17:00:14 <jlaska> #startmeeting F-15-Beta blocker review
17:00:14 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Mar 11 17:00:14 2011 UTC.  The chair is jlaska. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:14 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:14 <jlaska> #meetingname f-15-beta-blocker-review
17:00:14 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f-15-beta-blocker-review'
17:00:16 <jlaska> #topic Roll call
17:00:29 * tflink is here
17:00:33 <jlaska> okay, it's blocker review time ... who is here to help us through the list?
17:00:55 * red_alert here, at least for the first half or so
17:00:57 <saccia> I'm here to watch the show
17:01:03 <jlaska> red_alert: okay
17:01:05 <jlaska> saccia: :)
17:01:17 <adamw> here
17:01:51 <jlaska> rbergeron noted she may not be able to join
17:02:00 <jlaska> anyone from rel-eng, dgilmore lurking?
17:02:31 <jlaska> will get started in 1 minute
17:02:42 * nirik is lurking around, ping if needed.
17:02:56 <jlaska> nirik: okay, thanks
17:03:44 <jlaska> alright, let's get movin
17:03:54 <jlaska> #topic Useful information
17:04:03 <jlaska> #info Our purpose is to review proposed beta 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.
17:04:15 <jlaska> and some handy links to reference through the meeting ...
17:04:16 <jlaska> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
17:04:16 <jlaska> #link http://bit.ly/f15-beta-blocker-proposed
17:04:16 <jlaska> #link http://bit.ly/f15-beta-blocker-accepted
17:04:17 <jlaska> #link http://bit.ly/f15-beta-nth-proposed
17:04:30 <jlaska> I'm going to start with the first list ... the proposed beta blockers
17:04:40 <jlaska> any comments before we go?
17:04:48 <red_alert> list is huge :/
17:05:00 <jlaska> well, I have a surprise for the next toipc
17:05:03 <jlaska> topic
17:05:15 <jlaska> #topic Proposal for MODIFIED anaconda bugs
17:05:35 <tflink> I assume that the alpha label on that list is in name only?
17:05:39 <jlaska> so rather than spend time reviewing all the proposed MODIFIED already  fixed and bodhi'd anaconda bugs ...
17:05:53 <jlaska> #info Clumens and I reviewed the MODIFIED anaconda bugs that are already fixed and available for testing in anaconda-15.22-1
17:06:00 <jlaska> tflink: which list?
17:06:15 <tflink> any of the bitly links you sent out to the beta blockers
17:06:21 <tflink> the lists in bz say alpha
17:06:23 <jlaska> tflink: yup that's just noise
17:06:31 <tflink> k, just making sure
17:06:35 <jlaska> thanks
17:06:54 <jlaska> okay, so there are 17 (or so) MODIFIED *and* already fixed anaconda proposed beta blockers
17:06:58 <red_alert> can we get a TC for anaconda 15.22-1 then?
17:07:06 <jlaska> red_alert: that's coming next week ... *or*
17:07:14 <jlaska> you can try a boot.iso I just built ...
17:07:22 <jlaska> http://jlaska.fedorapeople.org/boot.iso
17:07:27 <jlaska> so we can test and find newbugs
17:07:32 <adamw> if the proposal is 'let's skip them' the answer is 'hell yes'
17:07:36 <jlaska> proposed #agreed accept all MODIFIED anaconda bugs fixed_in <= anaconda-15.22-1
17:07:39 <jlaska> :)
17:07:40 <jlaska> +++1
17:07:41 <red_alert> I have several livecd bugs to test...boot.iso is no good :)
17:07:52 <jlaska> red_alert: you'll need to create a live image
17:08:09 <tflink> works for me
17:08:11 <jlaska> red_alert: or we can supply anaconda karma to get anaconda-15.22-1 into the 'base' repo
17:08:26 <jlaska> red_alert: use a nightly live and install that anaconda update
17:08:27 <clumens> i couldn't agree more.
17:08:40 <jlaska> #agreed accept all MODIFIED anaconda bugs fixed_in <= anaconda-15.22-1
17:08:48 <jlaska> yay ... that just cut 2 hours off the meeting time
17:08:58 <clumens> outstanding.
17:09:18 <jlaska> alright, resuming with proposed beta blockers (sorted by component)
17:09:30 <jlaska> adamw: I'll make the bz updates to all those anaconda blockers post meeting
17:09:39 <adamw> cool
17:09:56 <adamw> let's find another 30 bugs to skip!
17:10:00 <jlaska> #action jlaska will add whiteboard:AcceptedBlocker to all MODIFIED fixed anaconda bugs
17:10:04 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=677080
17:10:06 <buggbot> Bug 677080: unspecified, unspecified, ---, tcallawa, NEW, 'F14' artwork is shown during F-15 installation
17:10:16 <jlaska> #info 'F14' artwork is shown during F-15 installation
17:10:42 <adamw> so, this should actually have been an alpha blocker, but we (qa) totally dropped the ball and managed not to add the artwork criteria to the f15 criteria pages...oops.
17:10:48 <jlaska> we (jlaska)
17:10:51 <adamw> makes it a no-brainer for beta.
17:10:52 <adamw> no, it was me!
17:11:00 <jlaska> no, share that sword!
17:11:02 <jlaska> :0
17:11:25 <red_alert> do we need to #agreed on who's fault it was? ;)
17:11:32 <jlaska> haha :)
17:11:51 <jlaska> +1 on beta blocker
17:11:54 <clumens> i blame everyone but myself.
17:12:02 <jlaska> clumens: good strategy
17:12:04 * adamw blames canada
17:12:20 <red_alert> +1 on beta blocker
17:12:47 <adamw> criterion is alpha "The default Fedora artwork must either refer to the current Fedora release under development (Fedora 15), or reference an interim release milestone (e.g. Alpha or Beta). If a release version number is used, it must match the current Fedora release under development. This includes artwork used in the installer, firstboot, graphical boot, graphical login and desktop background. ", btw
17:13:15 <jlaska> proposed #agreed 677080 - Valid Alpha release blocker, accepted as Beta blocker - whiteboard:AcceptedBlocker
17:13:18 <tflink> +1 on beta blocker
17:13:21 <adamw> ack
17:13:28 <tflink> ack
17:13:44 <jlaska> #agreed 677080 - Valid Alpha release blocker, accepted as Beta blocker - whiteboard:AcceptedBlocker
17:13:50 <jlaska> thanks I counted ack's and +1's
17:14:18 <jlaska> the design folks are already thinking about how to address the artwork for beta
17:14:28 <jlaska> so I'm not sure we need to poke more on this bug
17:14:31 <adamw> as long as they're on it i don't see we need to do anything here
17:14:35 <jlaska> right on
17:14:44 <jlaska> moving on ...
17:14:48 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=681062
17:14:50 <buggbot> Bug 681062: medium, unspecified, ---, rstrode, NEW, F15 Alpha RC2: broken quicklauncher present in default panel configuration
17:14:57 <jlaska> #info F15 Alpha RC2: broken quicklauncher present in default panel configuration
17:15:06 <adamw> jlaska: um, i think you missed one anaconda bug that's NEW not MODIFIED
17:15:17 <adamw> 678414
17:15:20 <adamw> should we do that after this?
17:15:22 <jlaska> adamw: I did thanks, yup
17:15:44 <jlaska> this bug is pretty cut'n'dry
17:15:52 <adamw> right, the good news is, i'm pretty sure it's fixed post-alpha
17:15:58 <jlaska> from adamw ... "No part of the default desktop's panel (or
17:15:58 <jlaska> equivalent) configuration should crash on boot of the installed system using
17:16:01 <jlaska> default installation choices" - that criterion is a little too tightly worded,
17:16:04 <jlaska> it should also cover default panel configuration items being obviously
17:16:07 <jlaska> non-functional.
17:16:24 <adamw> i need to check the test day image in fallback mode to be sure, but after i updated the test system, the broken launcher went away
17:16:33 <adamw> so i expect it'll be the same after install now as well
17:16:39 <jlaska> okay, that'll be good
17:16:43 <jlaska> one less issue to worry about
17:16:57 <jlaska> should we move this to MODIFIED?
17:17:17 <adamw> yeah, probably a good idea, i'll do that with a comment
17:17:27 <jlaska> proposed #agreed 681062 - AcceptedBlocker - impacts beta destkop criteria
17:17:31 <jlaska> adamw: thx
17:17:42 <jlaska> proposed #agreed 681062 - AcceptedBlocker - impacts beta desktop criteria
17:17:47 <jlaska> (with proper spelling)
17:17:56 <jlaska> I'm guessing ack from adamw
17:18:02 <adamw> yup
17:18:04 <jlaska> any other votes/concerns?
17:18:09 <tflink> ack. agree with adamw's assesment of the blocker criteria
17:18:32 <jlaska> okay, thanks
17:18:32 <red_alert> +1
17:18:33 <adamw> the acceptance test we use has this case as a 'fail', so we just need to line up the test and the criteria
17:18:54 <jlaska> adamw: are wiki changes needed for that
17:19:03 <jlaska> or this will get covered when we do TC1?
17:19:04 <adamw> yeah, it should come under my big Fix The Criteria topic
17:19:09 <jlaska> oh oh
17:19:10 <adamw> which i should be doing instead of falling off hills
17:19:19 <jlaska> #agreed 681062 - AcceptedBlocker - impacts beta desktop criteria
17:19:39 * tflink wonders how one falls off a hill
17:19:50 <jlaska> tflink: very carefully! :)
17:19:56 <jlaska> okay, jumping back to a few anaconda bugs
17:20:05 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=629311
17:20:06 <buggbot> Bug 629311: medium, low, ---, dlehman, ASSIGNED, install allows use of preexisting root filesystem without reformat
17:20:13 <jlaska> #info install allows use of preexisting root filesystem without reformat
17:20:40 <clumens> he's got a patch for that.  i suggested it probably wasn't worth rocking the f15 bota for.
17:20:40 <jlaska> an oldie that dlehman recently fixed it seems
17:21:20 <jlaska> clumens: so you are -1 for F15Beta or F15Final?
17:21:24 <adamw> for me, this doesn't actually hit any beta criteria.
17:21:37 <jlaska> possibly final partitioning criteria
17:21:42 <adamw> you could argue it hits "The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system offered in a default installer configuration, LVM, software, hardware or BIOS RAID, or combination of the above " for final.
17:21:52 <jlaska> right, but it's somewhat of an edge case imo
17:21:53 <adamw> i'd be +1 to nth for beta or final, though.
17:22:03 <jlaska> yeah, good call
17:22:15 <clumens> i am okay with that
17:22:19 <adamw> or just pushing the fix; we don't have to be super conservative, outside of freezes especially...
17:22:55 <adamw> clumens: i know we are/were the ones pushing for you to make more controlled changes to anaconda and it's awesome you're doing that, but sensible bug fixes are fine, especially when we're not right near a release point :)
17:23:15 <clumens> oh you've already agreed to a ton of sensible fixes - that's what that pile of MODIFIED ones was all about
17:23:21 <jlaska> proposed #agreed RejectedBlocker, AcceptedNTH - no specific beta criteria covered, possibly impacts Final partitioning criteria.
17:23:25 <adamw> right, but they don't have to be blockers to get fixed
17:23:50 <red_alert> jlaska: ack
17:23:56 <adamw> ack
17:23:59 <tflink> ack
17:24:14 <jlaska> clumens, sounds like you were okay with this too?
17:24:28 <clumens> yeah
17:24:38 <jlaska> #agreed RejectedBlocker, AcceptedNTH - no specific beta criteria covered, possibly impacts Final partitioning criteria.
17:24:58 <jlaska> so, I guess we'll wait until this goes into MODIFIED and ON_QA to reach out for testing
17:25:19 <jlaska> next up ...
17:25:24 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676114
17:25:26 <buggbot> Bug 676114: medium, unspecified, ---, akozumpl, POST, iscsi --target kickstart option not actually used
17:25:33 <jlaska> #info iscsi --target kickstart option not actually used
17:25:59 <adamw> iSCSI is final
17:26:15 <jlaska> yeah
17:26:22 <adamw> so i'd say -1 F15Beta, +1 F15Blocker, +1 go ahead and fix it now if we have a fix :)
17:26:29 <jlaska> ack :)
17:26:41 <adamw> looks like it's waiting on a test from reporter.
17:27:15 <jlaska> proposed #agreed 676114 - iSCSI impacts Final release criteria - AcceptedBlocker for Final release.
17:27:29 <tflink> ack
17:27:31 <red_alert> ack
17:27:57 <adamw> ack
17:28:13 <adamw> do we have a bug secretary btw?
17:28:16 <jlaska> #agreed 676114 - iSCSI impacts Final release criteria - AcceptedBlocker for Final release.
17:28:25 <adamw> if not, i can do it
17:28:37 <jlaska> if no one takes it, I'll circle back post-meeting
17:28:50 <tflink> I can do it, assuming that I have the permissions
17:28:52 <jlaska> I'll definitely grab all those MODIFIED anaconda ones
17:29:06 <tflink> just going through after the meeting and changing the bugs to match what we decide, right?
17:29:15 <adamw> i usually do it as we're going along
17:29:16 <adamw> saves time
17:29:49 <jlaska> adamw: sure
17:29:59 <adamw> i'll do it, then! carry on...
17:30:12 <jlaska> :)
17:30:23 <jlaska> thank you
17:30:23 <tflink> I don't think that I have the permissions to modify those fields, anyways
17:30:32 <tflink> so its probably a good thing you're willing to do it :)
17:30:42 <jlaska> tflink: I don't believe special perms are required
17:30:51 <red_alert> you simply need to be logged in
17:30:55 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678414
17:30:56 <buggbot> Bug 678414: high, high, ---, anaconda-maint-list, NEW, NFS ISO install fails during repo setup - umount.nfs4: /mnt/source: device is busy
17:31:02 <jlaska> #info NFS ISO install fails during repo setup - umount.nfs4: /mnt/source: device is busy
17:31:04 <tflink> I am logged in, but this is a discussion for another time, I think
17:31:27 <jlaska> This is waiting on feedback from someone named cranes maska
17:31:49 <jlaska> I'll ask him to test with a custom-built DVD image next week
17:32:43 <adamw> that durn cranes
17:32:49 <clumens> so lazy
17:32:59 <jlaska> agreed!
17:33:11 <jlaska> so ... impacts beta criteria - "The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and NFS remote package source options "
17:33:12 <tflink> its still a beta blocker, though, right?
17:33:23 <adamw> yup, pretty clear cut
17:33:41 <jlaska> I'll ^w Cranes will test this whenever he gets a DVD.iso
17:33:46 <jlaska> TC1 or custom-built ... time permitting
17:34:17 <jlaska> #agreed 678414 - AcceptedBlocker for Beta, impacts NFS installation source beta criteria
17:34:43 <jlaska> okay, back to the non-installer bugs
17:34:47 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=682141
17:34:49 <buggbot> Bug 682141: unspecified, unspecified, ---, otaylor, NEW, gnome-shell failed to start when changing user language to Chinese(China)
17:35:01 <jlaska> #info gnome-shell failed to start when changing user language to Chinese(China)
17:35:55 <jlaska> another lang/keymap related issue
17:36:18 <jlaska> I'm curious if the result has changed since the big set of shell related updates this week
17:36:46 <jlaska> Hurry proposed this issue, stating "Proposed as F15Beta since it blocks all the users who need a simplified Chinese
17:36:49 <jlaska> environment of the system."
17:37:17 <jlaska> so as for # of impacted users, that's probably a good amount
17:37:37 <adamw> yeah. i still haven't proposed a revision of the criteria for lang-specific issues, but this certainly looks like one we should fix
17:37:45 <jlaska> Maybe "No part of the default desktop's panel (or equivalent) configuration should crash on boot of the installed system using default installation choices "
17:37:48 <adamw> basically this hits most people in mainland China
17:37:53 <jlaska> err, not panel really
17:37:55 <jlaska> yeah
17:38:15 <adamw> well it's just "In most cases, the installed system must boot to a functional graphical environment without user intervention" really
17:38:16 <tflink> does it fallback?
17:38:18 <adamw> (from alpha)
17:38:24 <jlaska> adamw: yeah, that's the one
17:38:41 <jlaska> tflink: fallback, as in resort to us keymap?
17:38:58 <jlaska> or english LANG I mean
17:39:01 <tflink> is it gnome entirely or just shell?
17:39:10 <jlaska> "gnome-shell failed to start unless changing the language back to English or
17:39:13 <jlaska> Chinese(Hong Kong)
17:39:15 <red_alert> I wonder if that affects simplified chinese only or other asian languages too
17:39:16 <jlaska> "
17:39:29 <red_alert> ok, that already answers my question :)
17:39:32 <jlaska> tflink: I suspect just the shell, but we could ask Hurry for feedback
17:39:46 <adamw> well, if the shell fails to start and doesn't fall back, you effectively have no desktop
17:39:56 <adamw> it's not clear whether it falls back, but i wouldn't want to count on it...
17:40:04 <jlaska> right, that at least gives us a potential workaround
17:40:36 <jlaska> proposed #agreed 682141 - AcceptedBlocker for Beta, likely impacts Alpha desktop criteria and impacts most people in mainland China
17:40:40 <jlaska> ack/nak/patch?
17:40:56 <jlaska> proposed #agreed 682141 - AcceptedBlocker for Beta, likely impacts Alpha desktop criteria and affects most people in mainland China
17:41:12 <adamw> provisional +1, we should check whether it falls back to panel, but even if it does...kinda icky.
17:41:22 <tflink> I think it depends on how much we want to split hairs and whether or not gnome falls back or just crashes and dies
17:41:35 <tflink> adamw said it better than I did, though
17:41:52 <jlaska> okay
17:41:52 <tflink> definately +1 if it doesn't fall back to panel
17:42:04 <jlaska> I have a feeling it doesn't gracefully fallback
17:42:10 <jlaska> but let's definitely ask for that info
17:42:23 <jlaska> shall we revist this next week
17:42:28 <adamw> sure
17:42:48 <adamw> or we can just agree on the above, ask the question, and adjust the status appropriately once we have an answer?
17:43:03 <jlaska> yeah, I'd rather just move fwd on this one
17:43:09 <jlaska> so ack to that
17:43:38 <jlaska> proposed #agreed 682141 - AcceptedBlocker for Beta, likely impacts Alpha desktop criteria and affects most people in mainland China, additional feedback needed from rhe
17:43:41 <tflink> ack: works for me
17:43:50 <adamw> patch
17:44:03 <jlaska> #chair adamw
17:44:03 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw jlaska
17:44:27 <adamw> proposed #agreed 682141 - need to find out from rhe whether this results in unusable desktop or fallback mode; if the former this will be AcceptedBlocker and can be updated outside of meeting, if the latter, will revisit next week
17:44:39 <jlaska> much better
17:44:40 <jlaska> ack
17:45:05 <tflink> ack, much more clear this way
17:45:08 <adamw> #agreed 682141 - need to find out from rhe whether this results in unusable desktop or fallback mode; if the former this will be AcceptedBlocker and can be updated outside of meeting, if the latter, will revisit next week
17:45:25 <jlaska> if nothing else on this one, I'll move on
17:45:56 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679814
17:45:57 <buggbot> Bug 679814: unspecified, unspecified, ---, bnocera, NEW, [abrt] gnome-user-share-2.30.2-4.fc15: do_pre_parse_initialization: Process /usr/libexec/gnome-user-share was killed by signal 6 (SIGABRT)
17:46:06 <jlaska> #info [abrt] gnome-user-share-2.30.2-4.fc15: do_pre_parse_initialization: Process /usr/libexec/gnome-user-share was killed by signal 6 (SIGABRT)
17:46:53 <jlaska> Definitely captured  by final release criteria - "In most cases, there must be no SELinux 'AVC: denied' messages or abrt crash notifications on initial boot and subsequent login"
17:47:23 <adamw> right
17:47:39 <adamw> whether it hits "No part of the default desktop's panel (or equivalent) configuration should
17:47:39 <adamw> crash on boot of the installed system using default installation choices " ...i'm not sure
17:47:50 <jlaska> yeah, I debated that too
17:47:54 <adamw> i don't think this is part of the panel. the intent of that criterion is to do with the functionality of the panel, not just 'do you see any crashes'
17:48:13 <adamw> i.e. we consider it a bigger problem if bits of the panel are broken than just an ugly crash notification at login, which is why there's the split between beta and final there
17:48:17 <jlaska> right, I think with the panel crit. we didn't want to see dialogs saying "Applet failed to start [delete]"
17:48:36 <adamw> well it's just the idea that anything on the default panel is probably important, so nothing there should be broken
17:48:45 <tflink> it certainly doesn't seem to impact functionality much
17:48:46 <jlaska> yeah
17:48:50 <adamw> so for me this is final
17:48:55 <jlaska> ack for final
17:49:00 <tflink> +1
17:49:07 * adamw wonders if we need a Meta-Criteria page
17:49:14 <adamw> or i should just write the criteria better =)
17:49:20 <jlaska> no idea how this impacts desktop file sharing, but either way, Final
17:49:24 <tflink> as long as it doesn't get too verbose :)
17:50:04 <jlaska> proposed #agreed 679814 - AcceptedBlocker for Final release . covered by no AVC or ABRT notification on login final criteria
17:50:36 <adamw> ack
17:50:42 <tflink> ack
17:50:42 <adamw> do we want to make this Beta NTH too?
17:50:50 <adamw> i think it's something we should fix if we can for Beta.
17:50:57 <jlaska> sure, I'd like to see it fixed sooner
17:51:00 <tflink> if we have a fix, sure
17:51:03 <adamw> k
17:51:20 <tflink> but it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal other than annoyance and looks bad
17:51:30 <jlaska> #agreed 679814 - AcceptedBlocker for Final release, AcceptedNTH for Beta. Covered by no AVC or ABRT notification on login final criteria
17:51:42 <tflink> then again, I have a hard time keeping nouveau from freezing for more than 15 min so maybe my view is skewed
17:51:48 <adamw> hehe
17:51:51 <jlaska> :)
17:51:59 <jlaska> alright, next up ...
17:52:09 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=677953
17:52:11 <buggbot> Bug 677953: medium, unspecified, ---, kernel-maint, ASSIGNED, Unable to kickstart with ks.cfg file stored on hard drive
17:52:17 <jlaska> #info Unable to kickstart with ks.cfg file stored on hard drive
17:52:44 <jlaska> impacts Beta criteria - "The installer must be able to use all kickstart delivery methods "
17:52:58 <adamw> yup, looks straightforward.
17:53:01 <tflink> yep
17:53:02 * jlaska reading details of bug
17:54:11 <adamw> me too
17:54:25 <adamw> looks like tester is using an external USB hard drive and it's not being mounted...
17:54:36 <jlaska> yeah
17:54:45 * jlaska updated to give hongqing some <ctrl>z guidance
17:55:02 <adamw> so, if we were down to the wire on this, we might argue that the installer can use the hard disk kickstart delivery _method_, this is more a bug with a particular case of hard drive _discovery_
17:55:23 <jlaska> yeah, possible
17:55:27 <adamw> i can see that happening if this were the last bug on the list...so is it truly a blocker?
17:55:42 <tflink> or that it wasn't discovered until too late
17:55:44 <jlaska> I'd still push for this, but I need to know more
17:56:01 <adamw> clumens: you have any take on this?
17:56:02 <jlaska> loading a kickstart from a USB drive seems like a common use case for ks=hd:device:/path
17:56:48 <clumens> adamw: nothing offhand
17:56:52 <tflink> I wonder if it matters whether or not its an actual spinning HD or just a usb stick
17:57:12 <adamw> tflink: they do get handled differently, but yeah, it'd be nice to test.
17:57:24 <jlaska> let's ask hongqing for some extra info on this
17:57:25 <tflink> the way I'm reading this, they're using a spinning hd
17:57:38 <jlaska> whether it still happens with the latest anaconda-15.22-1, and the type of storage he is using
17:57:46 <adamw> okay
17:57:50 <tflink> unless I'm way off, ext3 on a usb stick is rare
17:57:54 <tflink> but agreed on more info
17:57:58 <adamw> revisit next week with more details?
17:57:59 <jlaska> I can confirm there isn't a general problem with ks=hd: ... so perhaps specific with the device type
17:58:09 <jlaska> ack to revisit next week
17:58:21 <tflink> sounds like a plan; ack
17:58:21 <adamw> okay, i'll update the bug with some questions
17:58:28 <jlaska> thanks
17:59:09 <jlaska> proposed #agreed 677953 - Need more information from hongqing on whether the issue remains with anaconda-15.22-1, and the type of storage used.  Will revisit this bug next week.
18:00:19 <jlaska> I think we have the ack's needed on this already based on previous discussion
18:00:22 <tflink> were there any other questions on that
18:00:22 <jlaska> moving forward ..
18:00:28 <jlaska> #agreed 677953 - Need more information from hongqing on whether the issue remains with anaconda-15.22-1, and the type of storage used.  Will revisit this bug next week.
18:00:37 <jlaska> if there are ... we can come back ...
18:00:40 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678402
18:00:41 <buggbot> Bug 678402: high, unspecified, ---, mclasen, NEW, F15 livemedia are checking for updates
18:00:42 <tflink> very true
18:00:51 <jlaska> #info F15 livemedia are checking for updates
18:01:09 <jlaska> seems cut'n'dry here too ...
18:01:13 <jlaska> Beta criteria - "The desktop default update manager must not periodically check for updates when the system is booted live, but must periodically check for updates when running on an installed system "
18:01:31 <tflink> is it still doing that? I don't remember hitting that yesterday
18:01:33 <jlaska> sounds like we are just waiting for a new update of gsettings, so the live kickstart can be updated
18:01:49 <jlaska> tflink: ooh, good point, I don't know
18:02:17 <tflink> last update was almost a month ago
18:02:33 <tflink> to the bug, I mean
18:02:48 * jlaska asks mclasen
18:03:15 <adamw> i'm pretty sure it's still happening, but lemme check spin-kickstarts
18:03:55 <adamw> oh wait
18:04:01 <adamw> commit fae7f280dfbd346627b2882bcb3d5a01de406b29
18:04:01 <adamw> Author: Matthias Clasen <mclasen@redhat.com>
18:04:01 <adamw> Date:   Tue Mar 1 11:04:34 2011 -0500
18:04:06 <adamw> gnome-packagekit is no longer using GConf, so tweaking GConf keys
18:04:06 <adamw> has little effect. Instead disable the gnome-settings-daemon updates
18:04:06 <adamw> plugin.
18:04:13 <adamw> so it looks like mclasen pushed a fix for this
18:04:30 <jlaska> cool ... move to MODIFIED and confirm with testing?
18:04:40 <adamw> i think so
18:04:47 <tflink> I assume that disable is for live media only, no?
18:04:51 <adamw> so, +1 blocker, set to modified, think it's fixed
18:04:56 <adamw> tflink: yes, that's a spin-kickstarts commit
18:05:10 <tflink> k, making sure
18:05:51 <jlaska> #agreed 678402 - AcceptedBlocker for Beta, seems to be fixed in spin-kickstarts, move to MODIFIED and verify fix
18:05:59 <tflink> ack
18:06:32 <adamw> ack
18:06:40 <jlaska> and ack from me too
18:06:48 <jlaska> if no nak's, I'll move on in a moment ..
18:06:59 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683179
18:07:00 <buggbot> Bug 683179: medium, unspecified, ---, davidz, NEW, desktop- backgrounds package no longer sets the default Fedora background, due to changes in Gnome
18:07:15 <jlaska> #info desktop- backgrounds package no longer sets the default Fedora background, due to changes in Gnome
18:07:41 <jlaska> oh, so this is related to the earlier bug about incorrect desktop artowrk
18:07:44 <jlaska> artwork
18:07:58 <jlaska> apparently, there isn't support yet for distro-specific artwork on gnome3
18:08:12 <tflink> I thought that the debate over gnome vs fedora default wallpaper wasn't settled yet
18:08:15 <tflink> did I miss something?
18:08:16 <jlaska> I believe this bug is intended to track distro-overrides for this
18:08:48 <jlaska> tflink: I think this is slightly different from that
18:09:04 <tflink> jlaska: also true
18:09:09 <jlaska> related, but slightly different perhaps
18:09:32 <tflink> this isn't just about whether to change artwork but updating the method to do so
18:09:39 <jlaska> this bug tracks the ability for Fedora to actually have a background that differs from the default upstream selection
18:09:44 <adamw> right
18:09:46 <jlaska> tflink: yeah
18:10:00 <adamw> i think we were only ever going to take the upstream background on the live spin, too...not on media installs? or smth like that
18:10:10 <adamw> overall, for now i'd say +1 blocker
18:10:31 <jlaska> agreed
18:10:52 <jlaska> I think this is slightly chicken and egg with the other blocker about setting beta artwork
18:11:03 <tflink> yeah, this seems to fall under the artwork part of alpha release criteria
18:11:53 <jlaska> if for some odd reason, this issue isn't needed in order to make the proposed artwork changes, we can adjust accordingly
18:12:06 * jlaska fiddling w/ agreed wording
18:12:23 <adamw> agreed
18:12:44 <tflink> +1
18:13:00 <jlaska> proposed #agreed 683179 - AcceptedBlocker for Beta, impacts ability for Fedora to assert distro-specific artwork (alpha criteria).  Will revisit if Fedora artwork policy changes.
18:13:02 <adamw> propose: #agreed 638179 provisionally accepted as a blocker per Alpha artwork criterion; if this fix turns out not to be needed for our agreed artwork approach for Fedora 15, this stops being a blocker
18:13:14 <adamw> either is good for me :)
18:13:16 <jlaska> ack to adamw's
18:13:29 <tflink> ack to adamw's version
18:13:42 <jlaska> adamw, make it so number one!
18:14:31 <jlaska> #agreed 638179 provisionally accepted as a blocker per Alpha artwork criterion; if this fix turns out not to be  needed for our agreed artwork approach for Fedora 15, this stops being a blocker
18:14:41 <jlaska> 5 more proposed blockers ...
18:14:46 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=677734
18:14:47 <buggbot> Bug 677734: unspecified, unspecified, ---, davidz, NEW, [abrt] notification-daemon-0.7.0-4.fc15: gtk_window_configure_event: Process /usr/libexec/notification-daemon was killed by signal 6 (SIGABRT)
18:14:52 <jlaska> #info [abrt] notification-daemon-0.7.0-4.fc15: gtk_window_configure_event: Process /usr/libexec/notification-daemon was killed by signal 6 (SIGABRT)
18:15:53 <jlaska> I think this hits Final criteria - "In most cases, there must be no SELinux 'AVC: denied' messages or abrt crash notifications on initial boot and subsequent login"
18:16:03 <jlaska> and plenty of dups/cc on this one
18:16:25 <adamw> although all quite old
18:16:37 <jlaska> yeah, will want to retest with the current round of shell update
18:16:39 <jlaska> ?
18:16:40 <jlaska> updates
18:16:53 <adamw> there's no CCs since 02-25 which leads me to suspect this may be fixed
18:17:00 <jlaska> what are we at now?
18:17:01 * jlaska check
18:17:18 <jlaska> notification-daemon-0.7.1-1.fc15
18:17:33 <jlaska> Let's go big or go home ...
18:17:48 <jlaska> I propose CLOSED ERRATA with fixed_in=notification-daemon-0.7.1-1.fc15
18:18:02 <jlaska> and AcceptedBlocker for Final based on criteria above
18:18:12 <tflink> pushed to stable 2011-03-03
18:18:22 <tflink> so its been in there a little while
18:18:24 <jlaska> and we'll reopen certainly if problems come in again
18:18:48 <tflink> sounds good
18:18:52 <adamw> i guess ack
18:18:59 <jlaska> adamw: worries?
18:20:32 <jlaska> proposed #agreed 677734 - AcceptedBlocker for Final release based on no AVC or ABRT on login criteria.  Appears to be fixed in current notification-daemon package.  Move to MODIFIED and request test feedback.
18:20:39 <jlaska> okay, less aggressivve above
18:21:00 <tflink> I like that better, I was going to wait for wording
18:21:16 <adamw> yeah, i think just closing it is a bit premature
18:21:22 <jlaska> sure
18:21:27 <adamw> we can set MODIFIED and ask for reporters to verify they aren't seeing it any more
18:21:34 <jlaska> yeah, probably a safer bet
18:21:44 * jlaska feeling trigger happy
18:21:53 <jlaska> #agreed 677734 - AcceptedBlocker for Final release based on no AVC or ABRT on login criteria.  Appears to be fixed in current notification-daemon package.  Move to MODIFIED and request test feedback.
18:22:06 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=654762
18:22:08 <buggbot> Bug 654762: medium, low, ---, rstrode, NEW, plymouth does not start due to "Address already in use" error
18:22:13 <jlaska> #info plymouth does not start due to "Address already in use" error
18:22:15 <jlaska> oh this one
18:22:46 <jlaska> According to Lennart, this message is cosmetic and should be resolved
18:22:58 <jlaska> this issue isnt't tracking cases where /var/log/boot.log is empty
18:23:38 <jlaska> I definitely don't see the reported bz anymore
18:24:06 <jlaska> I don't think we have anything to accept this since it's not clear it actually breaks anything
18:24:27 <jlaska> unless any other ideas ...
18:24:55 <adamw> yeah, i think this bug is a red herring'
18:25:06 <adamw> afaik everyone got that message, some people assumed it was the cause of various other bugs but it never was
18:25:20 <jlaska> proposed #agreed 654762 - RejectedBlocker, message is cosmetic and should be fixed now.  Move to MODIFIED and request test feedback.  Any problems with /var/log/boot.log will be tracked elsewhere
18:25:42 <jlaska> I'm no longer seeing the message, so I'm fine with CLOSING the bug
18:25:51 <jlaska> ack/nak/patch?
18:26:13 <adamw> yup
18:26:17 <adamw> ack
18:26:18 <tflink> ack
18:26:28 <jlaska> good enough
18:26:34 <jlaska> #agreed 654762 - RejectedBlocker, message is cosmetic and should be fixed now.  Move to MODIFIED and request test feedback.  Any problems with /var/log/boot.log will be tracked elsewhere
18:26:42 <jlaska> 3 more ...
18:26:49 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679503
18:26:51 <buggbot> Bug 679503: unspecified, unspecified, ---, rstrode, NEW, plymouth doesn't always transition to gdm
18:26:56 <jlaska> #info plymouth doesn't always transition to gdm
18:27:39 <jlaska> looks like adamw was reporting this also using the test day images
18:27:57 <adamw> right, i hit it 100% of the time with the image i was spinning for the test days
18:28:01 <jlaska> fun!
18:28:05 <adamw> i suspect current nightlies may have this bug too, but haven't checked
18:28:14 <jlaska> looks like lennart is aware of the issue
18:28:19 <jlaska> he DUPd a bug against this
18:29:31 <jlaska> I think this hits Alpha criteria "In most cases, the installed system must boot to a functional graphical environment without user intervention"
18:29:38 <jlaska> but I'm unclear on the "most cases" part of this bug
18:30:01 <jlaska> we want to leave this on the list for next week, and see if we have any other reports?
18:30:04 <adamw> yeah, i was only testing on one system
18:30:07 <adamw> so it may be a timing thing
18:30:21 <adamw> yeah it could probably cure for a while
18:30:50 <tflink> the only image I've tested recently was the one for yesterday's gnome3 test day
18:30:57 <tflink> i'd have to try it with a nightly
18:31:00 <jlaska> tflink: and that booted into gdm fine?
18:31:18 <tflink> most of the time
18:31:29 <tflink> about 1/4 would hang on gdm pre login screen
18:31:41 <tflink> but I filed a bug on that one
18:31:58 <tflink> adamw disabled plymouth on that image, no?
18:32:29 <adamw> yes
18:32:34 <adamw> i hacked around this bug for the test day
18:32:44 <adamw> the nightly won't have that hack
18:32:56 <jlaska> one moment ... phone ...
18:33:54 <jlaska> back
18:33:56 <satellit_afk> option control delete required to get gdm login on test day CD
18:34:04 <brunowolff> I have seen random hangs when unlocking encrypted partitions.
18:34:16 <brunowolff> That wouldn't effect live images though.
18:34:18 <jlaska> brunowolff: I have too, I think I have another bz out for that one
18:34:22 <adamw> satellit_afk: that's a different bug (whee)
18:34:29 <adamw> so, focus!
18:34:31 <jlaska> so ... thoughts for #topic bug?
18:34:35 <jlaska> :)
18:34:43 <adamw> i think we can wait and get some more feedback from this week's nightlies and stuff
18:34:49 <jlaska> sounds goodly
18:34:50 <adamw> maybe throw a mail to the list asking people to look out for it
18:34:52 <tflink> i think that we need more data, but it sounds like a blocker at the moment
18:35:05 <jlaska> yeah, if it holds, definitely a blocker
18:35:27 <brunowolff> gdm updates have been flakey this week. Is this with the latest update?
18:35:45 <jlaska> proposed #agreed 679503 - not enough information to review yet.  Revisit next week and ask testers for help confirming this issue
18:35:53 <tflink> ack
18:36:18 <jlaska> brunowolff: when I filed it, it was against .91
18:36:21 <adamw> ack
18:36:22 <jlaska> (so a little older)
18:36:28 <jlaska> #agreed 679503 - not enough information to review yet.  Revisit next week and ask testers for help confirming this issue
18:36:37 <adamw> yes, i tested with .91 and .93 and hit it with both
18:36:41 <jlaska> okay
18:36:42 <adamw> only disabling plymouth avoided it
18:36:44 <brunowolff> .93-2?
18:36:47 <adamw> yes
18:36:57 <jlaska> anything else on this one?
18:37:00 <adamw> no
18:37:07 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646843
18:37:08 <buggbot> Bug 646843: medium, low, ---, rhughes, ASSIGNED, images/install.img will no longer exist in F-15 and newer
18:37:25 <jlaska> #info images/install.img will no longer exist in F-15 and newer
18:37:44 <jlaska> Upgrade are beta release items - "The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade installation from a clean, fully updated default installation of the previous stable Fedora release, either via preupgrade or by booting to the installer manually "
18:37:58 <jlaska> and this bug impacts preuprade support for F14->F15
18:38:11 <jlaska> (or the less "supported" F13->F15)
18:38:54 <jlaska> proposed #agreed 646843 - AcceptedBlocker for Beta due to beta upgrade criteria, will focus testing during upcoming preupgrade test day
18:39:12 <adamw> ack
18:39:15 <tflink> ack
18:40:09 <jlaska> #agreed 646843 - AcceptedBlocker for Beta due to beta upgrade criteria, will focus testing during upcoming preupgrade test day
18:40:23 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678927
18:40:24 <buggbot> Bug 678927: unspecified, unspecified, ---, mgrepl, MODIFIED, SELinux denial prevents systemd-tty-ask from collecting password for unlocking encrypted /home partition
18:40:30 <jlaska> #info SELinux denial prevents systemd-tty-ask from collecting password for unlocking encrypted /home partition
18:41:05 <jlaska> Looks like we just need test feedback on this bugh
18:41:07 <jlaska> bug
18:41:17 <jlaska> (and of course, deciding if it's a beta blocker)
18:41:51 <jlaska> we discussed this as a possible Alpha blocker, and assuming my theory holds, I think this qualifies as a Final blocker because of "The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system offered in a default installer configuration, LVM, software, hardware or BIOS RAID, or combination of the above "
18:41:58 <jlaska> (our partitioning catch-all)
18:42:17 <jlaska> mcepl: are you still seeing this issue?
18:42:43 <mcepl> which one?
18:42:45 * mcepl is looking
18:43:06 <mcepl> yes, it seemed to be gone, but it is back
18:43:19 <jlaska> alright, cool can you update the bz with your latest info?
18:43:25 <mcepl> when doing cold restart it is almost 100%
18:43:27 <jlaska> well, not cool, but thatnks for checking
18:43:28 <mcepl> ok
18:43:47 <adamw> was this the one where you need a non-default LVM scheme to hit it?
18:44:01 <jlaska> well, now that I think of it
18:44:10 <jlaska> I have a feeling this failure has slightly changed
18:44:29 <jlaska> because I'm now seeing the case the mcepl mentioned (cold start encrypted /home isn't mounted)
18:44:39 <mcepl> adamw: I don't remember what's wrong with my LVM layout ....???
18:44:55 <mcepl> when I then reboot it works ok
18:44:59 <mcepl> I will update the bug
18:45:01 <jlaska> mcepl: my theory was whether this issue was triggered by encrypted LVM pv's or LVM lv's
18:45:19 <jlaska> mcepl: okay thanks, can you boot with the usual stuff .. plymouth.debug etc.. ?
18:45:22 <mcepl> no, I have encrypted LV ... is that weird?
18:45:40 <mcepl> I was feeding the stuff to mezcalero ... I will check whether I have it somewhere
18:46:07 <jlaska> mcepl: no, encrypted LV's are less weird
18:46:42 <jlaska> any ideas on this one?  shall we revisit after Lennart and mcepl sync up?
18:47:02 <jlaska> and yes, this is our *last* proposed beta blocker
18:47:04 <tflink> yeah, I'd say make sure that the current issue is the one in the bug and revisit
18:47:59 <adamw> yeah, for me if this hits a default encrypted /home install it's Beta, otherwise Final
18:48:00 <tflink> since it may have disappeared and returned
18:48:23 <jlaska> proposed #agreed 678927 - bug appears to have been fixed, but may be failing again.  mcepl will provide test feedback for lennart and we will revisit bug next week
18:48:31 <jlaska> adamw: I agree on that
18:48:37 <mcepl> adamw: the problem is that I don't do cold reboots that often, so I thought for some time it is gone.
18:48:54 <jlaska> ack/nak/patch?
18:49:14 <adamw> ack
18:49:19 <mcepl> and it probably shouldn't be MODIFIED, if that matters
18:49:19 <tflink> ack
18:49:44 <jlaska> mcepl: please do update the status based on your results
18:49:47 <tflink> not sure if this would be Beta, though but maybe I'm nitpicking
18:49:56 <tflink> we can cover that next week
18:49:59 <jlaska> right on
18:50:07 <jlaska> #agreed 678927 - bug appears to have been fixed, but may be failing again.  mcepl will provide test feedback for lennart and we will revisit bug next week
18:50:21 <jlaska> okay, there were 2 bugs on the Accepted blocker list prior to the meeting
18:50:28 <jlaska> do we want to review those  quickly for updates?
18:50:50 <adamw> sure
18:50:56 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679486
18:50:58 <buggbot> Bug 679486: medium, low, ---, ajax, ASSIGNED, Unable to start graphical installer on RC1 KDE live image
18:51:23 <jlaska> I haven't retested this much since RC2 ... does anyone know if this is still an issue?
18:51:32 <jlaska> err, nm ... adamw posted a nice summary
18:51:36 <jlaska> comment#38
18:52:26 <jlaska> so this is a timing issue, and still a valid Beta blocker?
18:53:45 <jlaska> adamw: you're close to this one from the go/no_go meetings ... any ideas?
18:54:21 <adamw> sec
18:54:45 <adamw> nothing's really changed here.
18:55:05 <adamw> we've identified the issue quite precisely, really we just need the devs to decide upon and implement a fix.
18:55:18 <jlaska> okay
18:55:21 <jlaska> so no changes to make
18:55:36 <adamw> not really, maybe just a developer poke
18:55:54 <jlaska> #info no changes in this issue.  Waiting for feedback from ajax for help moving forward
18:56:16 <jlaska> okay, the other bug I mentioned is already gone
18:56:36 <jlaska> so ... we have the option of going through proposed NTH bugs
18:56:56 <jlaska> do folks want to scan the NTH proposed list for anything worth reviewing?
18:57:09 <jlaska> #topic Open Discussion
18:57:24 <adamw> how long is it? :)
18:57:24 <jlaska> The proposed NTH Beta list is at - http://bit.ly/f15-beta-nth-proposed
18:57:38 <jlaska> 3 bugs
18:57:39 <jlaska> :)
18:57:55 <adamw> three? sure, let's do it.
18:58:00 <jlaska> alrighty ...
18:58:07 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672527
18:58:08 <buggbot> Bug 672527: urgent, unspecified, ---, akozumpl, MODIFIED, Remote logging via virtio failed
18:58:31 <jlaska> This is something that hongqing has been working on ... it will be used in the virt install automation he is doing
18:58:49 <jlaska> so, by no means a blocker, but sure would be nice to get this in so his scripts can benefit from this
18:58:52 <clumens> damn, you guys must all be managers what with this kind of meeting fortitude.
18:59:00 * jlaska is about spent
18:59:31 <jlaska> so, clearly I'm all for NTH on this one
18:59:44 <jlaska> I'd prefer for the Beta
18:59:48 * tflink is scared about what would happen if more people were actively involved and arguing
18:59:55 <adamw> clumens: we've only been going two hours. this is a BABY meeting.
19:00:03 <jlaska> tflink: ssssh! don't stir folks up :)
19:00:23 <adamw> yeah, anything to do with diagnosis is important, +1 nth.
19:00:28 <jlaska> I'm 1000% sure that clumens is totally comfortable with NTH on this one too :)
19:00:39 <jlaska> (/me WAG'ing)
19:01:18 <clumens> it'd be nice
19:01:19 <tflink> +1 nth
19:01:30 <jlaska> #agreed 672527 - AcceptedNTH for Beta (or Final), improves virt-based installer diagnostics
19:01:37 <jlaska> okay, I think we have enoug hthere
19:01:39 <jlaska> there
19:01:59 <tflink> isn't that just waiting for feedback?
19:02:26 <jlaska> could be, it might actually be in anaconda-15.22-1
19:02:35 <adamw> next bug!
19:02:37 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=677609
19:02:39 <buggbot> Bug 677609: high, medium, ---, rvykydal, MODIFIED, IPv6 default gateway not honoured
19:03:02 <jlaska> Radek Vykydal  asked for this ... and I have no problem with it at all
19:03:23 <tflink> also sounds like a fix is in anaconda
19:03:33 <jlaska> fixed in the next release
19:03:38 <jlaska> I don't believe it's built yet
19:03:41 <jlaska> so "fixed"
19:03:47 <tflink> 15.23-1
19:03:49 <jlaska> right
19:03:54 <tflink> ah, OK
19:04:17 <jlaska> but your point is valid ... not much to discuss here if it's already in the f15-branch
19:04:30 <tflink> still nth
19:04:32 <adamw> +1 nth
19:04:51 <jlaska> #agreed 677609 - AcceptedNTH, appears to be fixed and awaiting next anaconda-15.23-1 build
19:05:01 <mcepl> adamw: bugs updated ... I don't have those logs anymore, and if somebody else will reproduce it and if they are sent to Lennart, I would rather not do it.
19:05:06 <jlaska> last one
19:05:13 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=672135
19:05:14 <buggbot> Bug 672135: unspecified, unspecified, ---, jmccann, NEW, users with no "real name" in /etc/passwd show up as blank
19:05:16 <jlaska> I hate this bug
19:05:24 <jlaska> #info sers with no "real name" in /etc/passwd show up as blank
19:05:47 <jlaska> current proposal in the comments is making this a F15Blocker and Beta NTH
19:05:57 <jlaska> it's more of a polish issue for the Final than anything else
19:06:06 <tflink> huh, that would explain why I always have to enter in my username on one F15 system
19:06:08 <jlaska> and it would be nice to fiddle w/ gdm as little as possible after beta
19:06:21 <jlaska> tflink: yes, annoying huh! :D
19:06:27 <tflink> I'll have to try that
19:06:48 <jlaska> so my proposal on this was ...
19:07:35 <jlaska> proposed #agreed 672135 - AcceptedBlocker for Final release, AcceptedNTH for Beta. No specific criteria are impacted, but this is likely a visible polish issue
19:07:39 <adamw> i'd want at least a proposed criteria revision to accept this as a blocker
19:08:00 <adamw> it's not really a critical / urgent severity issue so we can't take it under the workaround
19:08:46 <jlaska> agreed on those points
19:09:23 <adamw> so, your revision proposal will hit the list soon? :P
19:09:24 <tflink> yeah, definitely not security but high visibility
19:09:46 <jlaska> adamw: you didn't se me sign up did you? :)
19:10:08 <adamw> you just did ;)
19:10:14 <jlaska> hey, wait! :)
19:10:24 * adamw quickly hides the box marked Cranes Maska Remote Control
19:10:38 <jlaska> we can add it to the growing box of criteria I haven't yet created, sure :)
19:11:05 <adamw> i'm definitely +1 nth
19:11:15 <jlaska> I have no idea how I'd phrase something like a polish issue ... and I'm certainly not going to have good ideas in this meeting!
19:11:17 <adamw> i'm not entirely convinced we can make a case for final blocker...
19:11:19 <jlaska> :)
19:11:28 <jlaska> more I think about it ... I tend to agree
19:11:33 <jlaska> we'd just bump it off that list too
19:11:35 <adamw> same old question - if this was the last bug, would we really slip a week for it?
19:11:37 <jlaska> let's NTH all the way
19:11:42 <jlaska> btw ... I hate that question :)
19:11:47 <adamw> we'd just say 'fill out the box, damnit'
19:11:57 <jlaska> right
19:12:07 <jlaska> so ... new proposal ...
19:12:29 <jlaska> proposed #agreed 672135 - AcceptedNTH for Final. No specific criteria are impacted, but this is likely a visible polish issue
19:12:40 <jlaska> and I'll bug Ray for thoughts on this one
19:12:41 <adamw> i'm fine with beta nth too
19:12:46 <jlaska> k
19:12:52 <jlaska> proposed #agreed 672135 - AcceptedNTH for Beta. No specific criteria are impacted, but this is likely a visible polish issue
19:12:58 <adamw> actually i was thinking we should probably mark anything we accept as nth for _all_ future release points, not just one
19:13:02 <adamw> but...can discuss that outside the meeting
19:13:09 <jlaska> okay
19:13:21 <jlaska> tflink: red_alert: brunowolff any ack/nak's on this one?
19:13:32 <tflink> ack
19:13:39 <tflink> I don't like it, but I agree on the blocker part
19:13:55 <jlaska> yeah, that captures my feelings as well
19:14:00 <jlaska> okay, thanks all ... I think that's enough for this bz
19:14:05 <jlaska> #agreed 672135 - AcceptedNTH for Beta. No specific criteria are impacted, but this is likely a visible polish issue.
19:14:10 <jlaska> #topic Open Discussion
19:14:18 <jlaska> I have one more topic I'd like to discuss ...
19:14:23 <jlaska> and that is that I'd like to #endmeeting *soon*
19:14:28 <jlaska> ... discuss
19:14:43 <adamw> ack!
19:14:52 <tflink> ack
19:14:56 <jlaska> hehe ... yeah, ack/nak/patch :)
19:14:57 <tflink> +11000
19:15:04 <jlaska> and I pity the fool that patches!
19:15:05 <adamw> +11000.01
19:15:18 <adamw> patch: I'd like to #endmeeting *now*
19:15:20 <tflink> adamw: you just had to .01 up me, didn't you?
19:15:24 <jlaska> adamw: Bam!
19:15:26 <jlaska> approved!
19:15:31 <adamw> #endmeeting