-looking GNOME-style app" 16:35:58 sgallagh: they just want to be able to pick which apps go in there and which do not 16:36:04 so the WG just doesn't want this 16:36:04 Right 16:36:04 which is fine by me 16:36:20 -1 blocker for Beta, +? for Final once the discussion is resolved 16:36:25 but as I said in the test list, workstation wg will probably need to police that themselves 16:36:27 we'll just block 16:36:37 Of course we'll police default apps ourselves. 16:36:45 ok 16:36:46 * sgallagh nods 16:36:57 And yes, this would be a Final blocker, we don't want a Beta blocker as we want Beta to be released. ;) 16:37:04 ok 16:37:15 * roshi thought this was a beta proposal from sgallagh 16:37:16 I think this is firmly within the spirit of what the Edition WGs are for and that regardless of that FESCo decision I can't find, we should honor that 16:37:27 +1 final 16:37:32 No, I just wanted it discussed before we jumped over to FE bugs. 16:37:42 +1 Final Blocker 16:37:52 Sorry if that was unclear 16:37:58 Larger question is: should we add this text to our applications and launchers guidelines? Or add a completely new blocker criterion? Or change nothing and rely on the power granted to us by the FESCo decision that maybe exists somewhere in the past? :) 16:38:25 #topic (1452415) Updated f26-backgrounds for beta release 16:38:25 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452415 16:38:28 mcatanzaro: first or third, I think 16:38:30 damnit 16:38:32 #undo 16:38:32 Removing item from minutes: 16:38:36 #undo 16:38:36 Removing item from minutes: 16:38:44 * roshi misclicked the middle mouse... 16:38:58 I'd personally add it to the guidelines page 16:38:59 sorry for spam 16:39:05 I think we just correct the text on the Blocker SOP from "The group then decides whether the bug is accepted as a blocker; if not, the group can discuss whether to accept it as a blocker for a later milestone, or accept it as a freeze exception issue instead, or reject it entirely. This decision should be based on the Release Criteria for the release in 16:39:05 question: no bug should be accepted as a blocker unless it violates the release criteria (or has been designated as a blocker by FESCo)" to include the Edition WGs 16:39:15 yeah, so people can see it from the release criteria 16:39:43 * roshi was agreeing with kparal 16:39:44 sgallagh: Works for me. FESCo can always mediate disputes if a WG proposes something objectionable. 16:39:58 * sgallagh nods 16:40:32 mcatanzaro: Though if we ever see you try to block on font kerning, we'll rethink this ;-) 16:40:49 proposed #agreed - RHBZ#1452415 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - This bug is a violation of the following criterion: "All applications installed by default in Fedora Workstation must comply with each MUST and MUST NOT guideline in the Applications and Launchers policy." 16:41:19 Well, I guess we don't need to use that policy. 16:42:10 proposed #agreed - RHBZ#1452415 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - The Workstation WG has voted that this issue is serious enough to warrant blocking their Edition. 16:42:35 ack 16:42:46 That's mostly true... technically we voted that new apps should be approved by the WG. 16:42:53 sgallagh: then it needs to be blocked by FESCo, right ? 16:43:01 Well, even that is only mostly true.... :D 16:43:07 * sgallagh sighs 16:43:30 jkurik: I feel pretty sure we (FESCo) agreed to grant that privilege to the WGs for their particular editions. 16:43:53 sgallagh: ok, I am fine with that 16:43:57 But if people would prefer that FESCo make the final call on that, we can take it there. 16:44:08 Let's go with sgallagh's proposed agreed and move on. It's close and has the same effect as what we agreed. 16:44:21 sgallagh: I just wanted to be sure how it will work 16:44:30 jkurik: How what will work? 16:44:46 sgallagh: the blocking 16:44:58 if any ... 16:45:14 jkurik: Take it to #fedora-qa 16:45:23 lets move on, I understand it now 16:45:39 ok 16:45:40 can do 16:45:43 onto the FEs 16:45:49 #topic (1452415) Updated f26-backgrounds for beta release 16:45:50 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452415 16:45:50 #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, f26-backgrounds, NEW 16:45:58 damnit 16:46:00 #undo 16:46:00 Removing item from minutes: INFO by roshi at 16:45:50 : Proposed Freeze Exceptions, f26-backgrounds, NEW 16:46:02 #undo 16:46:02 Removing item from minutes: 16:46:03 #undo 16:46:03 Removing item from minutes: 16:46:10 sgallagh: gotta do the actual #agreed 16:46:55 #agreed - RHBZ#1452415 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - The Workstation WG has voted that this issue is serious enough to warrant blocking their Edition 16:47:23 thanks 16:47:24 V 16:47:26 #topic (1452415) Updated f26-backgrounds for beta release 16:47:27 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452415 16:47:27 #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, f26-backgrounds, NEW 16:47:37 +1 fe 16:47:43 I am +1 FE 16:47:44 +1 16:48:10 roshi: there is a wrong number of bug in previous agree. But I guess that it's not a problem 16:48:24 oops 16:48:36 yeah, I just noticed that too 16:48:45 but I'm not going to do more #undos for that :p 16:48:48 hahaha 16:48:55 normally I would - but not today! 16:49:00 I was +1 FE in the BZ, as was stickster 16:49:06 That would be record :) 16:49:23 too many #undo already 16:49:29 * roshi curses his fat fingers 16:49:44 +1 FE 16:49:48 proposed #agreed - RHBZ#1452415 - AcceptedFreezeException - We want to get this fixed for beta. 16:50:11 short and clear 16:50:13 ack 16:50:16 ack 16:50:31 #agreed - RHBZ#1452415 - AcceptedFreezeException - We want to get this fixed for beta. 16:50:45 #topic (1441844) Need dark variant of logo 16:50:45 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441844 16:50:45 #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-shell-extension-background-logo, NEW 16:51:21 .hello dustymabe 16:51:24 dustymabe: dustymabe 'Dusty Mabe' 16:51:31 sorry went to lunch 16:52:10 +1 FE 16:52:20 +1 FE 16:52:21 dustymabe: that reminds me it is time for a dinner 16:52:25 +1 fe 16:52:26 +1 FE 16:52:42 sure +1 16:53:11 proposed #agreed - RHBZ#1441844 - AcceptedFreezeException - This would be good to get pulled in for Beta. 16:53:16 ack 16:53:31 ack 16:53:36 #agreed - RHBZ#1441844 - AcceptedFreezeException - This would be good to get pulled in for Beta. 16:53:45 #topic (1363918) [abrt] kactivitymanagerd: QXcbConnection::processXcbEvents(): kactivitymanagerd killed by SIGSEGV 16:53:48 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1363918 16:53:50 #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, kwin, NEW 16:55:16 we still block on KDE, right? 16:55:33 roshi: yes 16:55:44 afaik 16:56:01 * roshi was just checking - never know what changed that I missed during my haitus 16:56:08 Yes, but this was proposed as FE 16:56:30 So far, it's not clear how likely it is to happen 16:56:43 +1 fe 16:56:51 I'm inclined to give it +1 FE 16:56:54 +1 FE, with a caveat to repropose if it happens a lot 16:57:02 roshi: Yes, that 16:57:06 +1 FE 16:57:16 +1 FE 16:57:31 +1 FE from me 16:57:59 proposed #agreed - RHBZ#1363918 - AcceptedFreezeException - It would be good to get this fixed for Beta. However, if it starts to show up in more places, repropose as a blocker and we'll revisit it. 16:58:03 that work? 16:58:12 ack 16:58:30 dustymabe: did you bring enough lunch for the whole class? 16:58:34 :p 16:58:44 roshi: yep. and then i ate it all :( 16:58:48 lol 16:58:50 figures 16:59:02 atomic folks (/me shakes his head...) 16:59:10 other ack/nack/patch? 16:59:19 ack 16:59:30 #agreed - RHBZ#1363918 - AcceptedFreezeException - It would be good to get this fixed for Beta. However, if it starts to show up in more places, repropose as a blocker and we'll revisit it. 16:59:33 roshi: you are atomic folks :) 16:59:44 oh snap 16:59:45 :p 16:59:47 #topic (1410178) CVE-2016-9941 CVE-2016-9942 libvncserver: various flaws [fedora-all] 16:59:50 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410178 16:59:52 #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, libvncserver, ON_QA 17:00:07 * roshi wouldn't advertise how low your bar to entry is like that :p 17:00:10 * jkurik has to leave for other duties 17:00:15 thanks jkurik! 17:00:19 see you Thursday 17:00:28 see you on Go/No-Go :) 17:00:38 +1 fe 17:00:55 Isn't this also a dep of Anaconda? 17:00:57 +1 17:01:22 I'm hesitating 17:01:36 pretty sure it is in anaconda 17:01:38 I don't like changing things out from under critical software during Freeze 17:01:50 if it is, maybe even more reason to approve it 17:02:00 we don't even have an RC yet 17:02:20 But it looks like it's a simple backport of the security fixes 17:02:27 * roshi isn't worried about pulling in security fixes 17:02:27 I was mostly concerned if it was a rebase 17:02:40 So I wanted to look into it before approving 17:03:21 Remember, we only should ideally be approving FEs that don't risk causing other issues. 17:03:29 But I think we're good in this case. +1 FE 17:03:46 proposed #agreed - RHBZ#1410178 - AcceptedFreezeException - It'd be good to get these security fixes in. However, if it causes issues with Anaconda, we'll have to revert it. 17:04:04 ack 17:04:11 ack 17:04:26 ack 17:04:32 #agreed - RHBZ#1410178 - AcceptedFreezeException - It'd be good to get these security fixes in. However, if it causes issues with Anaconda, we'll have to revert it. 17:04:41 #topic (1444654) Moving a file using Drag and Drop onto a folder works immediately the first time in nautilus, takes time subsequently. 17:04:44 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444654 17:04:46 #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, nautilus, NEW 17:05:40 hmm 17:05:56 this'ns odd 17:05:57 for this one would also be good to get a confirmation of what the bug is 17:06:16 which would then lead to a possible proposed fixe 17:06:20 there's not even a comment on it by the developer, nor in the upstream bug 17:06:30 same punt as before? 17:06:33 That's ugly, but I'm not comfortable changing a major part of the GNOME desktop during Freeze 17:06:35 I'm -1 FE 17:06:40 It can be fixed with an update later 17:06:42 -1 until there's at least some dev response 17:06:43 how do we escalate things to get them looked at by the devs? 17:06:44 I want to see a fix first 17:06:45 a fix is better 17:06:52 depends on the team and if we can 17:07:13 It works eventually, so it's not breaking the blocking criteria for default apps either 17:07:14 basically if it's not a blocker it doesn't have to be fixed 17:07:27 dustymabe: There's a Prioritized Bugs policy 17:07:42 dustymabe: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/Prioritized_bugs_and_issues_-_the_process 17:07:47 sgallagh: yeah 17:07:51 we can propose this as a final blocker, if many people can reproduce 17:08:01 for beta I think it's ok anyway 17:08:34 I can't reproduce this. 17:08:39 we should be able to automatically tag things for that list from this meeting 17:09:05 I guess I'm either +1 punt or -1 since there's no info and doesn't seem like many people see it 17:09:15 * roshi tests on the 0513 image he has installed right here 17:09:34 -1 FE - re-evalute onece we have more info 17:09:34 It doesn't happen to me on my laptop either 17:09:50 I'm -1 FE. 17:11:30 There is newer version in stable so it could be already fixed. 17:12:00 pschindl: could you add that info to the bug report? 17:12:09 and maybe the reporter can confirm/deny 17:12:36 didn't see it here 17:12:43 with empty or non-empty files 17:13:43 proposed #agreed - RHBZ#1444654 - RejectedFreezeException - This bug lacks the information we need to determine how invasive it would be and no one in the meeting could reproduce it. 17:14:05 I will add there need info for reporter if he can test it with new version. 17:14:14 ack 17:14:23 ack 17:14:37 ack 17:14:43 #agreed - RHBZ#1444654 - RejectedFreezeException - This bug lacks the information we need to determine how invasive it would be and no one in the meeting could reproduce it. 17:15:02 that's it for the FE proposals 17:15:10 now, to check in on the accepted blockers 17:15:33 #topic AcceptedBlocker status review 17:15:41 #link https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/COATZINPNXVXIK4KNMSIBNVDFLXOHO5R/#43ZUCKZAT6PN45RW6P6OISA4D2CMEQV4 17:15:54 adamw sent out a status email earlier - ^^ is the link 17:16:47 roshi: some of those have made it to stable 17:17:08 yep 17:17:12 just giving context 17:17:26 first up 17:17:27 #topic (1443415) [TRACKING] Upgrade f25 to f26 get stuck in Cleanup 17:17:30 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443415 17:17:33 #info Accepted Blocker, dnf, NEW 17:18:32 pwhalen: you around? 17:19:22 * sgallagh needs to depart. 17:19:30 thanks sgallagh 17:19:33 gl hf 17:20:34 #info still no movement on this upgrade bug 17:20:40 * roshi moves on to the next... 17:20:54 #topic (1403352) FreeIPA server install fails (and existing servers probably fail to start) due to changes in 'dyndb' feature on merge to upstream BIND 17:20:57 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403352 17:21:00 #info Accepted Blocker, freeipa, ON_QA 17:21:40 roshi: i'm still here 17:21:42 just not sure what to say 17:21:51 no worries 17:22:09 * roshi is in the same position, but I'm running the meeting - so I have to make stuff up 17:22:12 :p 17:22:47 roshi: :) - that means you own the show 17:22:57 you can do whatever you like 17:23:12 that's a scary world :) 17:23:22 looks like some movement, but still tracking it down 17:23:33 shoulda done this while sgallagh was still here 17:23:56 #info Debugging is still ongoing for this bug 17:24:04 kparal: you still around? 17:24:23 * roshi thinks pschindl is still here too, since bugs are being updated 17:24:36 but it's hard to secretarialize *and* be in the meeting 17:24:46 #topic (1438046) initial-setup.service: Failed to set up stdin: Inappropriate ioctl for device 17:24:49 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438046 17:24:51 #info Accepted Blocker, initial-setup, ON_QA 17:25:31 I don't have any insight on the last one. Sorry. 17:25:32 roshi: Yes, I'm still here and all bugs were secretari****d 17:26:00 so arm disk images are release blocking.. cool 17:26:07 yep 17:26:23 no worries sgallagh - you were just the most likely to have info since adamw isn't here 17:26:25 roshi: Are we going to do final blocker proposals too? 17:26:38 yeah, if people are around 17:26:43 but Beta is priority now 17:26:55 so want to get through those even if we don't get to Final today 17:27:01 roshi: sorry, back now 17:27:05 roshi: so this last bug 17:27:09 it's in testing 17:27:10 no worries kparal 17:27:13 right 17:27:28 #info an update for this is in testing as of 2017-05-18 17:27:56 #topic (1443206) gnome-shell consistently crashes in the middle of first-login gnome-initial-setup 17:27:59 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443206 17:28:02 #info Accepted Blocker, libgweather, ON_QA 17:28:08 dustymabe: this bit of the meeting we don't always do 17:28:17 just when we're getting close to Go/No-go 17:28:34 to make a note of any bugs that need attention or aren't getting fixed 17:28:38 so we know ahead of time 17:29:00 I checked today, I *don't* see this bug 17:29:11 at least on the 0513 WS Live 17:29:15 it installs fine for me 17:29:18 g-i-s runs 17:29:20 no crashes 17:30:14 gnome weather crashes w/o location data, but otherwise works for me as well 17:30:55 anyone have more to add to this? 17:31:02 not i 17:31:50 kparal: pschindl ? 17:32:14 #info debugging is still ongoing for this bug. 17:33:09 * roshi moves on 17:33:17 #topic (1348688) Anaconda cannot access LVM partitions in a LUKS-encrypted disk partition after decryption 17:33:20 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348688 17:33:22 #info Accepted Blocker, lvm2, ON_QA 17:34:12 #info An update for this landed on 2017-05-19, please test 17:34:21 #topic (1445302) partition on a FW RAID used as a PV is put into a list of filtered devices by blivet 17:34:24 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1445302 17:34:27 #info Accepted Blocker, python-blivet, ON_QA 17:34:35 * dustymabe brb 17:34:44 pschindl: update? 17:35:54 it seems pschindl needs to verify this one 17:36:00 I couldn't reproduce it 17:36:02 yeah 17:36:05 with the update 17:36:14 so let's close as fixed 17:36:16 #info It seems this bug is fixed. 17:36:31 #action pschindl to update and close bug. 17:36:39 I will update it :) 17:36:44 thanks 17:36:50 that's all we have for Beta stuff 17:36:57 #topic Open Floor 17:37:07 I propose we adjourn here and get to work on Beta testing 17:37:12 thoughts? 17:37:42 sounds good - i have to go to another meeting anyway 17:38:21 nothing else from me. thanks everyone 17:38:46 would like to know if we have any good contacts within systemd 17:38:54 thanks for coming folks! 17:38:56 * roshi doesn't 17:39:02 * roshi sets fuse... 17:39:03 3... 17:39:06 kparal might 17:39:09 dustymabe: #systemd channel 17:39:20 2... 17:39:36 * roshi thinks he'll go get lunch since dustymabe didn't bring any 17:39:39 1... 17:39:42 thanks folks! 17:39:47 Thanks pschindl ! 17:39:51 pschindl++ 17:39:51 roshi: Karma for pschindl changed to 2 (for the f25 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 17:39:56 thanks roshi 17:40:08 #endmeeting