16:00:03 <pschindl> #startmeeting F27-blocker-review
16:00:03 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Oct  9 16:00:03 2017 UTC.  The chair is pschindl. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:03 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:03 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f27-blocker-review'
16:00:17 * kparal is here
16:00:21 <pschindl> #meetingname F27-blocker-review
16:00:22 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f27-blocker-review'
16:00:27 <kparal> damn, still too early
16:00:29 <pschindl> #topic Roll Call
16:00:33 * kparal is still here
16:00:36 <pschindl> now is the time
16:00:45 <Southern_Gentlem> .hello Southern_Gentlem
16:00:48 * sumantrom[m] is here
16:00:48 <zodbot> Southern_Gentlem: Sorry, but you don't exist
16:00:57 <Southern_Gentlem> .hello jbwillia
16:00:57 <zodbot> Southern_Gentlem: jbwillia 'Ben Williams' <vaioof@gmail.com>
16:00:57 * jlinton waves
16:01:02 <pschindl> #chair kparal
16:01:02 <zodbot> Current chairs: kparal pschindl
16:01:57 <kparal> kalev: sgallagh: nirik: pwhalen: mboddu: if you're around, we'll gladly have you on the meeting :)
16:02:43 <frantisekz> .hello2
16:02:44 <zodbot> frantisekz: frantisekz 'František Zatloukal' <fzatlouk@redhat.com>
16:03:13 <pschindl> #topic Introduction
16:03:16 <pschindl> Why are we here?
16:03:23 <pschindl> #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.
16:03:26 <pschindl> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:03:28 <pschindl> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:03:32 <pschindl> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:03:34 <pschindl> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:03:37 <pschindl> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:03:43 <pschindl> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Alpha_Release_Criteria
16:03:46 <pschindl> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:03:47 <pschindl> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Final_Release_Criteria
16:03:51 <kparal> I feel like we should gather at least one more person
16:04:05 <kparal> sumantrom[m]: around for a meeting?
16:04:24 <kparal> adamw seems to be offline completely
16:04:39 <sumantrom[m]> Yes
16:04:40 <sumantrom[m]> I am
16:04:46 <kparal> great :)
16:04:55 <sumantrom[m]> :)
16:04:56 <pschindl> #info 5 Proposed Blockers
16:04:58 <pschindl> #info 6 Accepted Blockers
16:05:01 <pschindl> #info 0 Accepted 0-day Blockers
16:05:06 <pschindl> #info 0 Accepted Previous Release Blockers
16:05:08 <pschindl> #info 2 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:05:10 <pschindl> #info 1 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
16:05:28 <pschindl> So can we start?
16:05:46 <sumantrom[m]> Yes!
16:05:56 <kparal> too bad we don't have anyone from outside of the team. but what can we do
16:06:17 <pschindl> So let's start with proposed blockers
16:06:20 <pschindl> #topic (1498091) Cannot browse CUPS servers in GNOME Control Panel Printers
16:06:21 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1498091
16:06:24 <pschindl> #info Proposed Blocker, cups, ON_QA
16:06:41 <kparal> he's a proposition
16:07:01 <kparal> the bug fix is tested and will be pushed over night, closing this bug
16:07:05 <kparal> so let's just skip it?
16:07:16 <pschindl> ok
16:07:18 <kparal> btw, I'll secretarialize
16:07:39 <kparal> pschindl: just add #info
16:07:46 <pschindl> #info this bug has fix which is already tested and will be pushed. We'll close the bug.
16:08:03 <sumantrom[m]> Okay
16:08:13 <kparal> it will close automatically :)
16:08:18 <pschindl> #topic (1478633) [abrt] gnome-shell: meta_monitor_mode_get_resolution(): gnome-shell killed by signal 11
16:08:20 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1478633
16:08:22 <pschindl> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, MODIFIED
16:09:18 <kparal> so, multiple people confirmed this can prevent logging in after upgrade
16:09:26 <kparal> and the new mutter build fixes it
16:09:41 <kparal> it depends on your external display configuration
16:10:26 <kparal> also, for some people external displays don't work
16:10:34 <kparal> I guess I'm +1 here
16:11:37 <sumantrom[m]> +1
16:11:41 <frantisekz> +1
16:13:05 <pschindl> What criterion it is?
16:13:21 <kparal> c21
16:13:30 <Southern_Gentlem> +1
16:14:37 <pschindl> proposed #agreed - 1478633 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the criterion: "A system installed without a graphical package set must boot to a working login prompt without any unintended user intervention, and all virtual consoles intended to provide a working login prompt must do so. "
16:15:18 <sumantrom[m]> Ack
16:15:26 <kparal> ack
16:15:40 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
16:15:46 <frantisekz> ack
16:16:01 <pschindl> #agreed - 1478633 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the criterion: "A system installed without a graphical package set must boot to a working login prompt without any unintended user intervention, and all virtual consoles intended to provide a working login prompt must do so. "
16:16:16 <pschindl> #topic (1499683) please hold on the release, until jdk9 with configuration files in /etc  passes update
16:16:18 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1499683
16:16:20 <pschindl> #info Proposed Blocker, java-9-openjdk, NEW
16:17:35 <kparal> so, I don't think it's acceptable to this even in Branched - completely break a package
16:17:50 <kparal> but packaging team should know better
16:19:00 * nb thinks the packagers should not make a major change that breaks stuff like that
16:19:08 <nb> especially post-beta
16:19:17 <frantisekz> if it's going to break something for current users, it should be handled differently
16:19:27 <kparal> do we have someone from packaging sig who we can ping quickly?
16:19:47 * nb is not sure what packaging sig is
16:20:02 * nb is a packager/provenpackager, but not packager of that package
16:21:11 <Southern_Gentlem> -1
16:21:37 <kparal> anyway, I don't think this violates any criterion. it could break some blocking packages, even (libreoffice comes to mind)
16:21:38 <Southern_Gentlem> i think should go to fesco
16:21:51 <pschindl> I'm totally -1. I don't think this should block the release.
16:21:53 <kparal> yeah, I'll ask jvanek to ask in packaging mailing list or in fesco
16:22:01 <frantisekz> -1
16:22:12 <kparal> I think these kind of changes need to be done in rawhide only
16:22:24 <sumantrom[m]> -1
16:22:24 <kparal> when you literally can't upgrade a package
16:22:40 <kparal> I believe in this case the rpm transaction will fail with error, before starting
16:23:02 <nb> -1
16:23:04 <Southern_Gentlem> to me this is a major change that really needed to happen earlier in the release
16:23:10 <nb> Southern_Gentlem, I agree
16:24:02 <pschindl> proposed #agreed - 1499683 - RejectedBlocker - this bug doesn't violate any criterion. The reporter should contact fesco or packaging sig to ask about this change.
16:24:25 <kparal> ack
16:24:52 <frantisekz> ack
16:25:00 <sumantrom[m]> Ack
16:25:04 <kparal> also, he asks for FE
16:25:22 <kparal> I'd wait with that until fesco decides
16:25:37 <kparal> so patch
16:25:38 <sumantrom[m]> FE sounds perfect in this situation
16:26:04 <sumantrom[m]> Patch
16:26:34 <kparal> proposed #agreed - 1499683 - RejectedBlocker - this bug doesn't violate any criterion. The reporter should contact fesco or packaging sig to ask about this change. We will decide on FE once packaging appropriateness is decided.
16:26:36 <pschindl> proposed #agreed - 1499683 - RejectedBlocker - this bug doesn't violate any criterion. The reporter should contact fesco or packaging sig to ask about this change after their decision we will consider the FE status.
16:26:40 <kparal> hehe
16:26:44 <pschindl> hmmm :)
16:26:47 <kparal> ack pschindl
16:27:06 <kparal> I'll add the missing comma
16:27:15 <pschindl> thanks :)
16:27:22 <sumantrom[m]> Ack
16:29:04 <pschindl> another ack/nack/patch
16:29:16 <frantisekz> axk
16:29:23 <frantisekz> ack
16:29:30 <sumantrom[m]> Ack
16:29:54 <pschindl> #agreed - 1499683 - RejectedBlocker - this bug doesn't violate any criterion. The reporter should contact fesco or packaging sig to ask about this change after their decision we will consider the FE status.
16:30:14 <pschindl> #topic (1498207) DNF crash during upgrade installation F26 -> F27
16:30:15 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1498207
16:30:17 <pschindl> #info Proposed Blocker, python3, MODIFIED
16:30:38 <kparal> this has been reported by a worrying number of people
16:30:53 <kparal> so it seems it's +1 just based on the likelihood of this occurring
16:31:26 <Southern_Gentlem> +1
16:32:08 <pschindl> +1
16:32:16 <frantisekz> +1
16:32:24 <sumantrom[m]> +1
16:32:30 <nb> +1
16:33:47 <Southern_Gentlem> and i wonder what DE this is happening under i just did a f26 mate to f27 without any issue
16:34:10 <kparal> it's not related to DE
16:34:27 <kparal> it's most probably related to a combination of certain packages, and a python bug
16:35:25 <pschindl> proposed #agreed - 1498207 - AcceptedBlocker - this bug violates the criterion: "For each one of the release-blocking package sets, it must be possible to successfully complete a direct upgrade from fully updated installations of the last two stable Fedora releases with that package set installed. "
16:35:38 <sumantrom[m]> Ack
16:36:00 <frantisekz> ack
16:36:04 <kparal> ack
16:37:29 <pschindl> nb, Southern_Gentlem: ack/nack/patch?
16:37:54 <kparal> pschindl: you can vote too :)
16:38:01 <pschindl> but isn't this 0-day blocker?
16:38:15 <kparal> ah, right!
16:38:16 <pschindl> the fix will be in f26, right?
16:38:31 <kparal> so, Accepted0Day, right?
16:38:41 * nb loks
16:38:43 <pschindl> I think so. So patch
16:38:44 <nb> ack
16:38:54 <kparal> nope, actually
16:38:57 <kparal> AcceptedPreviousRelease
16:39:02 <kparal> that's the right tag
16:39:14 <pschindl> proposed #agreed - 1498207 - AcceptedPreviousRelease - this bug violates the criterion: "For each one of the release-blocking package sets, it must be possible to successfully complete a direct upgrade from fully updated installations of the last two stable Fedora releases with that package set installed. "
16:39:19 <pschindl> kparal: thank you.
16:39:23 <nb> ack
16:39:27 <kparal> ack
16:39:33 <sumantrom[m]> Ack
16:39:48 <pschindl> #agreed - 1498207 - AcceptedPreviousRelease - this bug violates the criterion: "For each one of the release-blocking package sets, it must be possible to successfully complete a direct upgrade from fully updated installations of the last two stable Fedora releases with that package set installed. "
16:40:05 <pschindl> #topic (1475565) initramfs not generated at default location if /boot/<machine-id> exists
16:40:07 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475565
16:40:09 <pschindl> #info Proposed Blocker, systemd, NEW
16:40:13 <pschindl> This is the last proposed blocker.
16:41:10 <kparal> so, on one hand, I couldn't reproduce any really nasty scenario
16:41:24 <kparal> otoh, jforbes said he'd take it as a blocker last week
16:41:32 <kparal> so take your pick
16:41:33 <pschindl> kparal: and if you can't no one can
16:41:34 <jforbes> 
16:42:36 <kparal> I would probably wait until we find something that it really breaks
16:42:55 <kparal> if we don't find that, well, it can be fixed with an update
16:43:08 <kparal> we can't really block on third party modules not working
16:43:11 <pschindl> ok. Than I would be -1 and +1 FE.
16:43:16 <kparal> even though it will annoy quite a lot of people
16:43:37 <kparal> we could block on it, of course, but we'd have to be really creative when explaining why
16:44:09 <pschindl> We can repropose it as blocker if something nasty will occur.
16:44:17 <kparal> pschindl: or just punt and wait another week whether someone comes up with something important
16:44:23 <kparal> or that, sure
16:44:50 <pschindl> ok. Let's punt it. Maybe adamw will come with something creative :)
16:45:13 <Southern_Gentlem> -1 block +1 FE
16:45:30 <kparal> I'd rather punt I think
16:45:36 <sumantrom[m]> punt for now
16:45:39 <kparal> the freeze is not here yet, we don't need to vote on FE
16:45:41 <Southern_Gentlem> ok i am easy +1 to punt
16:45:45 <frantisekz> punt
16:46:28 <kparal> pschindl: something like "we're waiting whether an important breakage or criteria violation can be demonstrated as a consequence of this issue"
16:47:26 <pschindl> proposed #agreed - 1475565 - punt - No really important breakage is known. We'll wait another week if we find something.
16:47:42 <sumantrom[m]> ack
16:47:55 <kparal> ack
16:48:17 <frantisekz> ack
16:49:33 <pschindl> #agreed - 1475565 - punt - No really important breakage is known. We'll wait another week if we find something.
16:50:01 <kparal> pschindl: I don't think we need to go to FE this week
16:50:20 <kparal> so that would be all
16:50:32 <pschindl> kparal: so I think so :)
16:50:44 <pschindl> or do we want to go through accepted?
16:51:06 <kparal> not really necessary atm I think
16:51:14 <pschindl> #topic Open Floor
16:51:33 <pschindl> Do someone have something for open discussion?
16:51:39 <pschindl> or another blocker?
16:52:33 <kparal> nope
16:52:47 <sumantrom[m]> nothing for me
16:52:56 <sumantrom[m]> *from
16:53:10 <pschindl> ok. So let's end the meeting.
16:53:19 <pschindl> Thank you all fro coming.
16:53:40 <sumantrom[m]> thanks pschindl kparal for hosting! :)
16:53:45 <pschindl> #endmeeting