16:07:41 <adamw> #startmeeting F39-blocker-review
16:07:41 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Aug 28 16:07:41 2023 UTC.
16:07:41 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:07:41 <zodbot> The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions.
16:07:41 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:07:41 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f39-blocker-review'
16:07:42 <adamw> #meetingname F39-blocker-review
16:07:42 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f39-blocker-review'
16:07:42 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
16:07:55 <adamw> ahoyhoy, who's around for some exciting f39 blocker revieW?
16:08:11 <geraldosimiao> .hello geraldosimiao
16:08:12 <zodbot> geraldosimiao: geraldosimiao 'Geraldo S. Simião Kutz' <geraldo.simiao.kutz@gmail.com>
16:08:16 <coremodule> .hello2
16:08:17 <zodbot> coremodule: coremodule 'Geoffrey Marr' <gmarr@redhat.com>
16:08:31 * coremodule is here, and welcomes the first one of the cycle!
16:08:34 * kparal is here
16:08:44 * coremodule is also willing to act as secretary.
16:09:23 <adamw> thanks coremodule
16:09:32 <adamw> #chair geraldosimiao coremodule
16:09:32 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw coremodule geraldosimiao
16:11:15 <adamw> alrighty, let's get going
16:11:26 <adamw> boilerplate alert
16:11:31 <adamw> #topic Introduction
16:11:32 <adamw> Why are we here?
16:11:32 <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.
16:11:32 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:11:32 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:11:33 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:11:35 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:11:37 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:11:39 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
16:11:41 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_39_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:11:43 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_39_Final_Release_Criteria
16:11:52 <adamw> thanks to everyone's awesome work at tracker voting, we have:
16:12:05 <adamw> for Beta:
16:12:06 <adamw> #info 2 Proposed Blockers
16:12:06 <adamw> #info 6 Accepted Blockers
16:12:12 <adamw> #info 2 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:12:12 <adamw> #info 36 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
16:12:25 <adamw> and for Final:
16:12:27 <adamw> #info 5 Proposed Blockers
16:12:27 <adamw> #info 3 Accepted Blockers
16:12:47 <adamw> oh dear, I should have done more #info there, it'll look a bit weird in the logs. never mind
16:13:12 <geraldosimiao> it was a speedrun... all this proposed bugs
16:15:18 <adamw> yeah, sorry for the churn
16:15:36 <adamw> #info many thanks to folks for doing a lot of ticket voting
16:15:43 <adamw> #info coremodule will secretarialize
16:15:52 <adamw> okay, let's get rolling with:
16:16:13 <adamw> #topic Proposed Beta blockers
16:16:29 <adamw> #topic (2234466) crash after clicking Reset All in Blivet partitioning (in GTK installer)
16:16:30 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2234466
16:16:30 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1189
16:16:30 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:16:30 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+0,0,-1) (-frantisekz)
16:16:42 <adamw> this one is accepted as Beta FE and Final blocker already, but has also been proposed as Beta blocekr
16:17:25 <adamw> I don't see any criterion referenced
16:17:36 <adamw> ah, "This might violate https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_39_Beta_Release_Criteria#Custom_partitioning even though the reset button is not explicitly specified there"
16:18:19 <adamw> hmm, I think on a strict reading i'd be -1 blocker per that criterion. you don't *need* to hit the Reset All button to accomplish anything listed there.
16:18:51 <kparal> if you can configure everything properly on your first try :)
16:18:58 <geraldosimiao> yeah
16:18:58 <adamw> it's a challenge!
16:19:02 <adamw> we like to keep folks entertained
16:19:15 <kparal> I don't have a strong opinion here
16:19:18 <adamw> okay, to be fair, i can see a black belt criteria judo justification for this as beta blocker
16:19:28 <adamw> but...I dunno, it's a stretch.
16:19:35 <geraldosimiao> but doesn't ir violate this? Remove existing storage volumes
16:19:35 <geraldosimiao> Assign mount points to existing storage volumes
16:19:35 <geraldosimiao> Reject or disallow invalid disk and volume configurations without crashing.
16:19:57 <geraldosimiao> thats what reset does, or?
16:19:58 <adamw> i'd say not strictly, no. the button is basically an "oops i messed up, let me start over" button
16:20:07 <geraldosimiao> ok
16:20:11 <adamw> no, it resets the partitioning tool to the state it had when you started
16:20:21 <kparal> it's just undo, basically
16:20:26 <adamw> i.e. the actual current state of the disks (since we don't apply any changes till after you leave the tool)
16:20:48 <adamw> it's definitely a bad experience for it to crash everything, no question.
16:21:28 <adamw> i guess the least stretchy part of the criterion is "Correctly interpret, and modify as described below, any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table"
16:21:35 <adamw> because, I mean, it can do that...*once*. :D
16:22:11 <adamw> there's a case for making this a conditional violation, the case being you ask it to 'interpret' the layout twice (by pressing the button).
16:22:15 <TheExorcist> .hi naraiank
16:22:16 <zodbot> TheExorcist: Sorry, but user 'TheExorcist' does not exist
16:22:31 <TheExorcist> .hello naraiank
16:22:32 <zodbot> TheExorcist: naraiank 'Naraian K' <knaraian@mail.com>
16:22:35 <adamw> hiii!
16:23:02 <TheExorcist> Hi Adam.
16:23:38 <adamw> anyone have an opinion/vote here?
16:24:11 <geraldosimiao> oh, well, I think I could agree with a beta blocker on this
16:24:18 <kparal> Frantisek is already -1
16:24:21 <geraldosimiao> buts its not a strong opinion
16:25:06 <kparal> I'm fine with -1
16:25:06 <coremodule> im reading/thinking
16:25:11 <kparal> it's beta...
16:25:17 <geraldosimiao> yeah
16:25:27 <geraldosimiao> it surely is a final blocker
16:25:38 <geraldosimiao> but beta?... meh.
16:26:41 <adamw> kparal: ooh, hey. this is a libsoup3 crash?
16:26:55 <coremodule> yeah, my interpretation as written is that this is *not* a violation without some criterion judo. I'm -1 based off my interpretation.
16:27:06 <geraldosimiao> its the sort of beta blocker that one could waive on the last blocker review meeting prior to the beta release if its the only betablocker standing
16:27:09 <adamw> i don't necessarily need a full backtrace, but can you at least post the partial one from coredumpctl on netinst?
16:27:25 <adamw> geraldosimiao: yeah, that's a good point, I can see us doing that
16:27:28 <TheExorcist> I'm not sure.. I would say, if there is difficulty in installing, should that be a beta blocker or not...
16:27:30 <adamw> "we'll just tell people not to push the button!"
16:27:46 <adamw> the button is a lie.
16:28:19 <kparal> adamw: does this help? https://bugzilla-attachments.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1985073
16:28:25 <geraldosimiao> lol, don't trsut the button
16:28:30 <geraldosimiao> trust
16:28:37 <kparal> libsoup crash, you're correct
16:28:45 <adamw> ah, but it's libsoup2...
16:29:01 <adamw> i was wondering if it's the same as this other libsoup crash i've been dealing with, but probably not.
16:29:09 <adamw> i guess i'll reproduce and backtrace it on my own time.
16:29:19 <kparal> bad ingredients in a soup, but a different soup, it seems
16:30:00 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2234466 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - we agreed this doesn't quite violate the Beta criteria. Note it is already accepted as Beta FE and Final blocker.
16:30:16 <geraldosimiao> ACK
16:31:09 <kparal> ack
16:31:47 <frantisekz> .hello2
16:31:48 <zodbot> frantisekz: frantisekz 'František Zatloukal' <fzatlouk@redhat.com>
16:32:31 <coremodule> ack
16:32:38 <adamw> #agreed 2234466 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - we agreed this doesn't quite violate the Beta criteria. Note it is already accepted as Beta FE and Final blocker.
16:33:09 <adamw> #topic (2234518) webUI: allows you to enter an encryption passphrase in non-ASCII characters with no warning
16:33:10 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2234518
16:33:10 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1193
16:33:10 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED
16:33:10 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+5,0,-1) (+geraldosimiao, +imsedgar, +tflink, +nielsenb, +lruzicka, -kparal)
16:33:12 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+1,0,-0) (+adamwill)
16:33:25 <adamw> so this theoretically has enough votes to accept, but as the proposer I'm holding back due to the details
16:34:23 <kparal> I assume people initially mostly voted regarding the crash, and not just the warning UI element
16:34:31 <adamw> as i mentioned, the more important bugs here seem to be the g-i-s layout problem (already a beta blocker), and the libblockdev crash (already a beta FE). if both those are fixed, anaconda's behaviour is rather less important
16:34:58 <adamw> i guess there's a case for upgrading the libblockdev crash to a blocker
16:35:43 <kparal> I completely missed that it's not a blocker
16:36:07 <kparal> we should discuss as least a final one
16:36:09 <adamw> i'll propose it...
16:36:30 <geraldosimiao> I didn't get it. You are saying that if the two other bugs are fixed, so this here don't happen?
16:36:33 <kparal> anyway, regarding the warning UI element, I guess we can't just say "it has to be there!". We have to show that without it, bad things would happen
16:37:27 <geraldosimiao> without the warning people could get a non functioning installation?
16:37:47 <geraldosimiao> depending on wich keyboarde they have?
16:38:14 <adamw> geraldosimiao: I'm not actually sure about that. but it wouldn't be too different from oldUI either way
16:38:39 <adamw> the only difference between oldUI behaviour and newUI behaviour here is that oldUI shows you a quite weak warning if you enter a non-ASCII character in a passphrase
16:39:03 <adamw> (it just adds a bit more text in the middle of the dialog, it's actually quite easy to miss unless you're looking for it - it doesn't show as a 'standard' anaconda warning bar, or make you click twice to confirm, or anything)
16:39:30 <adamw> so is the lack of that quite-weak warning, in itself, a release blocker?
16:39:33 <frantisekz> I wouldn't honestly block on a missing warning, not the beta milestone
16:40:23 <kparal> frantisekz has a good point, this definitely doesn't feel Beta
16:40:55 <geraldosimiao> OK, again, its most positively a Final blocker, I think.
16:41:48 <geraldosimiao> yeah, but, beta... don't know. must think more on this, I'm not really sure.
16:43:24 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1985679 is the warning that oldUI shows
16:44:03 <adamw> the bit between the two text boxes. the warning at the bottom is always present (in oldUI).
16:44:14 <geraldosimiao> In fact there are two wharnings
16:44:55 <geraldosimiao> for me its a good warning
16:45:12 <geraldosimiao> with a warning icon too
16:45:15 <geraldosimiao> !
16:46:18 <adamw> yeah, but it's all just a black text wall, and there's no "reconfirm" mechanism. anyhoo
16:46:30 <adamw> so...seems like we're a bit uncertain about this
16:46:46 <adamw> well, franta and kparal sound like -1
16:46:46 <kparal> so, I propose -1 for beta, and we can talk about final when we can showcase whether this actually breaks something or not
16:46:51 <adamw> i think i'm -1 too, on the warning specifically
16:47:15 <geraldosimiao> ok, -1 too
16:47:42 <adamw> ok, let me recount votes
16:47:50 <geraldosimiao> and I think whe must propose and discuss this latter as a final blocker
16:48:21 <adamw> i don't think we have the votes to reject this as things stand
16:48:28 <adamw> i think we have:
16:48:45 <frantisekz> I think we could call revote in the ticket?
16:48:49 <adamw> +1 imsedgar tflink nielsenb lruzicka
16:49:06 <adamw> -1 adamwill frantisekz geraldosimiao kparal
16:49:11 <adamw> so it's +4/-4 atm
16:49:26 <geraldosimiao> so exciting :D
16:50:17 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2234518 - punt (delay decision) - as things stand, votes are +4 / -4, with the remaining +1s from earlier ticket votes. We will describe the situation more clearly in the ticket and ask if anyone who voted +1 wishes to change their vote
16:50:25 <frantisekz> ack
16:50:37 <geraldosimiao> ack
16:50:38 <kparal> ack
16:51:15 <adamw> #agreed 2234518 - punt (delay decision) - as things stand, votes are +4 / -4, with the remaining +1s from earlier ticket votes. We will describe the situation more clearly in the ticket and ask if anyone who voted +1 wishes to change their vote
16:51:46 <adamw> okay, let's take the new proposed blocker
16:52:19 <adamw> #topic (2234928) Crashes on encryption passphrases with non-ASCII characters
16:52:42 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2234928
16:52:42 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1200
16:52:52 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, libblockdev, ASSIGNED
16:53:41 <kparal> when does this crash, after installation starts or before? Just judging the impact
16:53:52 <adamw> so yeah, thinking about it again, it does seem like there's a solid case for blocking Beta on this. seems like a conditional violation of the "Encrypt newly-created storage volumes", in the case that you enter a non-extended-ASCII character in the passphrase, which is easy enough to do even if we fix g-i-s.
16:54:11 <adamw> after install starts, so it's the worse case
16:54:25 <adamw> you probably wind up with partially-done partitioning
16:54:56 <kparal> ok in that case I'd be in favor of +1 beta blocker
16:55:04 <kparal> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_39_Beta_Release_Criteria#Custom_partitioning
16:55:05 <geraldosimiao> ok
16:55:10 <geraldosimiao> BetaBlocker +1
16:55:17 <frantisekz> BetaBlocker +1
16:56:22 <coremodule> BetaBlocker +1
16:57:38 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2234928 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a conditional violation of the Beta requirement "When using both the installer-native and the blivet-gui-based custom partitioning flow, the installer must be able to: ... Encrypt newly-created storage volumes", in the case that you include a non-ASCII character in the passphrase (which is easy to do). we note that the crash occurs during the install
16:57:39 <adamw> process, which makes its impact worse
16:57:41 <adamw> grr
16:57:53 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2234928 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a conditional violation of the Beta requirement "When using both the installer-native and the blivet-gui-based custom partitioning flow, the installer must be able to: ... Encrypt newly-created storage volumes", in the case that you include a non-ASCII character in the passphrase (which is easy to do).
16:57:57 <adamw> let's skip the footnote
16:57:59 <adamw> ahoy, neal
16:58:02 <Son_Goku> yo!
16:58:04 <kparal> ack
16:58:09 * Son_Goku grumbles about IRC again...
16:58:29 <frantisekz> ack
16:58:34 <geraldosimiao> ack
16:58:38 <Son_Goku> we're in a meeting, I guess
16:58:41 <Son_Goku> .hello ngompa
16:58:42 <zodbot> Son_Goku: ngompa 'Neal Gompa' <ngompa13@gmail.com>
16:59:28 <adamw> yes we are!
16:59:33 <adamw> #agreed 2234928 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a conditional violation of the Beta requirement "When using both the installer-native and the blivet-gui-based custom partitioning flow, the installer must be able to: ... Encrypt newly-created storage volumes", in the case that you include a non-ASCII character in the passphrase (which is easy to do).
17:00:04 <adamw> okay, let's move on to:
17:00:10 <adamw> #topic Proposed Beta freeze exception issues
17:00:30 <adamw> #topic (2235392) libva-nvidia-driver should replace the nvidia-vaapi-driver rpmfusion package
17:00:30 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235392
17:00:30 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1221
17:00:30 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, libva-nvidia-driver, MODIFIED
17:01:34 <frantisekz> I'd say +1 FE , but you know me with FEs...
17:01:52 <kparal> I think the only argument for taking this in is the upgrade path case
17:02:09 <geraldosimiao> yeah
17:02:11 <kparal> but I'm not sure how much they tested it and it might need further tweaks
17:02:28 <kparal> overall it doesn't feel like a strong case for FE to me
17:02:38 <geraldosimiao> just imagine woh many nvidia users on fedora userbase complaining...
17:02:41 <adamw> i guess the case is 'we should make sure the upgrade path is working the way it's meant to at beta'
17:02:53 <adamw> but yeah, it seems a bit...unclear
17:03:04 <adamw> we could ask for more info on why it's important to do this during freeze and vote in ticket/
17:03:11 <kparal> this only affects people with this package already installed from rpmfusion, IIUIC
17:03:24 <kparal> and they don't get anything new, just rpmfusion package swapped for a fedora one
17:04:54 <adamw> i guess the problem is, what happens if they have it installed, we *don't* do that, and they try to upgrade? will they get dep issues because there isn't an updated version in fusion? or will the current package still be fine?
17:05:14 <adamw> if the only impact is they have to wait till after beta release for the swap to happen, meh
17:06:48 <kparal> rpmfusion will adjust according to the current state
17:07:12 <kparal> if we don't let it in, they'll keep it for longer, I imagine
17:07:57 <adamw> ok, so do we want to punt or reject-without-prejudice?
17:08:21 <geraldosimiao> Son_Goku already tested it on bodhi, what do you think about this Neal?
17:09:13 <geraldosimiao> it is "stable by karma" set to 1
17:09:32 <kparal> how is the rpmfusion package named? I can't find it
17:09:53 <kparal> the whole justification is very barebones
17:10:03 * kparal grumbles
17:10:14 <geraldosimiao> nvidia-vaapi-driver ?
17:10:42 <geraldosimiao> https://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=647
17:10:48 <kparal> thanks
17:12:04 <kparal> so there's nvidia-vaapi-driver-0.0.10-2.fc39 in rpmfusion-nonfree
17:12:19 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2235392 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - there really isn't sufficient justification provided for why this should happen during freeze. We're happy for this to be re-proposed with more justification.
17:12:41 <kparal> that's interesting, nonfree, and now we have it in fedora, allegedly the same thing
17:13:23 <geraldosimiao> good point
17:13:24 <kparal> ack
17:13:29 <geraldosimiao> ack
17:13:38 <frantisekz> (I have some insight into these things, I'd say that having a non-complete solution is allright in fedora, there has to be some broken link - which would be part of nvidia's binary blob in this case)
17:13:48 <frantisekz> ack
17:14:46 <adamw> #agreed 2235392 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - there really isn't sufficient justification provided for why this should happen during freeze. We're happy for this to be re-proposed with more justification.
17:15:12 <adamw> #topic (2155256) pyodbc fails to build with Python 3.12: error: PyUnicode_FromUnicode was not declared in this scope
17:15:13 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2155256
17:15:13 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1215
17:15:13 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, pyodbc, MODIFIED
17:15:26 <adamw> note, this is fails-to-install, not just fails-to-build (anything that fails to build with python 3.11 is now fails-to-install)
17:15:43 <frantisekz> mhm, auto +1 FE for FTI
17:15:46 <adamw> so this is an obvious +1 per convention (which i've now written into the guidelines)
17:17:01 <geraldosimiao> right, FE +1
17:17:02 <kparal> +1 if it's FTI
17:17:25 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2155256 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as a fails-to-install bug, which we accept as FEs to ease the upgrade path unless there are any complications.
17:17:27 <kparal> but I might be confused here
17:17:40 <kparal> doesn't FTI mean that there's no package version in a repo?
17:17:54 <kparal> there already is one for this package
17:18:40 <frantisekz> nope, it would mean that a version of the package in the repo is not installable
17:18:53 <kparal> so those RPMs can't be installed, it fails the rpm transaction?
17:19:02 <frantisekz> it usually fails dep resolve
17:19:21 <adamw> yes.
17:19:32 <frantisekz> which would mean, in this case, that it requires python3.11, and py packages built against 3.11, we have 3.12 in the repos only
17:20:09 <kparal> how come this might ever happen? shouldn't it be built against 3.12 during mass rebuild?
17:20:18 <frantisekz> it failed the mass rebuild
17:20:19 <adamw> it happens when that fails.
17:20:28 <kparal> ah
17:20:31 <adamw> which happens quite a lot, because new python versions make backwards-incompatible changes.
17:20:52 <adamw> we (by which I mean "mainly churchyard") had to fix hundreds of these so far for python 3.12, it was quite a big one.
17:21:05 <geraldosimiao> but, didn't this here build for py 3.12 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c0fdf45a54
17:21:35 <adamw> the changelog there is a lie
17:21:40 <geraldosimiao> ohhh
17:21:49 <geraldosimiao> like the reset button on blivet gui
17:21:49 <adamw> go to the actual package build and check root.log:
17:21:50 <adamw> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2213636
17:21:50 <kparal> ack
17:21:55 <adamw> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/pyodbc/4.0.39/2.fc39/data/logs/x86_64/root.log
17:22:02 <adamw> and you will see that build actually ran against 3.11
17:22:17 <adamw> don't know how that happened, but that's what happened :)
17:22:17 <geraldosimiao> don't trust a changelog ever agian...
17:22:18 <kparal> I can confirm the old package version fails because of a python dep
17:22:36 <geraldosimiao> so
17:22:37 <geraldosimiao> ack
17:22:41 <adamw> geraldosimiao: trust, but verify :D
17:22:47 <frantisekz> koji is super slow for me, but you can also chek deps of the resulting rpms via koji web interface, py3.11 should be noted there (info link next to an rpm)
17:23:15 <adamw> one more ack?
17:23:18 <frantisekz> ack
17:23:33 <coremodule> ack
17:23:45 <geraldosimiao> geraldosimiao note to myself: only use the changelog as a guideline...
17:24:38 <adamw> #agreed 2155256 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as a fails-to-install bug, which we accept as FEs to ease the upgrade path unless there are any complications.
17:25:06 <adamw> ok, let's move on to:
17:25:10 <adamw> #topic Proposed Final blockers
17:25:34 <adamw> #topic (2232398) [webui] Mount point assignment reports "Duplicate mount point." after deleting mapping
17:25:34 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232398
17:25:34 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1177
17:25:34 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST
17:25:34 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+2,0,-0) (+nielsenb, +kparal)
17:25:36 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+3,0,-0) (+tflink, +nielsenb, +geraldosimiao)
17:26:43 <frantisekz> shouldn't we punt this one, and let it get fixed by pulling in the PR? #me_lazy
17:27:03 <adamw> well, that's the lazy option. :D
17:27:09 <adamw> if we can't agree we can do that
17:27:30 <adamw> i'm probably a weak +1 on this as a conditional violation of one of the custom partitioning criteria (also we need to rewrite those criteria to cover webUI properly...)
17:27:45 <adamw> the condition being "you make a mistake and have to redo a mount point"
17:28:23 <kparal> or just change your mind, or try different layouts, or...
17:28:45 <frantisekz> I'll say +1 on this one
17:29:43 <adamw> right.
17:29:44 <geraldosimiao> well I tjonk this can fit under: "The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system and/or container format combination offered in a default installer configuration."
17:29:52 <geraldosimiao> I think
17:29:58 <geraldosimiao> +1 for me
17:31:53 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2232398 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of "The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system and/or container format combination offered in a default installer configuration", read as applying to webUI's mount point assignment interface, in the case you need to re-do a mount point.
17:32:03 <frantisekz> ack
17:32:13 <geraldosimiao> ack
17:33:36 <kparal> ack
17:34:46 <adamw> #agreed 2232398 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of "The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system and/or container format combination offered in a default installer configuration", read as applying to webUI's mount point assignment interface, in the case you need to re-do a mount point.
17:34:57 <adamw> #topic (2189899) Blivet-GUI: A btrfs partition can't be reformatted
17:34:57 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2189899
17:34:57 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1157
17:34:57 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, blivet-gui, NEW
17:34:57 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-0) (+nielsenb)
17:36:01 <kparal> my thoughts: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1157#comment-871144
17:36:39 <kparal> no strong opinion here
17:37:23 <adamw> ugh. seems like kind of a mess.
17:37:31 <adamw> i'm not super sure about this one either.
17:37:41 <adamw> maybe we should punt and ask anaconda/blivet devs what they think?
17:37:47 <kparal> wfm
17:37:50 <frantisekz> yep
17:38:10 <geraldosimiao> I think that now, with btrfs on fedora for a good time, and with webUI using blivet-gui mostly, whe should fix this bug for final release
17:39:32 <geraldosimiao> but, yeah, feedback from the anaconda team +1 on this
17:39:57 <geraldosimiao> I mean, I agree with this
17:40:44 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2189899 - punt (delay decision) - this is a complex area and we're really not too sure how to handle this. it's an awkward experience but it is possible to work with it, and we don't know how practical it is to 'fix' this on the development side. so we'll delay the decision and ask anaconda/blivet devs to provide input on that part
17:41:14 <geraldosimiao> ack
17:41:14 <frantisekz> ack
17:41:23 <kparal> ack
17:42:57 <adamw> #agreed 2189899 - punt (delay decision) - this is a complex area and we're really not too sure how to handle this. it's an awkward experience but it is possible to work with it, and we don't know how practical it is to 'fix' this on the development side. so we'll delay the decision and ask anaconda/blivet devs to provide input on that part
17:43:09 <adamw> #topic (2215739) Decimal separator on keypad doesn't respect regional formatting under Wayland
17:43:09 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2215739
17:43:09 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1162
17:43:09 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, plasma-desktop, NEW
17:43:09 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-3) (-nielsenb, -geraldosimiao, -kparal)
17:43:20 <frantisekz> -1
17:43:25 <adamw> well, we have -3 already...make that -4...:D
17:45:01 <adamw> kparal: you say we don't have a criterion, but we kinda do
17:45:21 <adamw> "If a particular keyboard layout has been configured for the system, that keyboard layout must be used: ..." at final
17:45:34 <kparal> but this is not about a particular layout
17:45:37 <adamw> okay, in a sense the layout is configured, but it's also not really being 'used' if a key doesn't produce the right character...
17:45:48 <adamw> hmm, i guess...
17:46:09 <kparal> it's just the decimal point key producing a different than expected character, but the layout is correct
17:46:36 <geraldosimiao> I tried to reproduce this, but didn't get it. I have a keypad on my acer notebook and the VMs used it corretcly on F39 KDE, decimal works
17:46:46 <kparal> and I somewhat always assumed this is specific to the application being used? e.g. gedit vs libreoffice calc?
17:47:05 <kparal> at least in czech, we also have a decimal comma, and I think it works differently in different apps
17:47:08 <kparal> but I might be wrong
17:47:12 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2215739 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - we agree this is an annoying bug that should be fixed, but it doesn't really violate any release criterion, can be worked around by using the other key, and has already been the case for a while
17:47:57 <kparal> ack
17:47:58 <frantisekz> ack
17:48:02 <geraldosimiao> ack
17:48:14 <adamw> #agreed 2215739 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - we agree this is an annoying bug that should be fixed, but it doesn't really violate any release criterion, can be worked around by using the other key, and has already been the case for a while
17:48:25 <adamw> #topic (2187858) sddm-wayland-plasma does not respect keyboard layout variant
17:48:25 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187858
17:48:25 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1158
17:48:25 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, sddm, NEW
17:48:25 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+1,0,-0) (+geraldosimiao)
17:48:26 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+2,0,-0) (+geraldosimiao, +nielsenb)
17:49:18 <kparal> I couldn't reproduce this with F38, but I haven't tried yet with F39
17:49:39 <kparal> my understanding was that this is not a general issue, but only happens in certain cases (not sure which ones)
17:50:41 <adamw> note that the word "variant" has a specific meaning here which i'n not sure everyone commenting/trying to reproduce understands
17:51:10 <adamw> "variant" is not "layout". layouts have variants. if you want to use a given layout with a specific variant, and you instead get the layout with no variant, that can be a very different and broken experience
17:51:26 <adamw> (this is xkb terminology)
17:52:05 <kparal> this probably needs someone to invest time and try to reproduce it in multiple cases
17:52:11 <adamw> e.g. the neo thing referred to in the bug is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo_(keyboard_layout) , implemented as a variant in xkb
17:52:19 <adamw> if you want that layout but you get a standard 'de' layout, that's rather different
17:52:48 <adamw> let me check what the installer allows you to actually pick...i kinda want to say you can't specify variants in the installer
17:55:16 <kparal> I'd say punt and try to figure out which layouts/variants it actually affects
17:55:47 <geraldosimiao> +1 on this
17:55:51 * kparal needs to go
17:56:43 <adamw> oh, no, the installer does let you pick variants
17:56:49 <adamw> e.g. "German (Neo 2)" is in the list
17:57:00 <adamw> which is the Neo variant referred to in the bug report
17:57:05 <kparal> I'd be annoyed if it didn't
17:57:17 <kparal> the default czech variant is qwertz, that's horrible
17:57:20 <adamw> oh yeah, you like a non-default czech one, right>?
17:57:54 <geraldosimiao> and after install sddm-wayland-plasma doesn't show variants too. only the maisn language layouts, it seems
17:58:09 <geraldosimiao> the main layouts
17:59:16 <adamw> i kinda lean +1 on this, but probably best to punt and try to reproduce it definitively
18:01:44 <kparal> both work for me
18:02:39 * kparal is here intermittently
18:03:27 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2187858 - punt (delay decision) - this potentially looks like a blocker, but we would like to try and reproduce it definitively on Fedora 39 with a clear understanding of the distinction between "layouts" and "variants"
18:04:03 <geraldosimiao> ack
18:06:58 <adamw> ok, let's go with reduced acks mode since people are leaving
18:07:01 <adamw> #agreed 2187858 - punt (delay decision) - this potentially looks like a blocker, but we would like to try and reproduce it definitively on Fedora 39 with a clear understanding of the distinction between "layouts" and "variants"
18:07:08 <adamw> that was the last proposed blocker
18:07:32 <adamw> as for accepted blockers, I will attempt to work those after the meeting. the general state is that they all need work.
18:07:51 <adamw> particularly good old https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2113005 we may have to waive *again* :(
18:07:51 <geraldosimiao> ok
18:08:09 <geraldosimiao> ohh, the shim one?
18:08:33 <geraldosimiao> this is getting more complex
18:09:20 <geraldosimiao> as it affects now RHEL as I read on the ticket. don't?
18:20:30 <geraldosimiao> adamw any other topic?
18:51:12 <adamw> ah whoops sorry
18:51:20 <adamw> yeah, let's close this out, i forgot
18:51:24 <adamw> thanks for coming, everyone!
18:51:28 <adamw> #endmeeting