17:00:08 <coremodule> #startmeeting F32-blocker-review 17:00:08 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Feb 24 17:00:08 2020 UTC. 17:00:08 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 17:00:08 <zodbot> The chair is coremodule. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:08 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:08 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f32-blocker-review' 17:00:08 <coremodule> #meetingname F32-blocker-review 17:00:08 <coremodule> #topic Roll Call 17:00:08 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f32-blocker-review' 17:00:48 <coremodule> good day everyone! who's around to help sort out these bugs? 17:01:06 * pwhalen is here for some blocker fun 17:02:17 <frantisekz> .hello2 17:02:18 <zodbot> frantisekz: frantisekz 'František Zatloukal' <fzatlouk@redhat.com> 17:02:46 <cmurf> .chrismurphy 17:02:48 <cmurf> oops 17:02:53 <cmurf> .hello chrismurphy 17:02:54 <zodbot> cmurf: chrismurphy 'Chris Murphy' <bugzilla@colorremedies.com> 17:03:57 <lruzicka> .hello2 17:03:57 <zodbot> lruzicka: lruzicka 'Lukáš Růžička' <lruzicka@redhat.com> 17:04:55 <coremodule> #chair lruzicka cmurf 17:04:55 <zodbot> Current chairs: cmurf coremodule lruzicka 17:05:04 <coremodule> #topic Introduction 17:05:04 <coremodule> Why are we here? 17:05:04 <coremodule> #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. 17:05:04 <coremodule> #info We'll be following the process outlined at: 17:05:04 <coremodule> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting 17:05:05 <coremodule> #info The bugs up for review today are available at: 17:05:07 <coremodule> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current 17:05:11 <coremodule> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: 17:05:13 <coremodule> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria 17:05:15 <coremodule> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Beta_Release_Criteria 17:05:17 <coremodule> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Final_Release_Criteria 17:05:28 <coremodule> who's willing to act as bug secretary?? 17:05:57 <frantisekz> I can handle that 17:06:02 <coremodule> woot! 17:06:10 <coremodule> #info frantisekz to act as secretary 17:06:14 <coremodule> alright, we have: 17:06:15 <coremodule> #info 6 Proposed Blockers 17:06:15 <coremodule> #info 3 Accepted Blockers 17:06:15 <coremodule> #info 0 Accepted 0-day Blockers 17:06:15 <coremodule> #info 0 Accepted Previous Release Blockers 17:06:16 <coremodule> #info 1 Proposed Freeze Exceptions 17:06:17 <coremodule> #info 2 Accepted Freeze Exceptions 17:08:11 <coremodule> alright, lets start with these proposed Final blockers 17:08:17 <coremodule> #topic (1806103) dasbus.error.DBusError: Failed to set new efi boot target. This is most likely a kernel or firmware bug. 17:08:18 <coremodule> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806103 17:08:18 <coremodule> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW 17:08:42 <coremodule> whoops, beta blockers 17:09:52 <coremodule> cmurf, can you clarify that criterion you listed in comment 14? it doesn't seem complete 17:09:56 <cmurf> so this is perhaps an academic question, whether it's a dup or if the installer should handle error conditions 17:10:32 <cmurf> oh yeah, bad paste there 17:10:42 <cmurf> but it's from the beta criterion 17:12:11 <cmurf> haha it's not a bad paste, it's the 2nd bullet under guided partitioning 17:12:38 <coremodule> what wouldn't this allow you to select? 17:13:04 <coremodule> this failure happened on install without user interaction? 17:13:36 <coremodule> it's fixed apparently, but let's still get a vote 17:13:49 <cmurf> well the original logic is that it's not completing an installation, but that really applies to bug 1804953 17:14:13 <coremodule> I think I'm -1 if there is an option to continue onward 17:14:25 <cmurf> there isn't 17:14:28 <cmurf> it crashes 17:14:42 <cmurf> it = anaconda 17:14:49 <coremodule> ahhh 17:15:01 <coremodule> so in comment 15 you mean the old version of anaconda presented a way to continue on 17:15:04 <coremodule> right? 17:15:11 <cmurf> correct 17:15:30 <coremodule> alright, well if it crashes, that seems pretty clear. plus, with the fix, it wont be a blocker for long once its tested. 17:15:46 <coremodule> I can be swayed to +1 based off the fact that an install can't occur without a crash 17:16:17 <cmurf> adamw's comment though i think is correct, in that there's no separate criterion for the installer to not crash *except* when handling invalid layouts 17:16:21 <cmurf> this isn't an invalid layout 17:16:44 <cmurf> "Reject or disallow invalid disk and volume configurations without crashing." 17:17:24 <coremodule> where does it dump you out after the crash? does it just hang? 17:17:41 <frantisekz> hmm, isn't this something what would go away once is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804953 fixed though? 17:17:46 <cmurf> anaconda internal exception dialog 17:18:08 <cmurf> frantisekz: yes 17:18:29 <lruzicka> The exception handling in Anaconda seems to be fixed. 17:18:30 <cmurf> but that bug is about efibootmgr crashing, this bug is about anaconda crashing because efibootmgr crashes :D 17:18:36 <cmurf> yes 17:18:38 <coremodule> what about a violation of "Cleanly install to a disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table which contains existing data and sufficient unpartitioned space for a Fedora installation" specifically the "Cleanly" part... 17:19:06 <frantisekz> I think I'd be -1 , this is underlying stack bug, anaconda doesn't need to show pretty error, in my opinion 17:19:24 <coremodule> "Cleanly" is vague 17:19:45 <cmurf> it also applies only to guided partitioning 17:19:47 <cmurf> this is custom 17:19:52 <cmurf> oh wait 17:20:21 <cmurf> yeah sorry, i was using custom, but the crash bug would also happen with guided 17:20:32 <coremodule> hmm 17:20:58 <coremodule> so... votes? 17:21:15 <cmurf> yeah i think it's really a question for anaconda folks if they want to block on crashes like this and then have a more clear criterion that covers it 17:21:48 <cmurf> right now i don't think there's a discrete criterion, so i'm gonna go with adamw's opinion and -1 17:21:58 <coremodule> alright, that's three 17:22:07 <coremodule> proposed #agreed 1763525 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) – we don’t find this a direct violation of the criteria stated and agree that anaconda doesn’t need to show the pretty error. There is a fix already, so we will reject this and wait for that. If the anaconda devs want to contest this decision, we can talk about making the criteria more specific in these circumstances. 17:22:07 <lruzicka> Well, I don't mind if Anaconda shows pretty errors, but I also think that we should block on the underlying bug and not on this one. 17:22:18 <coremodule> whoops 17:22:20 <coremodule> #undo 17:22:20 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by coremodule at 17:08:18 : Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW 17:22:24 <cmurf> lruzicka: good point 17:22:38 <coremodule> gah 17:22:51 <coremodule> proposed #agreed 1763525 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) – we don’t find this a direct violation of the criteria stated and agree that anaconda doesn’t need to show the pretty error. There is a fix already, so we will reject this and wait for that. If the anaconda devs want to contest this decision, we can talk about making the criteria more specific in these circumstances. 17:23:02 <coremodule> dang! stanby while i figure out how to computer 17:23:10 <coremodule> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW 17:23:27 <lruzicka> ack? 17:23:40 <pwhalen> -1/ack 17:23:50 <coremodule> proposed #agreed 1806103 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) – we don’t find this a direct violation of the criteria stated and agree that anaconda doesn’t need to show the pretty error. There is a fix already, so we will reject this and wait for that. If the anaconda devs want to contest this decision, we can talk about making the criteria more specific in these circumstances. 17:23:54 <coremodule> there we go, wrong bug id 17:24:34 <frantisekz> ack 17:24:36 <coremodule> #agreed 1806103 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) – we don’t find this a direct violation of the criteria stated and agree that anaconda doesn’t need to show the pretty error. There is a fix already, so we will reject this and wait for that. If the anaconda devs want to contest this decision, we can talk about making the criteria more specific in these circumstances. 17:24:41 <lruzicka> I am lost somehow 17:24:45 <frantisekz> ? 17:24:46 <lruzicka> in those bug numbers 17:24:59 <frantisekz> hmm, this seems like the correct one 17:25:08 <coremodule> #topic (1806233) pyanaconda.modules.common.errors.storage.UnknownDeviceError: home 17:25:08 <coremodule> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806233 17:25:08 <coremodule> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED 17:25:30 <lruzicka> but ack 17:25:32 <lruzicka> anyway 17:25:44 <frantisekz> .fire lruzicka for late ack 17:25:44 <zodbot> adamw fires lruzicka for late ack 17:26:21 <cmurf> clear +1 blocker 17:26:29 <frantisekz> +1 17:26:32 <coremodule> agreed 17:26:34 <coremodule> +1 17:26:42 <cmurf> and not because it crashes but because it doesn't succeed :D 17:26:49 <frantisekz> :D 17:27:20 <lruzicka> +1 17:27:37 <coremodule> proposed #agreed 1806233 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) – We find this to be a violation of the following criterion: “When using both the installer-native and the blivet-gui-based custom partitioning flow, the installer must be able to correctly interpret, and modify as described below, any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table containing ext4 partitions, LVM and/or btrfs volumes, and/or software R 17:27:37 <coremodule> AID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions.” 17:28:20 <cmurf> ack 17:28:29 <lruzicka> patch 17:28:35 <frantisekz> nackitty nack, shouldn't reasoning be on one line? 17:28:41 <lruzicka> exactly 17:28:43 <coremodule> oh 17:28:48 <coremodule> hang on, lets see what to cut 17:28:59 <lruzicka> all the disks varieties 17:29:06 <lruzicka> keep just the one relevant 17:29:08 <coremodule> proposed #agreed 1806233 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) – Violates the criterion: “When using both the installer-native and the blivet-gui-based custom partitioning flow, the installer must be able to correctly interpret, and modify any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table containing ext4 partitions, LVM and/or btrfs volumes, and/or software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing e 17:29:08 <coremodule> xt4 partitions.” 17:29:10 <coremodule> gah 17:29:11 <frantisekz> :D 17:29:40 <coremodule> proposed #agreed 1806233 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) – Violates the criterion: “When using both the installer-native and the blivet-gui-based custom partitioning flow, the installer must be able to correctly interpret, and modify any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table containing ext4 partitions, LVM and/or btrfs volumes...” 17:29:45 <cmurf> haha 17:29:48 <cmurf> ack 17:29:49 <frantisekz> here we go... ack 17:29:50 <frantisekz> :D 17:29:53 <lruzicka> ack 17:30:02 <coremodule> proposed #agreed 1806233 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) – Violates the criterion: “When using both the installer-native and the blivet-gui-based custom partitioning flow, the installer must be able to correctly interpret, and modify any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table containing ext4 partitions, LVM and/or btrfs volumes...” 17:30:07 <coremodule> I'm glad you guys are patient 17:30:14 <coremodule> or seem to be anyway 17:30:23 <coremodule> #topic (1804953) UEFI installs from live images fail since around Fedora-Rawhide-20200214.n.1 (boot loader entry creation fails) 17:30:24 <coremodule> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804953 17:30:24 <coremodule> #info Proposed Blocker, efivar, NEW 17:30:27 <frantisekz> coremodule 17:30:28 <frantisekz> undo 17:30:38 <frantisekz> you left proposed in the second msg 17:30:41 <coremodule> #undo 17:30:41 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by coremodule at 17:30:24 : Proposed Blocker, efivar, NEW 17:30:43 <coremodule> #undo 17:30:43 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Link object at 0x7fdfe950bc90> 17:30:45 <coremodule> #undo 17:30:45 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x7fdfe950bc10> 17:30:55 <coremodule> sheesh! I don't know why my copy/paste isn't working today! 17:31:04 <lruzicka> coremodule, PEBKAC? 17:31:06 <coremodule> #agreed 1806233 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) – we don’t find this a direct violation of the criteria stated and agree that anaconda doesn’t need to show the pretty error. There is a fix already, so we will reject this and wait for that. If the anaconda devs want to contest this decision, we can talk about making the criteria more specific in these circumstances. 17:31:07 <frantisekz> don't worry 17:31:17 <coremodule> #agreed 1806233 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) – we don’t find this a direct violation of the criteria stated and agree that anaconda doesn’t need to show the pretty error. There is a fix already, so we will reject this and wait for that. If the anaconda devs want to contest this decision, we can talk about making the criteria more specific in these circumstances. 17:31:23 <coremodule> see! there it goes! 17:31:34 <coremodule> it doesn't carry over from libreoffice writer to irc... a bug perhaps?? 17:31:40 <coremodule> #topic (1804953) UEFI installs from live images fail since around Fedora-Rawhide-20200214.n.1 (boot loader entry creation fails) 17:31:40 <coremodule> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804953 17:31:40 <coremodule> #info Proposed Blocker, efivar, NEW 17:31:48 <frantisekz> coremodule 17:31:49 <lruzicka> +1 this time 17:31:56 <cmurf> +1 17:31:56 <frantisekz> wasn't this accepted blocker? 17:32:18 <frantisekz> proposed #agreed 1806233 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) 17:32:39 <frantisekz> you have #agreed 1806233 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) there 17:32:52 <lruzicka> yeah, frantisekz, good eyes 17:32:57 <lruzicka> frantisekz++ 17:32:57 <zodbot> lruzicka: Karma for frantisekz changed to 2 (for the current release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 17:33:02 <coremodule> ugh 17:33:08 <coremodule> lol 17:33:09 <cmurf> i cannot wait to see the log for this meeting 17:33:10 <frantisekz> :D 17:33:11 <coremodule> #undo 17:33:11 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by coremodule at 17:31:40 : Proposed Blocker, efivar, NEW 17:33:14 <coremodule> #undo 17:33:14 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Link object at 0x7fdfe9c38410> 17:33:15 <coremodule> #undo 17:33:15 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x7fdfe950bbd0> 17:33:40 <frantisekz> don't hurry with it, I don't have anything particularly important today 17:33:57 <coremodule> okay good, cause we're gonna use that 3 hour time limit today #sarcasm 17:34:06 <frantisekz> going to be fighting with openshift in the evning anyway 17:34:11 <frantisekz> I am enjoying this meeting :D 17:34:32 <cmurf> i tried to ping pjones but can't find him on irc 17:34:47 <coremodule> #agreed 1806233 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) – Violates the criterion: “When using both the installer-native and the blivet-gui-based custom partitioning flow, the installer must be able to correctly interpret, and modify any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table containing ext4 partitions, LVM and/or btrfs volumes...” 17:34:57 <cmurf> nope 17:35:09 <coremodule> #topic (1804953) UEFI installs from live images fail since around Fedora-Rawhide-20200214.n.1 (boot loader entry creation fails) 17:35:09 <coremodule> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804953 17:35:09 <coremodule> #info Proposed Blocker, efivar, NEW 17:35:14 <cmurf> there we go 17:35:18 <coremodule> okay, back to this bug 17:35:21 <coremodule> votes? 17:35:28 <cmurf> +1 17:35:35 <frantisekz> +1 17:35:43 <coremodule> +1 17:36:25 <pwhalen> +1 17:36:37 <coremodule> proposed #agreed 1804953 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) – Violates the criterion: "The installer must be able to complete an installation to a single disk using automatic partitioning" for x86_64 UEFI 17:37:35 <lruzicka> ack 17:37:38 <pwhalen> ack 17:37:47 <cmurf> ack 17:37:55 <coremodule> #agreed 1804953 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) – Violates the criterion: "The installer must be able to complete an installation to a single disk using automatic partitioning" for x86_64 UEFI 17:38:08 <coremodule> #topic (1801820) [abrt] gnome-shell: js::gc::TenuredCell::writeBarrierPre(js::gc::TenuredCell*)(): gnome-shell killed by SIGSEGV 17:38:08 <coremodule> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801820 17:38:08 <coremodule> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, ASSIGNED 17:39:20 <frantisekz> +1 blocker 17:39:24 <coremodule> frantisekz, what do you think? 17:39:27 <coremodule> ah, there it is 17:39:31 <frantisekz> there are more different crashes 17:39:36 <cmurf> hmm why is this set to rawhide and not 32? 17:39:41 <frantisekz> it's blowing on Garbage Collection 17:39:43 <coremodule> +1 blocker here 17:40:10 <coremodule> oversight probably 17:40:10 <lruzicka> +1 blocker 17:40:28 <frantisekz> cmurf, can we have F32 Blocker set to Rawhide? 17:40:32 <frantisekz> I am really not sure 17:40:37 <frantisekz> if blockerbugs app handles that 17:40:38 <coremodule> i changed it 17:40:42 <frantisekz> oh 17:41:01 <cmurf> yeah i wonder if there may be a bunch of rawhide bugs that didn't get flipped to 32 automatically at branch 17:41:04 <cmurf> oh well 17:41:04 <frantisekz> I misread your message all the way around 17:41:06 <cmurf> +1 17:41:06 <frantisekz> :D 17:41:09 <coremodule> let's pick a better criteria 17:41:11 <coremodule> hmmm... 17:41:34 <coremodule> No part of any release-blocking desktop's panel (or equivalent) configuration may crash on startup or be entirely non-functional. ? 17:41:46 <frantisekz> hmm 17:41:55 <frantisekz> I don't have anything against it personally 17:42:12 <pwhalen> +1 17:42:21 <cmurf> does it crash on startup? 17:42:36 <frantisekz> but technically, it isn't entirely non-functional nor it does crash on startup afaik 17:42:38 <coremodule> not on startup, but the "entirely non-functional" part 17:42:39 <frantisekz> after few minutes 17:42:52 <frantisekz> whatever, we can go ahead with this one 17:42:53 <coremodule> yeah, let's see what there is that's better suited... 17:43:26 <frantisekz> adam is not here, so let's make some mess around :D 17:43:48 <cmurf> well there is the catch all that it's limiting test coverage by messing with openqa (and us) 17:44:31 <coremodule> proposed #agreed 1801820 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) – Conditionally violates the criterion: “No part of any release-blocking desktop's panel (or equivalent) configuration may crash on startup or be entirely non-functional.” We find this appropriate considering that the desktop is “entirely non-functional” after this crash occurs... 17:45:18 <frantisekz> ack 17:45:25 <cmurf> ack 17:45:27 <lruzicka> ack 17:45:45 <pwhalen> ack 17:45:47 <coremodule> #agreed 1801820 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) – Conditionally violates the criterion: “No part of any release-blocking desktop's panel (or equivalent) configuration may crash on startup or be entirely non-functional.” We find this appropriate considering that the desktop is “entirely non-functional” after this crash occurs... 17:45:59 <cmurf> LOL 17:46:04 <cmurf> that does read pretty funny 17:46:10 <coremodule> #topic (1801882) installation of slf4j is broken unless maven module is disabled 17:46:11 <coremodule> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801882 17:46:11 <coremodule> #info Proposed Blocker, maven, NEW 17:46:18 <cmurf> once it crashes it's entirely non-functional, totally true 17:46:36 <coremodule> you all "ack"ed it, so I blame careless ack-ers 17:46:47 <coremodule> exactly!! 17:47:11 <frantisekz> so, FESCO voted about this one today 17:47:41 <coremodule> what'd they say? looks +1 to me 17:47:50 <frantisekz> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2341#comment-628267 17:48:07 <frantisekz> I guess it'd be fixed by not having any default streams 17:48:23 <frantisekz> but as I read it, they didn't say if it's blocker or not 17:48:37 <frantisekz> and since it's not implemented yet (FESCO decision), I'd go ahead with +1 17:48:38 <lruzicka> which makes this bug a little less important 17:49:04 <lruzicka> but I am +1 here too, just to make sure it gets proper treatment 17:49:08 <coremodule> proposed #agreed 1801822 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) – Violates the criterion: "It must be possible to configure a Fedora Server system installed according to the above criteria as a FreeIPA domain controller, using the official deployment tools provided in the distribution FreeIPA packages." 17:49:16 <lruzicka> ack 17:49:27 <frantisekz> just note lruzicka, that this bug is going to be fixed by removing default stream 17:49:42 <coremodule> #info just note lruzicka, that this bug is going to be fixed by removing default stream 17:49:43 <frantisekz> it's not in the scope to make sure it's properly fixed 17:49:49 <coremodule> note it 17:49:53 <coremodule> NOTE IT 17:49:54 <lruzicka> frantisekz, I know, but it will still sit there for everybody with maven module enabled 17:49:59 <cmurf> ack 17:50:04 <coremodule> #undo 17:50:04 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by coremodule at 17:49:42 : just note lruzicka, that this bug is going to be fixed by removing default stream 17:50:15 <coremodule> #agreed 1801822 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) – Violates the criterion: "It must be possible to configure a Fedora Server system installed according to the above criteria as a FreeIPA domain controller, using the official deployment tools provided in the distribution FreeIPA packages." 17:50:28 <coremodule> #topic (1804080) anaconda unable to finish installation with software raid partition 17:50:28 <coremodule> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804080 17:50:28 <coremodule> #info Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, NEW 17:51:05 <frantisekz> lruzicka: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767351, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804564 (AcceptedBlockers) should take care of users that already enabled maven module 17:51:10 <coremodule> +1 clocker 17:51:15 <coremodule> *blocker 17:51:15 <frantisekz> +1 17:51:34 <pwhalen> +1 17:51:41 <cmurf> +1 17:51:44 <lruzicka> +1 17:52:08 <coremodule> proposed #agreed 1804080 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) – Violates the criterion: "The installer must be able to correctly interpret… any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table containing… software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions.” 17:52:19 <cmurf> ack 17:52:25 <frantisekz> ack 17:52:53 <pwhalen> ack 17:52:56 <lruzicka> frantisekz, I do not agree, resetting the streams is good for upgrading, but when I upgrade, enable maven and then want to go for IPA? 17:52:57 <coremodule> #agreed 1804080 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) – Violates the criterion: "The installer must be able to correctly interpret… any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table containing… software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions.” 17:53:00 <lruzicka> ack 17:53:06 <coremodule> #info moving on to freeze exceptions 17:53:26 <coremodule> #topic (1805916) reboot fails at the end of install - Error in atexit._run_exitfuncs 17:53:26 <coremodule> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805916 17:53:26 <coremodule> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, MODIFIED 17:53:44 <frantisekz> lruzicka: yeah, good point, but far from blocker-worthy imo 17:54:11 <coremodule> +1 FE 17:54:14 <pwhalen> +1 FE 17:54:15 <cmurf> +1 FE 17:54:21 <frantisekz> +1 FE 17:54:24 <cmurf> limits test coverage 17:54:44 <lruzicka> +1FE 17:55:33 <lruzicka> frantisekz, you proposed +1, too ...? 17:56:09 <frantisekz> yeah, for (1805916) 17:56:10 <coremodule> proposed #agreed 1805916 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) – We don’t think the counts as a blocker, as by the time it rears it’s ugly little head, the system is already installed, but it looks bad, is limiting automated test coverage, and it’s fairly trivial to fix. 17:56:24 <cmurf> ack 17:56:31 <frantisekz> ack 17:58:31 <lruzicka> ack 17:58:33 <coremodule> #agreed 1805916 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) – We don’t think the counts as a blocker, as by the time it rears it’s ugly little head, the system is already installed, but it looks bad, is limiting automated test coverage, and its fairly trivial to fix. 17:58:43 <coremodule> #info moving on to final blockers 17:58:46 <coremodule> just one! 17:58:55 <coremodule> #topic (1804993) abrt-dump-journal-xorg: Cannot read journal data 17:58:55 <coremodule> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804993 17:58:55 <coremodule> #info Proposed Blocker, abrt, NEW 17:59:50 <coremodule> seems clear 17:59:54 <coremodule> +1 blocker 18:00:05 <cmurf> +1 18:00:14 <frantisekz> +1 18:00:34 <lruzicka> +1 18:00:56 <coremodule> proposed #agreed 1804993 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) – Violates the criterion: “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.” 18:01:02 <cmurf> ack 18:01:23 <frantisekz> ack 18:02:11 <lruzicka> ack 18:02:14 <coremodule> #agreed 1804993 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) – Violates the criterion: “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.” 18:02:38 <coremodule> that's all the bugs. without adamw present, I think we're gonna wait to review the accepted ones... 18:02:48 <coremodule> #topic Open Floor 18:03:26 <coremodule> Anyone have anything? 18:03:59 <frantisekz> as for FESCO accepted blockers (2 of 3 for Beta), I'll ask dnf guys tomorrow in the office, if they have any eta 18:04:19 <cmurf> frantisekz: good idea 18:04:39 <coremodule> #info frantisekz to follow up with the dnf team on an ETA for the FESCO-accepted blockers 18:04:55 <frantisekz> and since they're modularity guys now, I can annoy them even with packagekit modularity bugs now, amazing :D 18:05:40 <cmurf> i'll try to track down pjones on the urgent efivars-efibootmgr crash bug 18:05:58 <frantisekz> as for openfloor, we have async blocker bugs process in progress, code should be ready, we're waiting for new pagure release 18:06:07 <coremodule> #info cmurf to talk with pjones on the efivars-efibootmgr crash bug 18:06:20 <coremodule> #info we have async blocker bugs process in progress, code should be ready, we're waiting for new pagure release 18:06:32 <frantisekz> will try to ping pingou, if he doesn't have any eta, I might try to deploy special pagure instance just for us with code in place 18:06:37 <frantisekz> no promises though 18:06:38 <coremodule> that's cool, im excited to use it 18:06:58 <frantisekz> I've crying a lot because of openshift recently :D 18:07:58 <lruzicka> frantisekz, you should use ProprietaryShift then :D 18:08:05 <frantisekz> ... :D 18:08:07 <coremodule> if that's everything, let's wrap this up!! 18:08:11 <coremodule> 10 18:08:13 <frantisekz> so, I guess thanks for the meeting all, coremodule++ 18:08:15 <zodbot> frantisekz: Karma for coremodule changed to 2 (for the current release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 18:08:15 <cmurf> ta da! 18:08:22 <coremodule> of course, of course 18:08:23 <frantisekz> 9 18:08:24 <frantisekz> 8 18:08:24 <lruzicka> yeah, thank you all 18:08:25 <frantisekz> 7 18:08:26 <coremodule> all in a days work 18:08:27 <frantisekz> 999999 18:08:28 <frantisekz> -inf 18:08:33 <coremodule> #endmeeting