17:02:20 <adamw> #startmeeting F32-blocker-review
17:02:20 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Feb 17 17:02:20 2020 UTC.
17:02:20 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
17:02:20 <zodbot> The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:02:20 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:02:20 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f32-blocker-review'
17:02:20 <adamw> #meetingname F32-blocker-review
17:02:20 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
17:02:20 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f32-blocker-review'
17:02:23 <bcotton_> .hello2
17:02:24 <zodbot> bcotton_: Sorry, but you don't exist
17:02:29 <coremodule> .hello2
17:02:30 <zodbot> coremodule: coremodule 'Geoffrey Marr' <gmarr@redhat.com>
17:02:33 <bcotton> .hello2
17:02:34 <zodbot> bcotton: bcotton 'Ben Cotton' <bcotton@redhat.com>
17:02:36 <bcotton> now i exist!
17:03:06 <adamw> existence is overrated!
17:04:39 <cmurf> zodbot should have some stinky mammal jokes in its repertoire
17:05:07 * kparal is here
17:10:14 <adamw> okey sokey
17:10:15 <adamw> dokey, even
17:10:17 <adamw> let's get rolling
17:10:37 <adamw> #chair bcotton coremodule
17:10:37 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw bcotton coremodule
17:10:42 <adamw> #topic Introduction
17:10:42 <adamw> Why are we here?
17:10:42 <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.
17:10:42 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
17:10:42 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
17:10:43 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
17:10:45 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
17:10:47 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
17:10:49 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
17:10:51 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Beta_Release_Criteria
17:10:53 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Final_Release_Criteria
17:11:26 <adamw> #info For Beta, we have:
17:11:30 <adamw> #info 2 Proposed Blockers
17:11:30 <adamw> #info 4 Accepted Blockers
17:11:34 <adamw> #info 1 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
17:11:34 <adamw> #info 1 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
17:11:38 <adamw> #info for Final, we have:
17:11:54 <adamw> #info 1 Proposed Blockers
17:11:54 <adamw> #info 4 Accepted Blockers
17:11:58 <adamw> who will secretarialize?>
17:12:08 <coremodule> I'll do it
17:14:15 <adamw> thanks
17:14:18 <adamw> #info coremodule will secretarialize
17:14:33 <adamw> #info Proposed Beta blockers
17:14:34 <adamw> #topic (1801820) [abrt] gnome-shell: js::gc::TenuredCell::writeBarrierPre(js::gc::TenuredCell*)(): gnome-shell killed by SIGSEGV
17:14:34 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801820
17:14:34 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, NEW
17:15:07 <cmurf> seems like it could be a problem, when does it happen?
17:15:21 <coremodule> I am disinclined to vote on this either way without more testing...
17:15:35 <cmurf> randomly, that's nifty
17:16:02 <bcotton> yeah, i'd like to see some more reliable reproducibility
17:16:10 <coremodule> It also needs an actual criterion to violate.
17:16:31 <kparal> coremodule: that shouldn't be hard
17:16:44 <bcotton> it is fixed upstream, though
17:16:50 <kparal> but yes, I think we need more testers to reproduce this before accepting it as a blocker
17:16:55 <bcotton> https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gjs/merge_requests/391
17:17:00 <coremodule> yes, but as is, it's not a blocker, as there is no official criteria listed
17:17:36 <kparal> bcotton: that's the the suspected root cause
17:18:05 <kparal> coremodule: the reporter doesn't need to supply the criterion. that's our job
17:18:25 <coremodule> Eh
17:18:30 <coremodule> I disagree
17:18:32 <kparal> bcotton: this is the upstream bug: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/issues/2206
17:18:35 <bcotton> i'd argue for "No part of any release-blocking desktop's panel (or equivalent) configuration may crash on startup or be entirely non-functional. "
17:18:44 <coremodule> ^^
17:19:25 <bcotton> i'm 0 on blocker right now (prefer to punt for more testing), but i'd be +1 to an FE for it
17:19:50 <kparal> I think discussing the criterion now is premature, -1 or punt until we have more people complaining about this
17:20:16 <adamw> i mean
17:20:18 <adamw> it's a Shell crash
17:20:20 <adamw> we have been here before
17:20:32 <adamw> any Shell crash *can* be a blocker under various criteria, notably the 'data loss' one
17:20:37 <adamw> it's kind of a question of how common it is
17:20:57 <kparal> I'd go with punt
17:21:34 <adamw> how about FE at least? freeze should be realtively soon i think?
17:21:46 <bcotton> freeze is 25 Feb (a week from tomorrow)
17:22:13 <adamw> right
17:22:20 <bcotton> +1FE and we can defer blocker decision until next week (post the Gnome test day, btw)
17:22:24 <adamw> i'm probably at least +1 FE for a shell crasher
17:22:36 <cmurf> +1 FE
17:22:49 <kparal> +1 FE
17:22:58 <adamw> i have seen my Shell just randomly crash at least once recently, so can believe this is a general issue
17:23:04 <adamw> (i didn't see yet if it's the same as this bug)
17:23:13 <coremodule> +1FE, punt for blocker status
17:24:12 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1801820 - punt (delay decision) on blocker, AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is potentially a blocker, but we can't make a definite determination yet as there is insufficient information on how common the issue is. However, as a Shell crash under active investigation upstream we're at least willing to grant it freeze exception status, it's definitely a good idea to fix these for the live image if possible
17:24:25 <bcotton> ack
17:24:33 <cmurf> ack
17:24:41 <coremodule> ack
17:25:00 <kparal> ack
17:25:07 <adamw> #agreed 1801820 - punt (delay decision) on blocker, AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is potentially a blocker, but we can't make a definite determination yet as there is insufficient information on how common the issue is. However, as a Shell crash under active investigation upstream we're at least willing to grant it freeze exception status, it's definitely a good idea to fix these for the live image if possible
17:25:19 <adamw> #topic (1801272) systemd-vconsole-setup having problem to start in the installation environment
17:25:20 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801272
17:25:20 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, kbd, NEW
17:25:26 <adamw> this one also seems a bit uncertain at present
17:25:31 <adamw> i haven't yet tried to reproduce it here
17:26:15 <kparal> I've seen more complains about plymouth
17:26:21 <cmurf> yes
17:26:29 <adamw> it does seem like the text install tests in openqa are failing
17:26:32 <adamw> which might be the same issue
17:26:36 <kparal> "booting .iso image from fedoraproject.org" on test list
17:26:39 <adamw> i didn't propose the plymouth one as a blocker yet, but maybe i should
17:26:47 <cmurf> yes
17:27:08 <cmurf> pretty sure it'd cause problems for Server
17:27:58 <cmurf> well maybe i'm wrong...
17:27:58 <coremodule> saw an issue on boot of an iso this morning that referenced systemd-vconsole-setup
17:28:09 <cmurf> "A system installed without a graphical package set must boot to a state where it is possible to log in through at least one of the default virtual consoles"
17:28:26 <cmurf> i guess you can switch to tty2 and still get in
17:29:25 <kparal> cmurf: that's for the installed system. The bug report is about the installer environment
17:29:33 <kparal> or am I mistaken?
17:29:37 <cmurf> probably both
17:29:58 <cmurf> the installer criterion is probably the better one to use esp if it's causing installer problems
17:30:31 <adamw> this bug is about the installer environment.
17:30:46 <adamw> i don't think it's an issue on installed systems. if you turn off plymouth, you can log into a tty no problem, in my experience.
17:30:57 <adamw> that criterion is arguably the appropriate one for the plymouth bug.
17:31:04 <adamw> (OK, I'll propose the plymouth bug now)
17:32:12 <coremodule> trying to reproduce this atm, will report in-bug
17:34:30 <adamw> i'm gonna say punt on this one for now
17:34:42 <adamw> but if it is confirmed to break text installs, +1
17:35:20 <kparal> punt is fine
17:35:27 <coremodule> +1 punt
17:35:28 <bcotton> +1 punt
17:36:25 <cmurf> i definitely can't login via tty1 on Workstation unless I first kill -9 plymouth
17:36:58 <cmurf> that's on an installed system
17:37:19 <adamw> cmurf: that's still not this bug. :P
17:37:22 <cmurf> OK
17:37:48 <adamw> sorry i mentioned the plymouth stuff in the discussion of this bug, but that's why i separated it out in the end, i don't think they're the same
17:38:31 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1801272 - punt (delay decision) - if this is indeed preventing text installs from working it will definitely be a blocker, but we're just not 100% sure of that at this time, so we are punting so a few people can try it and confirm whether that's the case
17:38:56 <bcotton> ack
17:38:57 <cmurf> ack
17:39:06 <coremodule> ack
17:39:13 <adamw> #agreed 1801272 - punt (delay decision) - if this is indeed preventing text installs from working it will definitely be a blocker, but we're just not 100% sure of that at this time, so we are punting so a few people can try it and confirm whether that's the case
17:39:35 <cmurf> if the plymouth bug affects Server, seems like this beta criterion applies "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. "
17:39:45 <cmurf> post-install
17:43:33 <adamw> i just wrote that in the bug.
17:43:41 <adamw> but first
17:43:46 <adamw> #topic Accepted Beta blockers
17:43:51 <adamw> let's take a quick look at a couple of these
17:44:22 <adamw> #topic (1795000) gnome-session is crashing, desktop intermittently is never reached
17:44:22 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795000
17:44:22 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, gnome-session, NEW
17:44:40 <adamw> so we've had this on the list for a while, but now the other bugs that were getting in the way are resolved, i'm not sure this is still valid
17:44:56 <adamw> it could possibly be the same thing as the 1801820 crash, i guess?
17:45:30 <cmurf> i forget if this is selinux or glib2 related
17:46:00 <cmurf> in any case I haven't updated since branch so I'm not sure whether it's fixed
17:51:59 <adamw> it is not the glib/selinux bug
17:52:05 <adamw> that is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795524
17:52:21 <adamw> #info 1795000 - we are not sure whether this is still a current concern, we will ask for feedback in the bug report
17:52:29 <adamw> #topic (1795524) Fedora 32 Rawhide won't boot until set to "permissive"
17:52:29 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795524
17:52:29 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, selinux-policy, ASSIGNED
17:52:54 <adamw> so, this is still open because there is still an issue to resolve between selinux and glib/desktop folks, but its blockeriness has (I believe) gone away
17:53:00 <adamw> so i suggest we keep it open but drop the blocker metadata
17:53:31 <coremodule> seeing something similar to this
17:53:41 <coremodule> .bug 1623930
17:53:42 <zodbot> coremodule: 1623930 – file conflicts between glibc-2.28-9.fc29.i686 and glibc32-2.20-7.3.fc29.8.x86_64 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1623930
17:53:55 <coremodule> wondering if this is potentially related?
17:56:10 <adamw> er
17:56:15 <adamw> glib and glibc are entirely dfifferent things
17:56:23 <adamw> and this bug has nothing to do with file conflicts
17:57:14 <adamw> #info the blockeriness of this bug has been resolved by upstream fixing the glib fallback path (and that changing being brought downstream). there is still an issue here (desktop team would prefer the SELinux policy doesn't force us down the fallback path at all) so the bug cannot be closed, but we will remove the blocker metadata
17:57:19 <adamw> OK, moving on
17:57:29 <adamw> #topic Proposed Final blockers
17:59:44 <adamw> #topic (1802169) tracker crashes with GLib-ERROR: Failed to set scheduler settings
17:59:44 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1802169
17:59:44 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, tracker, NEW
18:00:38 <cmurf> seems like a clear +1 blocker
18:01:59 <kparal> I'd like to see at least one more person hitting it
18:03:16 <cmurf> I've hit it as described
18:03:31 <bcotton> +1 blocker
18:03:32 <cmurf> including the gnome-shell notification
18:03:44 <kparal> ok, +1 then
18:05:23 <coremodule> +1 blocker
18:08:56 <adamw> +1
18:10:53 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1802169 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - accepted as a violation of "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"
18:11:05 <coremodule> ack
18:11:09 <kparal> ack
18:11:35 <bcotton> ack
18:15:53 <adamw> #agreed 1802169 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - accepted as a violation of "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"
18:19:01 <kparal> confess yourselves, who's stealing adamw's cpu time?
18:19:07 <adamw> sorry, it's me
18:19:12 <adamw> i am multitasking excessively
18:19:21 <adamw> i think we're done?
18:19:31 <adamw> #topic Open floor
18:19:36 <adamw> did I miss anything?
18:19:39 <adamw> oh, did we do the plymouth bug?
18:19:57 <adamw> no. sigh
18:20:02 <adamw> #topic Proposed Beta blockers, redux
18:20:06 <adamw> #info we have one more!
18:20:14 <adamw> #topic (1803293) Plymouth runs again after it should have quit (bootsplash appears over tty)
18:20:14 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803293
18:20:14 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, systemd, NEW
18:20:20 <adamw> +1 blocker, obvs
18:20:30 <kparal> +1
18:21:14 <coremodule> +1 blocker
18:21:59 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1803293 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - accepted as a blocker per "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."
18:22:05 <cmurf> ack
18:22:18 <coremodule> ack
18:23:46 <adamw> good enough!
18:23:48 <adamw> #agreed 1803293 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - accepted as a blocker per "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."
18:23:53 <adamw> #topic Open floor
18:23:55 <adamw> OK, one more call
18:24:29 <cmurf> what's the status of async blocker review process?
18:25:23 <kparal> cmurf: we're blocked on pagure. we need its latest version to get deployed first
18:25:33 <cmurf> ahh
18:26:00 <kparal> the code should be ready. whether we manage to deploy it in communishift, that's another question
18:26:25 <adamw> but the cloud makes everything better!
18:26:30 <adamw> are you sure it's hybrid enough?
18:26:47 <adamw> that might be your problem
18:26:50 <cmurf> i offer my raspberry pi zero for it if that helps
18:26:50 <adamw> hybrid it harder
18:26:53 <cmurf> cloud + hybrid
18:27:05 <kparal> I'll forward the offer to frantisekz
18:27:08 <cmurf> haha
18:28:31 <adamw> #info async blocker process is waiting on a newer pagure to be deployed to Ze Cloud
18:29:57 <adamw> okey dokey
18:30:00 <adamw> thanks for coming, everyone
18:30:11 <kparal> thanks
18:30:17 <cmurf> thanks
18:30:35 <coremodule> thanks for hosting
18:32:53 <adamw> #endmeeting