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