16:01:22 <adamw> #startmeeting F28-blocker-review
16:01:22 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Mar 26 16:01:22 2018 UTC.  The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:01:22 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:01:22 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f28-blocker-review'
16:01:22 <adamw> #meetingname F28-blocker-review
16:01:22 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
16:01:22 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f28-blocker-review'
16:01:30 * kparal is here
16:01:30 <adamw> morning folks! who's around for blocker review fun?
16:01:32 <frantisekz_> .hello2
16:01:32 * pwhalen is here
16:01:32 <zodbot> frantisekz_: Sorry, but you don't exist
16:01:35 * lbrabec is here
16:01:42 <sgallagh> .hello2
16:01:43 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
16:01:48 <Lailah> .hi lailah
16:01:55 <Lailah> .fas lailah
16:01:55 <zodbot> Lailah: lailah 'Sylvia Sánchez' <BHKohane@gmail.com>
16:02:00 * coremodule is here
16:02:05 * Lailah is here
16:02:07 <msekleta> hi!
16:02:12 <Lailah> Hi1
16:02:56 <frantisekz> .hello2
16:02:57 <zodbot> frantisekz: frantisekz 'František Zatloukal' <fzatlouk@redhat.com>
16:03:52 <puiterwijk> .hello2
16:03:53 <zodbot> puiterwijk: puiterwijk 'Patrick "マルタインアンドレアス" Uiterwijk' <puiterwijk@redhat.com>
16:04:46 <adamw> note: blocker review is guaranteed, 'fun' is not
16:05:00 <Lailah> okay
16:05:09 <Lailah> We have been warned
16:05:48 <puiterwijk> Mis-advertising!
16:07:23 <adamw> puiterwijk: there was an asterisk and some four point text you couldn't possibly read on your tv!
16:07:26 <adamw> alrighty
16:07:31 * lruzicka is here, too
16:07:35 <adamw> #chair sgallagh puiterwijk
16:07:35 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw puiterwijk sgallagh
16:07:58 <coremodule> Willing to secretarialize!
16:08:49 <Lailah> uhm...
16:08:56 * Lailah looks around
16:09:07 <adamw> sorry
16:09:15 <adamw> i started pasting bolierplate into entirely the wrong irc channel :P
16:09:20 <adamw> can i go back to bed and start monday again please? :)
16:09:21 <adamw> #topic Introduction
16:09:21 <adamw> Why are we here?
16:09:21 <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.
16:09:23 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:09:23 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:09:25 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:09:26 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:09:28 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:09:30 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
16:09:32 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_28_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:09:34 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_28_Final_Release_Criteria
16:09:36 <adamw> we have:
16:09:38 <adamw> #info 1 Proposed Blocker (Beta)
16:09:42 <adamw> #info 6 Accepted Blockers (Beta)
16:09:48 <adamw> #info 10 Proposed Freeze Exceptions (Beta)
16:09:53 <adamw> #info 12 Accepted Freeze Exceptions (Beta)
16:10:04 <adamw> #info 6 Proposed Blockers (Final)
16:10:14 <adamw> #info coremodule will secretarialize
16:10:25 <adamw> so, let's start with the proposed Beta blocker, obviously...
16:10:30 <adamw> #topic (1559680) Realm join via kickstart during install fails with 'This computer's host name is not set correctly', but it is
16:10:30 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1559680
16:10:30 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:10:30 <kalev> hello guys
16:10:33 <adamw> hi kalev
16:10:36 <adamw> this one seems like a clear +1 to me.
16:10:38 <puiterwijk> adamw: +1 blocker on that.
16:10:47 <frantisekz> +1
16:10:58 <Lailah> Can I get a second to read it quickly?
16:11:02 <Lailah> Very very quickly
16:11:11 <kalev> +1
16:11:14 <adamw> Lailah: sure
16:11:31 <adamw> Lailah: executive summary: domain enrolment during install using a kickstart fails, criteria say it should work.
16:11:32 * sgallagh voted +1 on BZ as well
16:11:41 * puiterwijk also just voted +1 on the BZ
16:11:59 <adamw> i mean, i suppose this would work if you happened to have a setup where an appropriate hostname was doled out by DHCP, but we can't really rely on that.
16:12:00 <Lailah> Oh, now I see...
16:12:07 <Lailah> Yes, I'm +1
16:12:12 <lruzicka> +1
16:12:13 <sgallagh> I asked rvykdal to look into it this morning and he's pretty sure he has a fix
16:12:18 <lbrabec> +1
16:12:23 <adamw> sgallagh: yeah, mkolman is on it.
16:13:13 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1559680 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - clear violation of "It must be possible to join the system to a FreeIPA or Active Directory domain at install time and post-install, and the system must respect the identity, authentication and access control configuration provided by the domain" (in all cases where a correct hostname is not set via DHCP)
16:13:18 <coremodule> Ack
16:13:20 <lbrabec> ack
16:13:24 <puiterwijk> ack
16:13:25 <frantisekz> ack
16:13:26 <kalev> ack
16:13:27 <Lailah> ack
16:13:45 <lruzicka> ack
16:13:53 <adamw> #agreed 1559680 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - clear violation of "It must be possible to join the system to a FreeIPA or Active Directory domain at install time and post-install, and the system must respect the identity, authentication and access control configuration provided by the domain" (in all cases where a correct hostname is not set via DHCP)
16:14:22 <adamw> #info moving onto proposed Beta freeze exceptions (as we're close to Beta go/no-go again)
16:14:29 <adamw> #topic (1551279) authselect pulls in a LOT of extra dependencies than authconfig
16:14:29 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551279
16:14:29 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, authselect, ON_QA
16:14:49 <adamw> i've proposed both bugs that the authselect update fixes as FEs, as they both seem like good things to have fixed in beta to me.
16:15:25 <adamw> (this one, i bet, is also behind at least one of the mysterious size bloats we've had with images lately)
16:15:58 <sgallagh> +1 FE
16:15:59 <kalev> I think that one would be nice to include indeed. +1 FE from me
16:16:02 <pwhalen> +1
16:16:07 <Lailah> +1 FE
16:16:08 <lruzicka> +1FE
16:16:12 <lbrabec> +1 fe
16:16:24 <frantisekz> +1
16:16:44 <sgallagh> adamw: Though, before it gets pushed stable, I'd like to double-check that they didn't drop anything we might need to add back into comps
16:16:55 <adamw> sgallagh: yeah, there is that bear trap
16:16:58 <sgallagh> #action sgallagh to review the dropped deps
16:17:04 <adamw> sgallagh: thanks
16:18:09 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1551279 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - we accept this on the basis that it's desirable to remove the unwanted bits from images, particularly minimal images. sgallagh will verify that comps/kickstarts ensure the necessary packages are pulled into appropriate images without these dependencies
16:18:21 <sgallagh> ack
16:18:22 <lbrabec> ack
16:18:25 <lruzicka> ack
16:18:27 <Lailah> ack
16:18:27 <pwhalen> ack
16:18:29 <kparal> ack
16:18:38 <kalev> ack
16:18:39 <frantisekz> ack
16:19:40 <adamw> #agreed 1551279 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - we accept this on the basis that it's desirable to remove the unwanted bits from images, particularly minimal images. sgallagh will verify that comps/kickstarts ensure the necessary packages are pulled into appropriate images without these dependencies
16:19:48 <adamw> #topic (1560046) authselect is missing dependency on dconf package
16:19:49 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1560046
16:19:49 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, authselect, ON_QA
16:20:09 <adamw> this is the other thing the update fixed (note, description is slightly wrong, the fix was not to add a dependency on dconf, but to make authselect work OK when it's not present)
16:21:04 <Lailah> Oh, I see
16:21:14 <Lailah> Well, I'm +1 FE on this too.
16:21:21 <kalev> +1
16:21:24 <frantisekz> +1
16:21:25 <lruzicka> +1
16:21:28 <lbrabec> +1
16:21:46 <pwhalen> +1
16:22:26 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1560046 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - we accept this on the grounds there could be significant install/upgrade-time consequences from authselect not behaving as expected with dconf not present
16:22:46 <frantisekz> ack
16:22:47 <lbrabec> ack
16:22:47 <lruzicka> ack
16:22:51 <Lailah> ack
16:23:02 <kparal> ack
16:23:08 <adamw> #agreed 1560046 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - we accept this on the grounds there could be significant install/upgrade-time consequences from authselect not behaving as expected with dconf not present
16:23:18 <adamw> #topic (1164492) Please drop libvirt 'default' network dependency for F28 GA (also Beta?), disrupts livecd networking
16:23:18 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164492
16:23:18 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-boxes, ASSIGNED
16:23:27 <adamw> this one should just be grandfathered right into 'accepted'...
16:23:53 <adamw> same old mess with libvirt's networking interfering with live images that we hit every release, this is the workaround we always wind up with.
16:23:55 <kalev> I've never really understood what's going on with this bug, but +1 as we've been doing this dance forever :)
16:24:29 * sgallagh waves his hand dismissively
16:24:35 <lruzicka> I have seen that this is old as hell. If there is a slight change of getting rid of it .... +1
16:24:35 <Lailah> Is this coming from Fedora 21?
16:24:37 <Lailah> Wow
16:24:40 <adamw> kalev: basically it's to do with libvirt's default network setup kicking in when you boot the live image in a VM that *is itself a libvirt guest*, so the routes get messed up and connections can never get out.
16:24:59 * kalev nods.
16:25:01 <kparal> +1
16:25:04 <frantisekz> +1
16:25:07 <Lailah> +1
16:25:10 <lbrabec> +1
16:25:16 <adamw> lruzicka: unfortunately no-one's ever managed to figure out a way to 'fix' it properly, so what we do every release is fiddle with the dependencies to avoid the issue happening, then change them back right after release :(
16:25:52 <lruzicka> adamw: Oh ...
16:25:53 <adamw> kalev: iirc we came up with some trick that fixes it for installed systems a while ago, but for handwavey reasons i'd have to go look up, we still can't fix it for lives, or something along those lines. i forget those details.
16:27:07 <pwhalen> +1
16:27:27 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1164492 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - accepted for the same reason this workaround always is, we want to avoid networking on Workstation live boots being broken by this, and we still haven't figured out a permanent fix.
16:27:29 <lbrabec> ack
16:27:32 <kalev> ack
16:27:36 <Lailah> ack
16:27:37 <pwhalen> ack
16:27:39 <lruzicka> ack
16:27:41 <sgallagh> ack
16:27:44 <frantisekz> ack
16:28:21 <adamw> #agreed 1164492 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - accepted for the same reason this workaround always is, we want to avoid networking on Workstation live boots being broken by this, and we still haven't figured out a permanent fix.
16:28:30 * adamw has an awful suspicion the 'ultimate' fix for this is called 'ipv6
16:30:47 <adamw> #topic (1558648) Can’t remove libvirt-daemon
16:30:47 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558648
16:30:47 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, libvirt, ON_QA
16:31:25 <adamw> owch, yeah, i ran into this one. we should make it an FE for sure.
16:31:28 <kalev> owwww, this one might even be a blocker, if it's in a default install
16:31:52 <adamw> i'm ok with just saying FE, since we have the fix already.
16:31:54 <kalev> and I think it's on Workstation at least
16:31:56 * kalev nods.
16:31:57 <kalev> +1 FE
16:32:02 <lbrabec> +1 fe
16:32:03 <frantisekz> +1 FE
16:32:08 <lruzicka> +1 FE
16:32:16 <Lailah> I find this one weird...  why is not possible to remove libvirt?
16:32:19 <Lailah> Anyway
16:32:21 <Lailah> +1
16:32:35 <pwhalen> +1
16:33:05 <adamw> Lailah: the remove operation always fails because the scriptlet fails
16:33:12 <adamw> so the package is still 'there' as far as the database is concerned
16:33:15 <Lailah> Ah.
16:33:24 <Lailah> Oh
16:33:31 <Lailah> Okay, got it
16:33:46 <Lailah> Thanks for the explanation adamw
16:33:49 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1558648 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - running into this bug requires the user to do manual cleanup, so we really should get the broken package out of the stable path ASAP
16:34:32 <lbrabec> ack
16:34:32 <kalev> ack
16:34:33 <frantisekz> ack
16:34:37 <Lailah> ack
16:34:38 <adamw> #agreed 1558648 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - running into this bug requires the user to do manual cleanup, so we really should get the broken package out of the stable path ASAP
16:34:44 <adamw> #topic (1558510) "Star" feature missing in Nautilus
16:34:45 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558510
16:34:45 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, nautilus, NEW
16:34:56 <lruzicka> so quick ... I was thinking about a patch :)
16:35:16 <lruzicka> ack
16:35:28 <adamw> lruzicka: sorry!
16:35:39 <adamw> trying to get through the list fast as it's quite long :(
16:35:47 <lruzicka> it's ok, no big deal :)
16:35:48 <adamw> kalev: so is the summary here 'it's working as expected'?
16:36:27 <lruzicka> adamw: Which one, the last one?
16:36:34 <adamw> this one. 1558510.
16:36:46 <kalev> adamw: yeah, I think so
16:37:02 <lruzicka> it did not work for me this afternoon
16:37:06 <adamw> from the comments, it looks like there may not really be a 'bug' to fix here at all, just the feature doesn't behave as the reporter expected.
16:37:16 * kalev nods.
16:37:27 <adamw> lruzicka: it's a question of what you mean by 'work'. it seems the feature applies only to "the XDG home directories"
16:37:31 <Lailah> I don't see this as a blocker
16:37:34 <adamw> which is stuff like ~/Pictures , ~/Music etc
16:38:07 <lruzicka> adamw: kalev: True, but even in those directories, I could not star every directory created there.
16:38:28 <lruzicka> For example, I created one directory through Nautilus, I could star it
16:38:41 <lruzicka> but i could not star a directory created via CLI
16:38:55 <lruzicka> and then, I created another with Nautilus, could not star it either
16:39:32 <mkolman> isn't it done based on Tracker data ?
16:39:42 <lruzicka> this was the situation in 20180325.0.iso, updated this afternoon (virtual machine)
16:40:03 <kalev> maybe it would make sense to just remove the feature then altogether, if it's not working well
16:40:19 <sgallagh> I'm -1 FE here. Nautilus is too fundamental to the Workstation experience to risk patches that probably touch deep, fundamental code while we're in Freeze
16:40:22 <mkolman> that would make sense - Nautilus can tell Tracker about the new folder but Tracker would not know about a new folder created via CLI (unless it sits on global inotify or something similar)
16:40:30 <kalev> but I don't see anything right now that warrants an FE, there's nothing to backport to Fedora
16:40:31 <sgallagh> Let them fix it post-Beta
16:40:42 <kalev> -1 FE
16:40:49 <lruzicka> agree -1 FE
16:40:58 <Lailah> -1
16:41:00 <kalev> (but there's certainly issues and I'd suggest to file them upstream at gitlab.gnome.org to get more traction)
16:41:28 <pwhalen> -1
16:42:23 <adamw> -1
16:42:44 <lbrabec> -1
16:45:51 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1558510 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - from discussion in-bug and in-meeting, there doesn't really seem to be anything that's clearly a bug here (rather a case of mismatched user expectations), and certainly not something worth changing nautilus for during freeze
16:46:09 <lruzicka> ack
16:46:13 <lbrabec> ack
16:46:14 <frantisekz> ack
16:46:17 <Lailah> ack
16:46:19 <kalev> ack
16:46:51 <pwhalen> ack
16:48:23 <adamw> #agreed 1558510 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - from discussion in-bug and in-meeting, there doesn't really seem to be anything that's clearly a bug here (rather a case of mismatched user expectations), and certainly not something worth changing nautilus for during freeze
16:48:36 <adamw> #topic (1560209) qt5-qtwebengine: 16 security vulnerabilities
16:48:36 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1560209
16:48:37 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, qt5-qtwebengine, MODIFIED
16:48:56 <lruzicka> +1 FE
16:49:05 <Lailah> +1 FE
16:49:17 <lbrabec> +1 fe
16:49:18 <kalev> dunno, it hasn't yet pushed to any repos and nobody has tested it
16:49:32 <Kevin_Kofler> Not true, it's in updates-testing already.
16:49:36 <kalev> ah ok :)
16:50:08 <Kevin_Kofler> Also, the F27 build has +3 karma and was pushed to stable, the F26 build has +1 karma and was pushed or is being pushed to stable.
16:50:22 <frantisekz> +1 FE
16:50:28 <adamw> kalev: technically, we're voting on whether the *issue* is FE-worthy, not whether the current update fixes it properly. sometimes there's a bit of a grey area there, but the distinction matters.
16:50:45 <kalev> Kevin_Kofler: fair enough, sounds like it's gotten a fair bit of testing then
16:50:48 <adamw> definitely +1 FE
16:50:48 * kalev nods.
16:50:51 <kalev> +1 FE
16:51:10 <pwhalen> +1 FE
16:51:44 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1560209 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - it's obviously desirable to fix multiple security issues in a key package in a release-blocking image (KDE live)
16:51:53 <kalev> we also have a firefox update in updates-testing, I wonder if that makes sense to pull in as well then?
16:51:53 <lruzicka> yup, ack
16:51:55 <lbrabec> ack
16:51:56 <kalev> ack
16:52:00 <sgallagh> +1 FE and Ack
16:52:01 <frantisekz> ack
16:52:02 <Lailah> ack
16:52:11 <adamw> kalev: hum, didn't i propose that one? i thought i  was going to
16:52:16 <sgallagh> (sorry, was still juggling the authselect issue)
16:52:26 <adamw> it also has security fixes (cansecwest ones), so yeah, we should pull it in
16:52:34 <adamw> does someone want to find a bug and propose it?
16:52:41 <adamw> #agreed 1560209 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - it's obviously desirable to fix multiple security issues in a key package in a release-blocking image (KDE live)
16:53:02 <kalev> adamw: I don't think it's proposed
16:53:09 <Kevin_Kofler> The bug status MODIFIED was misleading, that's a Bodhi glitch when you add a bug ID when the update is already in updates-testing.
16:53:11 <adamw> if someone could do that, that'd be great
16:53:17 <pwhalen> ack
16:53:21 <adamw> we can discuss it at the end of the list
16:53:21 <adamw> #topic (1559531) SELinux preventing gdm from starting
16:53:22 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1559531
16:53:22 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, selinux-policy, POST
16:53:31 <Kevin_Kofler> I manually moved the qt5-qtwebengine bug to ON_QA.
16:53:36 <adamw> +1 for me, it would of course be nice to have working FAW images in the beta.
16:53:42 <kalev> +1
16:53:43 <frantisekz> +1
16:53:44 <lbrabec> +1
16:53:44 <Lailah> +1 from me too
16:54:00 <sgallagh> Ah, only Atomic Workstation. I was wondering why this wasn't a blocker.
16:54:01 <sgallagh> +1
16:54:07 <pwhalen> +1 FE
16:54:12 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1559531 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is preventing Atomic Workstation installs from booting, of course we would like these fixed for the Beta
16:54:15 <lbrabec> ack
16:54:26 <frantisekz> ack
16:54:35 <Lailah> ack
16:54:39 <lruzicka> ack
16:54:40 <kalev> ack
16:54:49 <kparal> ack
16:55:27 <adamw> #agreed 1559531 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is preventing Atomic Workstation installs from booting, of course we would like these fixed for the Beta
16:55:30 <adamw> #topic (1559677) SELinux denials for FreeIPA in Fedora 28
16:55:31 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1559677
16:55:31 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, selinux-policy-targeted, ON_QA
16:55:44 <adamw> none of these seem to prevent the tests actually working, but whatever it is they break, it can't be good. :P
16:56:28 * kalev nods.
16:56:30 <pwhalen> +1 FE
16:56:30 <kalev> +1
16:56:35 <lruzicka> +1 FE
16:56:36 <lbrabec> +1
16:56:38 <frantisekz> +1 FE
16:56:56 <sgallagh> +1 FE, considering they will probably get picked up by some blocker policy update anyway
16:57:40 <adamw> heh
16:58:00 <Kohane> Wow...  what happened there?
16:58:21 <Kohane> I'm Lailah BTW
16:58:25 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1559677 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - it's desirable to avoid SELinux denials to a blocker path function (FreeIPA server), and SELinux policy easing is a very safe activity
16:58:28 <puiterwijk> +1 FE. And I think that the pki denials are related to performance data so not crucial to working. The gssproxy ones surprise me that they don't break stuff
16:58:33 <Kohane> +1 FE
16:58:35 <puiterwijk> ack
16:58:40 <lbrabec> ack
16:58:41 <adamw> Kohane: i didn't see anything happen to your other ID...
16:58:55 <frantisekz> ack
16:58:56 <Kohane> Well, it suddenly changed
16:59:00 <adamw> #agreed 1559677 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - it's desirable to avoid SELinux denials to a blocker path function (FreeIPA server), and SELinux policy easing is a very safe activity
16:59:07 <lruzicka> ack
16:59:08 <Kohane> Oh...
16:59:09 <Kohane> ack
16:59:40 <adamw> #topic (1560504) Don't autostart gnome-software on live media
16:59:40 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1560504
16:59:40 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, spin-kickstarts, NEW
16:59:47 <adamw> much +1 very yes
16:59:58 <sgallagh> So yes. Very +1.
17:00:03 <Kohane> adamw:  I was Lailah, I'm there in the list, but for some reason Hexchat says my nick is already in use so it changed to Kohane. Go ad figure...
17:00:08 <kalev> +1
17:00:11 <puiterwijk> +1
17:00:12 <lbrabec> +1
17:00:14 <Kohane> Oh, yeaah, that one
17:00:15 <satellit> +1
17:00:15 <adamw> Kohane: IRC!
17:00:16 <frantisekz> +1
17:00:16 <Kohane> +1
17:00:29 <sgallagh> Kohane: You got disconnected from IRC and probably rejoined to a different load-balanced server
17:00:38 <lruzicka> +1
17:00:43 <kalev> (OT: I just filed the firefox FE)
17:00:55 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1560504 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this obviously causes unnecessary resource usage (especially RAM and bandwidth) during live boots and cannot be fixed with an update
17:00:56 <mkolman> that's why you sometimes see people with _ or __ behind their names
17:01:04 <Kohane> ack
17:01:05 <lbrabec> such ack
17:01:07 <lruzicka> ack
17:01:08 <kalev> ack
17:01:13 <satellit> ack
17:01:16 <frantisekz> ack
17:01:16 <lruzicka> Kohane: You can switch back to Lailah :)
17:01:17 <Kohane> oh, I see mkolman
17:01:30 <mkolman> the original name should eventually time out in a few minutes
17:01:35 <adamw> #agreed 1560504 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this obviously causes unnecessary resource usage (especially RAM and bandwidth) during live boots and cannot be fixed with an update
17:01:36 <sgallagh> ack
17:01:47 <puiterwijk> Or if you're authed, you can /msg nickserv ghost it
17:01:50 <adamw> #topic (1559629) persistent interface names are wrong for some interfaces
17:01:50 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1559629
17:01:50 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, systemd, NEW
17:01:56 <Kohane> Oh! Nice...  but how do I switch back?
17:02:15 <mkolman> if you are using hexchat, just click on your name on bottom left
17:02:18 <sgallagh> I'd actually raise this as a blocker, because this would break network (and therefore package update capability) for a lot of people.
17:02:31 <lruzicka> Kohane: Use the /nick command to change it
17:02:33 <sgallagh> Kohane: or just type /nick Lailah
17:02:45 <sgallagh> There you go
17:02:47 <Lailah> Yay!
17:02:56 <kalev> +1 FE
17:03:02 <Lailah> +1 FE
17:03:28 <lruzicka> +1 FE
17:03:32 <frantisekz> do we have any case where this actually breaks networking?
17:03:38 <sgallagh> adamw: Do we have any criteria around non-standard networking
17:03:42 <sgallagh> Like Bonds and Bridges?
17:03:50 <sgallagh> Because those would be likely to be broken by a name change
17:03:51 <adamw> not really, no.
17:04:12 <sgallagh> OK, then I guess I'll go with +1 FE for now.
17:04:15 <adamw> frantisekz: probably any case where the interface needs more than just DHCP magic to work properly.
17:04:19 <sgallagh> At least a fix is already incoming
17:04:23 <adamw> yeah, was gonna note that
17:04:31 <pwhalen> +1 FE (at least)
17:04:32 <adamw> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1060232 is the fix
17:04:50 <frantisekz> +1 FE
17:04:53 <lbrabec> +1 fe
17:05:00 <adamw> i could certainly see the blocker argument, but i'm OK with just FE for now, i'll make sure we pull in the fix.
17:05:05 <sgallagh> The blocker question is mainly about "what if the fix is wrong?"
17:05:17 <sgallagh> Or incomplete, etc.
17:05:40 <adamw> yeah, i know.
17:05:52 <adamw> if that's the case, we can revisit
17:05:55 <sgallagh> ack
17:05:57 * kalev agrees.
17:06:19 * Lailah agrees too
17:06:29 <adamw> sgallagh: you can't possibly ack yet. :P
17:06:50 <puiterwijk> adamw: we can acknowledge that we read your message? :)
17:07:32 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1559629 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this could break many network configurations on upgrade, and upgrades use the stable repositories (not updates-testing), so we should get this fixed in stable ASAP
17:07:37 <kalev> ack
17:07:38 <lbrabec> ack
17:07:40 <lruzicka> ack
17:07:40 <Lailah> ack
17:07:54 <frantisekz> ack
17:07:54 <adamw> (and, i guess, even fresh installs with pre-canned kickstarts...)
17:08:05 <adamw> #agreed 1559629 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this could break many network configurations on upgrade, and upgrades use the stable repositories (not updates-testing), so we should get this fixed in stable ASAP
17:08:34 <adamw> zbyszek: we just accepted it :)
17:08:52 <adamw> #topic (1557571) Firefox 59.0.1 available: CVE-2018-5146: Out of bounds memory write in libvorbis
17:08:52 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557571
17:08:52 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, firefox, NEW
17:08:56 <adamw> here's the firefox one
17:09:10 <adamw> +1 for me - basically new firefox with fixes for multiple security issues showed up since freeze, we should pull it in.
17:09:13 <puiterwijk> +1 FE
17:09:18 <frantisekz> +1 FE
17:09:21 <kalev> careful when pull this in as a FE, may need an nss update as well
17:09:21 <lbrabec> +1 fe
17:09:22 <kalev> +1 FE
17:09:33 <kparal> +1 fe
17:09:40 <Lailah> +1 FE
17:09:44 <lruzicka> +1
17:09:46 <puiterwijk> kalev: I think that f28 already had 59.0.0 and there were no other changes
17:09:55 * puiterwijk verifies
17:10:04 <mboddu> +1 FE
17:10:16 <mkolman> adamw: that Anaconda fix: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-34ea87ba41
17:10:20 <sgallagh> +1 FE if firefox is the ONLY package that needs updating.
17:10:23 <kalev> no, F28 had firefox-58.0.2-1.fc28
17:10:29 <sgallagh> If it involves nss/nspr... NO
17:10:34 * adamw checks too
17:10:49 <kalev> 'koji latest-build f28 firefox' to check
17:11:01 <puiterwijk> Yep
17:11:03 <sgallagh> Looks like just Firefox
17:11:04 <sgallagh> OK
17:11:21 <adamw> [adamw@adam anaconda (master %)]$ koji latest-build f28 firefox
17:11:22 <adamw> Build                                     Tag                   Built by
17:11:22 <adamw> ----------------------------------------  --------------------  ----------------
17:11:22 <adamw> firefox-58.0.2-1.fc28                     f28                   xhorak
17:11:47 <adamw> but yeah, there is no nss/nspr build alongside the new firefox...
17:11:59 <puiterwijk> Both 58.0.2 and 59.0 require nss 3.30
17:12:19 * adamw is running firefox-59.0.1-1.fc28 with nss-3.36.0-1.0.fc28.x86_64 and it's working.
17:12:32 <puiterwijk> So no new NSS or NSPR
17:12:58 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1557571 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - it's obviously desirable to fix significant security issues in the default browser for most desktops for Beta. Note we have verified no nss/nspr update is required here.
17:13:03 <kalev> adamw: thanks for checking
17:13:07 <sgallagh> Wait, 3.30 or 3.36?
17:13:07 <kalev> ack
17:13:09 <lbrabec> ack
17:13:10 <Lailah> ack
17:13:12 <frantisekz> ack
17:13:14 <adamw> mkolman: thanks!
17:13:21 <puiterwijk> sgallagh: they require 3.30's API
17:13:26 <mboddu> ack
17:13:28 <Lailah> sgallagh: I understand is 3.30
17:13:29 <puiterwijk> I'm just looking at the deps
17:13:46 <sgallagh> well, hang on
17:13:47 <lruzicka> ack
17:13:53 <sgallagh> Because 3.36 isn't in stable
17:13:54 <adamw> i have 3.36.0-1.0...
17:14:08 <adamw> stable tagged is nss-3.35.0-4.fc28
17:14:09 <kalev> ah right, nss-3.35.0-4.fc28 is in F28
17:14:21 <adamw> hold on, i have robots for this.
17:14:31 <sgallagh> beep bloop
17:14:48 <Lailah> xD
17:15:20 <adamw> https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/overview?distri=fedora&version=28&build=Update-FEDORA-2018-3de9cb411f&groupid=2
17:15:24 <adamw> that all worked fine.
17:15:37 <adamw> that would've tested current f28 stable packages, plus the updated firefox.
17:15:41 <adamw> browser worked, freeipa tests worked.
17:15:52 <sgallagh> ok
17:16:07 <sgallagh> (Forgive me for being paranoid, but NSS has... a history)
17:16:25 <adamw> yeah, no, i quite agree
17:16:28 <Lailah> yeah, that's understandable
17:16:35 <kalev> yeah, that's why I flagged nss up as well :)
17:16:51 <Lailah> Better safe than sorry sgallagh
17:17:16 * adamw will double-triple check this before pushing.
17:17:22 <adamw> but still
17:17:22 <sgallagh> adamw: Thanks
17:17:26 <adamw> #agreed 1557571 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - it's obviously desirable to fix significant security issues in the default browser for most desktops for Beta. Note we have verified no nss/nspr update is required here.
17:18:23 <adamw> #info Accepted Beta blockers
17:18:35 <adamw> #info all accepted Beta blockers are ON_QA or VERIFIED except one:
17:18:40 <adamw> #topic (1558641) cloud-init creates bogus metadata route preventing metadata setup
17:18:41 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558641
17:18:41 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, cloud-init, NEW
17:18:51 <adamw> bureaucracy note, we are *not* voting on whether this is a blocker
17:18:54 <adamw> it already si
17:19:00 <adamw> we are checking in on progress in fixing it
17:19:01 <sgallagh> +1 blocker ;-)
17:19:03 <adamw> so...what's the score?
17:19:07 <adamw> .fire sgallagh
17:19:07 <zodbot> adamw fires sgallagh
17:19:16 <sgallagh> Woohoo! Vacation!
17:19:21 <puiterwijk> I think the fix for that was clear, as it's part of the cloud-init template.
17:19:28 <adamw> .hire sgallagh at reduced salary
17:19:28 <zodbot> adamw hires sgallagh at reduced salary
17:19:39 <gholms> Heh
17:19:41 <puiterwijk> It just needs to be applied... If the maintainer doesn't do that today, I can look at that
17:19:42 <Lailah> LOL
17:19:46 <puiterwijk> Ah, he's here
17:20:00 <Lailah> Who? Who's here?
17:20:12 <puiterwijk> gholms: is the maintainer of cloud-init if I don't misremember
17:20:13 <gholms> I am swamped with work at $dayjob, so if anyone wants to apply a fix just do it.
17:20:18 <gholms> Sorry.  :(
17:20:20 <puiterwijk> Okay, will do so today then
17:20:23 <adamw> thanks for the heads up
17:20:24 <gholms> Thanks
17:20:35 <adamw> #info fix for this is clear and just needs to be applied, gholms is busy so puiterwijk will do it
17:20:46 <adamw> #action puiterwijk to fix #1558641
17:20:53 <sgallagh> adamw: So with that... sounds like an RC candidate today?
17:21:03 <adamw> sgallagh: once i line up all these ducks, yeah.
17:21:12 <sgallagh> Careful, some of them bite
17:21:29 <mboddu> Yay, RC
17:21:50 <adamw> Fedora 29: Bitin' Ducks
17:21:55 <Lailah> How can a duck bite if it has no teeth?
17:22:05 <adamw> sharp gums
17:22:09 <puiterwijk> Lailah: you should try it out. It can hurt :)
17:22:11 <Lailah> Ah
17:22:12 <adamw> ok, let's do final blockers quick
17:22:14 <puiterwijk> (or so I've been told)
17:22:17 <lruzicka> Lailah: Have you hear about teethless bite?
17:22:25 <Lailah> Nope.
17:22:27 <adamw> #info moving on to proposed Final blockers
17:22:45 <adamw> #topic (1558027) The network.service failed LSB in Fedora Cloud.
17:22:45 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558027
17:22:45 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, distribution, ON_QA
17:23:51 <zbyszek> Sorry, I moved that bug to MODIFIED by mistake. Fixed now.
17:24:08 <Lailah> Uh...
17:24:12 <coremodule> hmmm
17:24:18 <Lailah> Internet is so slow today...
17:24:45 <zbyszek> FWIW, https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/systemd-238-5.fc28 will fix that one too.
17:24:57 <sgallagh> is the cloud base image a blocking medium?
17:25:26 <sgallagh> Ah, it is.
17:25:40 <coremodule> I tested for this earlier in the week on EC2 and did not see this as an issue...
17:26:33 <lruzicka> coremodule: Were you able to reproduce it?
17:26:35 <puiterwijk> I did see it on my EC2 and openstack tests
17:27:16 <adamw> we actually fixed this in kickstarts, i believe.
17:27:33 <Lailah> Just FYI: I have no opinion about this one, I don't understand much about Cloud...
17:27:42 <adamw> https://pagure.io/fedora-kickstarts/c/9a25016bacaf0e9a00fa72a3c93f19632646f1ba?branch=f28
17:27:45 <puiterwijk> Yeah, I think we did.
17:27:47 <puiterwijk> rm -f /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-en*
17:27:56 <adamw> that's why i put the bug in ON_QA.
17:28:05 <adamw> of course, merging the systemd fix for the predictable names would also 'fix' this.
17:28:06 <puiterwijk> Yeah, what adamw said
17:28:18 <adamw> still, for now the bug is open. i forget, is there a case where this actually breaks networking?
17:28:57 <lruzicka> For me, when I discovered this error, networking was still operating.
17:29:11 <adamw> i think it was openstack where it can break, right?
17:29:14 <puiterwijk> I don't think so
17:29:21 <puiterwijk> adamw: no, the breakage was the cloud-init routing
17:29:41 <adamw> oh, right. and we have a criterion saying cloud-init has to work
17:29:47 <puiterwijk> The failed network.service was not actually breakin anything, since cloud-init will configure the correct interface
17:29:58 <puiterwijk> Yes, the cloud-init routing bug is what I'm fixing now
17:30:30 <puiterwijk> (previous topic)
17:31:16 <adamw> i guess +1, fine.
17:33:38 <puiterwijk> I'm +1 based on "no failed services"
17:33:46 <kalev> +1
17:33:52 <Lailah> +1
17:34:05 <lruzicka> so, if it does not break anything, a blocker anyway?
17:34:21 <puiterwijk> lruzicka: yeah, I think "no failed services with default package set" is a release criteria
17:34:24 <puiterwijk> And this fails that criteria
17:34:43 <puiterwijk> criterion?
17:34:45 <lruzicka> ok, I know it was a part of criteria. Thats why I proposed
17:34:49 <lruzicka> :)
17:34:52 <lruzicka> +1 B
17:34:59 <frantisekz> +1
17:35:00 <lbrabec> +1
17:36:26 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1558027 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - accepted as a violation of "All system services present after installation with one of the release-blocking package sets must start properly, unless they require hardware which is not present", for the Cloud base image (which is release-blocking)
17:36:44 <puiterwijk> ack
17:37:07 <lruzicka> ack
17:37:09 <kalev> ack
17:37:19 <Lailah> ack
17:38:14 <adamw> #agreed 1558027 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - accepted as a violation of "All system services present after installation with one of the release-blocking package sets must start properly, unless they require hardware which is not present", for the Cloud base image (which is release-blocking)
17:38:23 <adamw> #topic (1164492) Please drop libvirt 'default' network dependency for F28 GA (also Beta?), disrupts livecd networking
17:38:24 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164492
17:38:24 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-boxes, ASSIGNED
17:38:39 <adamw> this is the one we just reviewed as FE for Beta, i'm also +1 final blocker for it (we usually block final on this)
17:38:46 <kparal> +1 final blocker
17:38:48 <kalev> +1 final blocker
17:39:03 <Lailah> +1 Final Blocker
17:39:07 <lruzicka> +1 FB
17:39:41 <pwhalen> +1
17:40:06 <frantisekz> +1
17:41:10 <lbrabec> +1
17:42:12 <adamw> sorry, just finding criterion
17:42:39 <mboddu> +1 Final Blocker
17:43:50 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1164492 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - once again accepted as a Final blocker as a violation of all criteria related to networking, in the case of libvirt guests booting/installing from the Workstation live image
17:44:42 <kalev> ack
17:44:44 <frantisekz> ack
17:44:54 <pwhalen> ack
17:45:02 <Lailah> ack
17:45:04 <lruzicka> ack
17:45:05 <lbrabec> ack
17:45:20 <adamw> #agreed 1164492 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - once again accepted as a Final blocker as a violation of all criteria related to networking, in the case of libvirt guests booting/installing from the Workstation live image
17:45:30 <adamw> #topic (1555292) Fedora Workstation Live can't resume after suspend when booted from DVD connected via an external drive
17:45:31 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1555292
17:45:31 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, kernel, NEW
17:46:46 <kalev> I haven't followed the auto suspend mailing list thread at all. Is the current plan to keep auto suspending for F28?
17:47:26 <adamw> i think last time this came up we agreed we were going to try and reanimate that discussion
17:47:30 <adamw> and also ping the list for more testing
17:47:34 <adamw> not sure we did either of those yet
17:47:35 <adamw> kparal?
17:48:01 <kparal> I didn't
17:48:18 <kparal> perhaps we should've assigned an action item
17:48:27 <kparal> last time I got the impression you want to do it, adamw ;-)
17:48:54 <adamw> oh, i thought you were going to do it :)
17:48:59 <kparal> I believe frantisekz is the volunteer here
17:49:04 <adamw> i'm usually sloppy with the action items in these meetings as there's no process to actually *check* on them
17:49:08 <adamw> (unlike the qa meeting ones)
17:49:11 * Lailah chuckles
17:49:20 <kparal> he's the most passionate suspend hater in our team
17:49:25 <adamw> frantisekz: congratulations for volunteering
17:49:51 <kparal> (adamw: give him an action item)
17:49:54 <frantisekz> thanks ... /me checking what I am volunteering for
17:50:05 <adamw> =)
17:50:10 <adamw> so
17:50:45 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1555292 - punt (delay decision) - status is still as it was in go/no-go meeting, we wish to gather more testing data and also restart the discussion on whether auto-suspend should be disabled on lives before making a decision here
17:51:00 <kparal> ack
17:51:03 <lruzicka> ack
17:51:05 <Lailah> ack
17:51:17 <pwhalen> ack
17:51:19 <frantisekz> ack
17:51:25 <kalev> ack
17:51:27 <adamw> #action frantisekz or kparal or adamw (in that order) to post call for testing of suspend from live environment on test@ and restart desktop@ discussion about whether auto-suspend should be disabled by default on lives
17:51:32 <adamw> there we go =)
17:51:37 <adamw> #agreed 1555292 - punt (delay decision) - status is still as it was in go/no-go meeting, we wish to gather more testing data and also restart the discussion on whether auto-suspend should be disabled on lives before making a decision here
17:51:43 <adamw> #topic (1556132) ppp: FTBFS in F28; DES code needs to be ported to OpenSSL
17:51:44 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556132
17:51:44 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, ppp, NEW
17:51:55 <kparal> iow, if it doesn't happen, it's adamw's fault, because he was the last link
17:52:00 <adamw> .fire kparal
17:52:00 <zodbot> adamw fires kparal
17:52:09 <Lailah> Again?
17:52:15 <adamw> a mail i just read suggests that FESCo has actually *declared* this to be a final blocker
17:52:22 <kparal> adamw: you can't escape logic!
17:52:23 <adamw> Lailah: if he doesn't get fired at least three times a day he gets slack
17:52:33 <Lailah> Oh, okay
17:52:34 * adamw runs a tight ship
17:52:50 <zbyszek> msekleta said that he couldn't wait any more, and asked me to convey that:
17:53:03 <zbyszek> "I talked to Jaroslav and he is working on the port to openssl
17:53:15 <adamw> #info per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556132#c1 FESCo has actually declared this to be a blocker, meaning we have nothing to vote on here, it just goes straight to AcceptedBlocker
17:53:26 <zbyszek> "over the weekend I tested pppd as pppoe backend (common case in xDSL setups) and current build that is in f28 now seems to work fine against libxcrypt"
17:53:32 <puiterwijk> Yeah, there's a comment from about an hour ago where Jaroslav said he hopes to get it tomorrow
17:53:43 <lruzicka> ack
17:54:08 <adamw> zbyszek: ah, that's good news.
17:54:28 <adamw> #topic (1559341) SELinux blocks bluetooth from working
17:54:28 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1559341
17:54:28 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy, ON_QA
17:54:34 <adamw> we just took this as a Beta FE
17:54:44 <adamw> so probably not worth wasting too much time arguing if it's a final blocker...
17:54:48 <adamw> but we can waste a few minutes! why not.
17:55:08 <Lailah> Why SELinux is blocking Bluetooth?
17:55:17 <Lailah> My internet is faulty, sorry
17:57:38 <adamw> it wasn't *supposed* to.
17:57:48 <adamw> this sort of thing just happens quite often when general tightenings are made to selinux policy
17:57:54 <kparal> punt and it will go away
17:58:06 <adamw> they turn out to block things we don't want them to block, so we have to loosen the policy again for those things
17:58:09 <adamw> it's an eternal process
17:58:34 <Lailah> Doh..
17:58:49 <kalev> let's punt and revisit if this doesn't get fixed with the beta FE
17:58:54 <Lailah> Okay, thanks for the explanation
17:59:00 <Lailah> Let's punt then
17:59:05 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1559341 - punt (delay decision) - it's not really clear whether this should be considered a blocker or not, so instead of arguing about it, we're just going to punt so it magically goes away because the fix is already accepted as a Beta FE
17:59:13 <kalev> ack
17:59:18 <adamw> woohoo, due process!
17:59:50 <kparal> ack
17:59:56 <mboddu> ack
17:59:57 <frantisekz> ack
18:00:12 <lruzicka> ack
18:00:19 <pwhalen> ack
18:00:45 <adamw> #agreed 1559341 - punt (delay decision) - it's not really clear whether this should be considered a blocker or not, so instead of arguing about it, we're just going to punt so it magically goes away because the fix is already accepted as a Beta FE
18:00:52 <adamw> alright, last one
18:00:52 <adamw> #topic (1557655) Failed to start udev Wait for Complete Device Initialization
18:00:52 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557655
18:00:53 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, systemd, NEW
18:01:11 <kalev> my time is up, have to go now
18:01:14 * kalev waves.
18:01:30 <adamw> cya kalev, thanks
18:01:34 <adamw> looks like fcoe install fail, basically
18:02:12 <adamw> note for folks who aren't aware, 'beaker' is a test system used internally at rh which helps with access to unusual hardware like this
18:02:26 <Lailah> Oh
18:02:31 <Lailah> Yes, thanks
18:02:32 <adamw> lili is testing this on rh's beaker system so she has access to an fcoe configuration
18:02:35 <Lailah> I didn't know
18:02:36 <puiterwijk> adamw: so basically openqa with hardware nobody has anymore?
18:03:24 <adamw> puiterwijk: more or less, i guess? it's sorta between jenkins and openqa but kinda older than both :P it's a system for managing access to hardware resources and scheduling tasks on them, i guess you could call it.
18:03:58 <adamw> (well, jenkins is really old, but rh has been using beaker way longer than it's been using jenkins)
18:04:10 <puiterwijk> adamw: yeah, I've played with it once... Never managed to figure it out
18:05:07 <mkolman> in many cases you just use beaker to reserve a machine, so you can test/debug stuff manually
18:05:09 <adamw> anyway, all that really matters for this bug is it's just a way we could get access to fcoe hardware (which none of us has otherwise)
18:05:15 <adamw> right, you can just do that
18:05:21 <kparal> so, either a blocker or we need to reproduce on a different system/by someone else to be sure this is a generic error
18:05:30 <mkolman> that's quite different from how Jenkins is used generally
18:05:43 <adamw> given the difficulty of access to fcoe hardware i'm fine with accepting this as a blocker so long as it's reproducible by lili on demand, which it seems to be
18:06:00 <kparal> since the latter is hard to do, probably +1 blocker and re-evaluate if this seems to be not directly related to the criteria
18:06:18 <adamw> yeah, if new information emerges later that would suggest a revote, we can always revote.
18:06:20 <adamw> for now i'm +1.
18:06:33 <zbyszek> I don't think this can be debugged just with the information that is available now in the bug.
18:06:47 <adamw> zbyszek: lili should be able to get the additional info now you asked for it
18:06:53 <lruzicka> I think so, too, there is a risk that it will not be fixed in time.
18:07:24 <adamw> note, criteria do explicitly cover fcoe
18:07:30 <adamw> "The installer must be able to detect (if possible) and install to supported network-attached storage devices...
18:07:30 <adamw> Supported network-attached storage types include iSCSI, Fibre Channel and Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE)"
18:07:51 <lruzicka> ok, will remember that now :)
18:07:52 <pwhalen> +1
18:08:13 <lruzicka> in that case, +1
18:09:08 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1557655 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a blocker as a violation of Final criterion "The installer must be able to detect (if possible) and install to supported network-attached storage devices...Supported network-attached storage types include iSCSI, Fibre Channel and Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE)"
18:09:13 <mboddu> ack
18:09:18 <lruzicka> ack
18:10:40 <pwhalen> ack
18:10:44 <adamw> #agreed 1557655 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a blocker as a violation of Final criterion "The installer must be able to detect (if possible) and install to supported network-attached storage devices...Supported network-attached storage types include iSCSI, Fibre Channel and Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE)"
18:14:54 <adamw> alrighty
18:14:56 <adamw> that's all the bugs
18:14:58 <adamw> #topic Open floor
18:15:10 <adamw> do we have any other f28-related issues to kick around at this point? missed bugs, etc?
18:15:19 <adamw> bear in mind we'll likely try and do an RC today
18:15:21 * kparal has nothing
18:15:56 <lruzicka> the RC will be a suject to test, right?
18:16:08 <lruzicka> s/suject/subject
18:17:16 <adamw> yeah
18:17:36 <adamw> validation events are created for *all* successful candidate composes, unconditionally (if that's what you were asking)
18:18:01 <lruzicka> yeah, I think so
18:18:04 <lruzicka> :)
18:18:44 <mboddu> adamw: So, only thing that is remaining for a RC is that cloud-init bug, right?
18:20:06 <adamw> i think so, yeah.
18:20:12 <adamw> but i'd actually like to do a stable push first.
18:20:18 <adamw> again, once some ducks are lined up.
18:20:33 <mboddu> adamw: Okay and sure, +1 for stable push
18:20:58 <adamw> coremodule: can you get the secretarialization done asap? i need it for the stable push and compose request
18:23:07 <coremodule> adamw, sure!
18:23:09 <coremodule> no problem
18:23:57 * kparal needs to go. bye
18:24:07 <lruzicka> bye, kparal
18:26:29 <lruzicka> Do we have anything more to talk about?
18:26:32 * lruzicka does not
18:34:13 <coremodule> adamw, could you close the meeting so the meeting notes will be published?
18:34:19 <adamw> coremodule: sorry, yes
18:34:22 * adamw multitasking
18:34:25 <adamw> thanks for coming, everyone
18:34:27 <adamw> #endmeeting