17:00:43 <rbergeron> #startmeeting F-15-Beta Blocker Review #4
17:00:43 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Apr  1 17:00:43 2011 UTC.  The chair is rbergeron. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:43 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:44 <tflink> adamw said that he would be a few minutes late
17:00:48 * brunowolff is
17:00:55 * nirik is lurking around.
17:00:58 <rbergeron> #meetingname f-15-beta-blocker
17:00:58 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f-15-beta-blocker'
17:01:05 <rbergeron> #topic Roll Call!
17:01:21 <tflink> blocker wiki page is up to date
17:01:32 * tflink is here, too
17:01:41 <rbergeron> #chair tflink adamw
17:01:41 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw rbergeron tflink
17:01:52 * rbergeron shall hold just a momento
17:02:47 <rbergeron> #topic Intro
17:03:01 <rbergeron> So, as always.... why we're here...
17:03:24 <rbergeron> #info 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 n-t-h bugs
17:03:32 <rbergeron> And helpful links for us to use:
17:03:42 <rbergeron> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
17:03:52 <rbergeron> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_15_Beta_Release_Criteria
17:04:06 <rbergeron> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Current_Release_Blockers
17:04:41 <rbergeron> Questions? Ready? :)
17:05:14 <adamw> just a quick note the criteria have been tweaked a bit this week
17:05:18 <adamw> it was discussed on test list
17:05:24 * rbergeron nods
17:05:25 <adamw> mostly just changes to address issues that have come up before in meetings
17:05:34 <adamw> shouldn't cause any problems
17:05:49 <rbergeron> does that change the status of any bugs that we previously rejected that might now need to be blockers as a result?
17:06:10 <adamw> no, shouldn't do, it mostly just clarified things.
17:06:18 <adamw> good question, though
17:06:20 <rbergeron> cool. just checking :)
17:06:34 <rbergeron> I'll start with proposed blockers, unless anyone objects
17:06:39 <rbergeron> #topic Proposed Blockers
17:06:50 <rbergeron> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678553
17:06:52 <buggbot> Bug 678553: high, unspecified, ---, dcbw, ON_QA, NetworkManager doesn't start successfully on bootup after upgrade from F14 -> F15
17:07:35 <adamw> hey, whaddayaknow, this exactly hits one of the modified criteria
17:07:52 <adamw> "The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade installation from a clean, fully updated default installation (from any official install medium) of the previous stable Fedora release, either via preupgrade or by booting to the installer manually. The upgraded system must meet all release criteria "
17:08:08 <adamw> that last sentence is new, makes it much clearer why this is a blocker...
17:08:43 * rbergeron nods
17:08:46 <adamw> so, +1 from me, looks like this is being fixed.
17:08:58 <brunowolff> +1 blocker
17:09:02 <tflink> +1
17:09:20 <rbergeron> +1 from me
17:09:34 <rbergeron> propose agreed 678553 Accepted beta blocker
17:09:41 * rbergeron feels like she should link to what criteria it's hitting
17:09:57 <adamw> meh, it's in the log for anyone who cares...
17:10:03 <tflink> ack
17:10:05 <adamw> oh, who's secretaryizing this week?
17:10:06 <adamw> ack
17:10:18 <adamw> i can if wanted
17:10:20 <rbergeron> #agreed 678553 Accepted beta blocker
17:10:21 <tflink> adamw: either you or I, I assume
17:10:29 <rbergeron> or someone else can, that would be awesome
17:10:29 <adamw> tflink: do you want to give it a shot this time?
17:10:34 <tflink> sure
17:10:38 <rbergeron> i'll go through the list and someone can do the proposing / agreeing, if that works
17:11:03 <rbergeron> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=684246
17:11:05 <buggbot> Bug 684246: low, unspecified, ---, dcbw, NEW, Accounts don't activate on startup
17:12:10 <rbergeron> is this only related to pidgin?
17:12:17 <adamw> yeah
17:12:24 <adamw> i think someone added this as it's related to the NM 0.9 bump
17:12:29 * rbergeron nods
17:12:33 <adamw> but the actual impact doesn't hit any beta criterion i can see
17:12:54 <adamw> it's arguable that it hits final criterion "# All applications listed under the Applications menu or category must withstand a basic functionality test and not crash after a few minutes of normal use. They must also have working Help and Help -> About menu items ", though not really
17:13:04 <adamw> i'm pretty much -1 everything on this...
17:13:13 <tflink> yeah, same here
17:13:48 <rbergeron> propose agreed 684246 rejected Blocker
17:13:52 <adamw> ack
17:14:02 <rbergeron> would this hit as a final blocker?
17:14:26 <tflink> ack
17:15:12 <rbergeron> #agreed 684246 rejected Blocker
17:15:20 <adamw> i'm -1 final blocker too
17:15:30 <adamw> that criterion's meant to be pretty tight, this isn't really a complete-fail bug
17:15:35 * rbergeron nods
17:15:46 <rbergeron> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689291
17:15:47 <buggbot> Bug 689291: high, unspecified, ---, dcbw, NEW, <error> activation_source_schedule(): activation stage already scheduled
17:15:51 <tflink> adamw: to make sure that I'm doing this right; RejectedBlocker goes in the whiteboard, right?
17:15:56 <adamw> tflink: yup
17:16:01 <tflink> k, thanks
17:16:04 <adamw> tflink: it should really be a keyword, but we're lazy.
17:16:48 <rbergeron> #info this one was discussed last week, now we have more info.
17:16:57 <adamw> yeah, looks like radvd is the ey
17:16:58 <adamw> key
17:17:03 * rbergeron nods
17:17:18 <adamw> looks like dan isn't around atm
17:17:23 <adamw> pity, it'd be good to pull him in for this
17:18:02 <adamw> if this is hitting any case where a router's running radvd i'd be worried
17:18:29 <rbergeron> do we know of anyone else who might be able to duplicate?
17:18:39 <adamw> i think anyone with a router that supports ipv6
17:18:43 <adamw> i haven't checked mine
17:18:56 <adamw> i think you'd probably just need to enable ipv6 support, check radvd announcements were on, and see what happens
17:19:08 * adamw is at starbucks again so can't really test it right now =)
17:19:46 <rbergeron> soo... is htis an accepted blocker, assuming someone else can duplicate?
17:20:05 <rbergeron> and if not, go back and reject it?
17:20:06 <adamw> it's a tough call :/
17:20:08 <rbergeron> Or need more info?
17:20:11 <adamw> i think that's about where we are
17:20:21 <adamw> i'll try and get dan to look at it soon
17:20:35 <rbergeron> which one - accepted, going to duplicate? or hold pending duplication?
17:20:48 <tflink> what beta criterion does it hit?
17:21:04 <tflink> s/criterion/criteria
17:21:55 <adamw> the implied one that 'networking must work'
17:22:02 <adamw> it's implied by the alpha criteria about firefox and updating
17:22:59 <adamw> rbergeron: i'd say leave it 'uncertain' for now, try and get feedback from dan
17:23:05 <adamw> and ask reporter for router model / firmware info
17:23:05 <tflink> k, just checking to be thorough
17:23:22 <rbergeron> propose 689291 uncertain, needsinfo - ask reporter for router model/firmware info
17:23:32 <rbergeron> (agreed in there too)
17:23:34 <adamw> i've emailed dan to flag it up for him
17:23:36 <adamw> ack
17:23:43 <rbergeron> #agreed 689291 uncertain, needsinfo - ask reporter for router model/firmware info
17:23:49 <tflink> ack
17:24:05 <rbergeron> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691139
17:24:07 <buggbot> Bug 691139: unspecified, unspecified, ---, dcbw, NEW, NetworkManager 0.8.997  doesn't connect to hidden wireless network
17:24:30 <rbergeron> we have multiple people hitting this.
17:24:34 <adamw> we have two reporters here, so it seems likely to be a general bug
17:24:52 <adamw> it's the same 'networking doesn't work' deal, the modifier is 'how common are invisible networks' and 'are there any workarounds'
17:24:53 * rbergeron nods
17:25:18 <adamw> i'd lean to +1 though, i don't think there's a really good workaround for this and a lot of people think making their router hidden improves security
17:25:30 <rbergeron> i'd say that "if you can't connect to your hidden network and it's the only known network you can use"...
17:25:37 <rbergeron> hard to workaround
17:25:52 <adamw> well you can always unhide the router =) but i guess some people wouldn't have control over that, corporates or whatever
17:25:58 <rbergeron> that's true
17:26:30 <rbergeron> propose agreed 691139 Accepted Blocker
17:27:00 <adamw> ack
17:27:05 <brunowolff> +1
17:27:06 <tflink> ack
17:27:07 <rbergeron> #agreed 691139 Accepted Blocker
17:27:16 <rbergeron> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692231
17:27:18 <buggbot> Bug 692231: unspecified, unspecified, ---, tcallawa, ON_QA, [fedora-logos] should obsolete gnome-logos
17:27:54 <brunowolff> -1 blocker
17:28:18 <adamw> yeah, it only affects people who installed during a short broken time i think
17:28:40 <adamw> we generally don't take issues like this as blockers, only issues that would affect people upgrading post-release
17:28:40 <brunowolff> I think past practice has been to not add provides or requires to fix issues that are only seen by people using
17:28:48 <brunowolff> development / rawhide.
17:29:03 <adamw> brunowolff: well, that side is a bit more flexible, but we're consistent in not taking them as blockers
17:29:16 <rbergeron> propose agreed 692231 rejected blocker, only affects people who installed during a short time period, only seen by folks using development/rawhide
17:29:33 <brunowolff> +1
17:29:33 <adamw> Branched, not rawhide.
17:29:35 <adamw> +1
17:29:41 <tflink> +1
17:29:50 <rbergeron> #agreed 692231 rejected blocker, only affects people who installed during a short time period, only seen by folks using development/branched
17:30:10 <rbergeron> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=677800
17:30:11 <buggbot> Bug 677800: medium, medium, ---, cassmodiah, NEW, Broken dependency: 1:fife-0.3.2-1.fc15.i686 requires libboost_regex.so.1.44.0
17:31:08 <rbergeron> broken dependencies hits alpha criteria, correct?
17:31:30 <adamw> "# There must be no file conflicts (cases where the files in some packages conflict but the packages have explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (CD/DVD) install "
17:31:43 <rbergeron> WORD I ACTUALLY FIGURED IT OUT :)
17:32:04 <adamw> i think we only care if it's on the dvd, though
17:32:10 <adamw> anyone have a dvd image handy to see if fife's on there?
17:32:45 <tflink> I only have an older alpha TC image
17:33:01 * rbergeron doesn't have one either
17:33:16 <adamw> sigh, can't rely on ANYONE
17:33:17 <adamw> :P
17:33:47 <adamw> tflink: is it on there?
17:34:10 <brunowolff> If it is on the KDE or Desktop live images, I think that would also make it a blocker.
17:34:48 <rbergeron> propose agreed 677800 pending; needinfo as to whether or not it is on the dvd, and thus hitting alpha release criteria re: dependencies
17:34:54 <adamw> brunowolff: i don't think it is, or the compose wouldn't have worked.
17:35:12 <tflink> adamw: not on the alpha TC2 dvd
17:35:17 <adamw> rbergeron: ack
17:35:24 <adamw> jlaska can slap us if it's actually a blocker no matter what
17:35:38 <rbergeron> #agreed 677800 pending; needinfo as to whether or not it is on the dvd, and thus hitting alpha release criteria re: dependencies
17:35:45 <rbergeron> oh, i could have waited there
17:35:49 * rbergeron can undo if anyone objects to that
17:36:13 <tflink> I'd say not a blocker, but don't have any very strong feelings
17:36:48 <rbergeron> shall i plow forth?
17:36:53 <adamw> i think we should check in, jlaska wouldn't usually propose it without a good reason.
17:36:54 <adamw> yup
17:36:59 <tflink> k
17:37:03 <rbergeron> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692029
17:37:04 <buggbot> Bug 692029: unspecified, unspecified, ---, davidz, MODIFIED, package conflict between fedora-logos and gnome-logos on 15 Beta TC1 DVD
17:37:19 <rbergeron> this is related to 692231, correct?
17:37:40 <rbergeron> oh, perhaps not
17:38:10 <adamw> no, this is the more serious issue
17:39:01 <rbergeron> is this hitting the same alpha criteria again?
17:39:12 <brunowolff> gnome-logos is being dropped, so we probably don't need to worry too hard on this one.
17:39:17 <adamw> well, sorta. i see this bug as a proxy for 'there should be a gnome-logos'
17:39:21 <adamw> shouldn't*
17:39:47 <adamw> it was a subpackage mclasen added for some live spin he was doing without really understanding that it kinda screwed up various things for the official builds
17:40:16 <adamw> the new gnome-icon-theme has no gnome-logos subpackage, which fixes this and also other consequences (like live spins failing to compose)
17:40:31 <rbergeron> sooo.. blocker, or not?
17:40:47 <adamw> blocker
17:41:14 <rbergeron> because of package conflicts?
17:41:16 <adamw> criterion "# There must be no file conflicts (cases where the files in some packages conflict but the packages have explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (CD/DVD) install "
17:41:17 <adamw> yes
17:41:21 <tflink> isn't this pretty much a dupe of 692231?
17:41:27 <adamw> no, not really
17:41:41 <brunowolff> +1 blocker
17:41:47 <rbergeron> propose agreed 692029 AcceptedBlocker, hitting alpha release criteria of no file conflicts
17:41:55 <tflink> ack
17:42:01 <adamw> 692231 is still valid after the 'fix' to gnome-icon-theme, because nothing will remove gnome-logos if you managed to get it installed
17:42:11 <adamw> but it's a less serious issue
17:42:30 <adamw> this bug is 'fixed' with the new gnome-icon-theme, because new installs and image composes won't get gnome-logos any more
17:42:51 <adamw> ack
17:42:53 <rbergeron> #agreed 692029 AcceptedBlocker, hitting alpha release criteria of no file conflicts
17:42:58 <rbergeron> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692103
17:43:00 <buggbot> Bug 692103: urgent, urgent, ---, davidz, MODIFIED, No such file or directory: '.../boot/grub/splash.xpm.gz'
17:43:14 <adamw> now THIS one is effectively a dupe of the last one :)
17:43:22 <adamw> different consequence, same bug - 'gnome-logos is a really bad idea'
17:43:37 <brunowolff> +1 blocker
17:43:44 <adamw> i think we just make it a dupe
17:43:51 <adamw> since they're effectively the same bug
17:44:33 <rbergeron> propose agreed 691203 Dupe of 692029 (and thus also AcceptedBlocker)
17:44:43 <brunowolff> The cause of the problem is different, but again it's fixed and I don't think we need to worry about the details that much.
17:44:57 <adamw> yeah, we could go either way.
17:45:07 <brunowolff> In this case it was gnome-logos being incomplete that caused a problem.
17:45:10 <adamw> point is, both consequences are blockers, and the update makes both bugs go away.
17:45:18 <adamw> if you'd rather keep 'em separate i'm fine with that
17:45:26 <rbergeron> propose agreed 691203 AcceptedBlocker
17:45:28 <rbergeron> :)
17:45:37 <adamw> ack
17:45:39 <brunowolff> I'll go along with what other people think will work best.
17:45:43 <brunowolff> +1
17:45:45 <rbergeron> #agreed 691203 AcceptedBlocker
17:45:52 <rbergeron> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692135
17:45:54 <buggbot> Bug 692135: unspecified, unspecified, ---, anaconda-maint-list, NEW, Image failed media check
17:46:09 <adamw> tflink: if you can't find a criterion to cite, just note that it prevents live image compose.
17:46:42 <tflink> adamw: should I be citing criterion in the bz comments?
17:47:13 <adamw> tflink: i usually try to
17:47:18 <tflink> good to know
17:47:30 <tflink> I'll go back and cite after the meeting
17:47:48 <rbergeron> thoughts on 692135
17:47:48 <rbergeron> ?
17:48:15 <adamw> it's a tricky one
17:48:15 <clumens> no ideas yet
17:48:25 <adamw> we don't have a mediacheck criterion and anaconda team wants us to be careful in drafting one
17:48:29 <adamw> so per criteria, it's not a blocker
17:48:47 <adamw> it definitely seems nth to me
17:49:04 <adamw> and the question is, do we want a criterion for at least 'no false positives' on the media check...
17:49:24 <brunowolff> I might be seeing a related issue as part of another bug I reported where livecd-iso-to-disk reports spurious media failures.
17:50:04 <adamw> do they use the same code?
17:50:28 <brunowolff> I don't know.
17:51:17 <clumens> anaconda's media check is provided by the isomd5sum package, which does provide a library
17:51:17 <adamw> i'm kinda inclined to a conservative take on this for now, since drafting media check criteria is tricky
17:51:20 <brunowolff> I don't do many test installs, but run livecd-iso-to-disk relatively often, so I only knew about the one bug until now.
17:51:22 <clumens> livecd-blah could do the same
17:51:22 * rbergeron nods
17:51:26 <adamw> just +1 nth and don't make it a blocker for now
17:51:36 <adamw> but note 'unofficially' we'd rather like it to get fixed...
17:52:28 <rbergeron> propose agreed 692135 AcceptedNTH, may want to revisit mediacheck criterion possibilities, but we'd definitely to see it fixed, may possibly be related to another bug brunowolff has
17:52:43 <adamw> ack
17:52:47 <brunowolff> I'll link the two bugs shortly.
17:52:59 <tflink> brunowolff: thanks, I was about to ask you for that :)
17:53:03 <tflink> ack
17:53:08 <rbergeron> #agreed 692135 AcceptedNTH, may want to revisit mediacheck criterion possibilities, but we'd definitely to see it fixed, may possibly be related to another bug brunowolff has
17:53:19 <rbergeron> #action brunowolff to link his bug to 692135
17:53:32 <rbergeron> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=684214
17:53:33 <buggbot> Bug 684214: unspecified, unspecified, ---, triad, NEW, [abrt] libmtp-examples-1.0.5-2.fc15: op_reset_device: Process /usr/bin/mtp-detect was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV)
17:54:23 <adamw> random app crashes don't hit any beta criteria, but this would hit final criteria.
17:55:37 <rbergeron> propose agreed 684214 Not a beta blocker, but IS a final blocker; All applications listed under the Applications menu or category must withstand a basic functionality test and not crash after a few minutes of normal use
17:55:53 <adamw> i'm +1 nth, though, as rex says it'd be nice to have this fixed for lives.
17:55:58 <adamw> ack
17:56:03 <adamw> (with nth)
17:56:05 * rbergeron is happy to NTH, anyone else on that bandwagon?
17:56:14 <rbergeron> oh, +1 NTH beta blocker?
17:56:30 <adamw> beta nth, final blocker
17:56:31 * rbergeron agrees with that
17:57:05 <rbergeron> #agreed 684214 Accepted BetaNTH, final blocker; All applications listed under the Applications menu or category must withstand a basic functionality test and not crash after a few minutes of normal use
17:57:35 <rbergeron> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=681898
17:57:37 <buggbot> Bug 681898: unspecified, unspecified, ---, jpopelka, ASSIGNED, Make /var/lock/lockdev world writeable
17:58:41 <adamw> so, lennart proposed this as a blocker
17:58:44 <adamw> presumably on security grounds
17:58:47 <adamw> i'll ask him to pop in
17:59:55 * rbergeron nods
18:00:11 <brunowolff> I don't think this would be a beta blocker, given it's a local user attack.
18:00:18 <adamw> we don't really have direct security issue criteria, but we can accept them under the 'high/urgent issues in critpath packages' workaround
18:00:34 <adamw> yeah, at a quick look this doesn't smell quite bad enough to be a blocker
18:00:53 <rbergeron> NTH?
18:01:00 <brunowolff> +1 for NTH
18:01:04 <adamw> +1
18:01:21 <adamw> if lennart comes in and really disagrees we can circle back and let him argue the case
18:01:21 <rbergeron> propose agreed 681898 AcceptedNTH
18:01:32 <rbergeron> #agreed 681898 AcceptedNTH
18:01:53 <rbergeron> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692436
18:01:55 <buggbot> Bug 692436: urgent, unspecified, ---, mgrepl, MODIFIED, Incorrect SELinux labelling of new /run directory prevents system boot
18:02:09 <adamw> this one's a no-brainer, heh
18:02:18 <brunowolff> +1 blocker
18:02:23 <adamw> +1
18:02:27 <adamw> the fix works, is the good news...
18:02:38 <rbergeron> propose agreed 692436 AcceptedBlocker (and the fix is in and works!)
18:02:44 <adamw> ack
18:03:06 <rbergeron> #agreed 692436 AcceptedBlocker (and the fix is in and works!)
18:03:16 <rbergeron> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=297421
18:03:17 <buggbot> Bug 297421: low, low, ---, bruno, ASSIGNED, LiveCD handles timezones inconsistently
18:03:28 <brunowolff> -1 NTH, blocker
18:04:15 <adamw> per bruno's comments on this, -1.
18:04:18 <mezcalero> adamw: here i am
18:04:24 <adamw> mezcalero: heya - we moved on but we can circle back
18:04:26 <brunowolff> It's a minor annoyance at best and doesn't seem worth the risk of a last minute change.
18:04:31 <rbergeron> is that a "not nice to have, but is a blocker" or "not nice to have and not a blocker"
18:04:37 <adamw> mezcalero: just give us a sec to finish this bug first
18:04:44 <mezcalero> np
18:04:45 <brunowolff> -1 NTH and -1 Blocker
18:04:49 <rbergeron> propose agreed 297421 -1 NTH, -1 Blocker
18:04:52 <adamw> agreed, -1 both
18:04:56 <brunowolff> +1
18:04:57 <rbergeron> #agreed 297421 -1 NTH, -1 Blocker
18:05:07 <adamw> can we pop back to lennart's bug for a minute?
18:05:10 <rbergeron> adamw: what bug are we going back to (sorry for my ignorance)
18:05:10 <rbergeron> sure
18:05:22 <adamw> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=681898
18:05:23 <buggbot> Bug 681898: unspecified, unspecified, ---, jpopelka, ASSIGNED, Make /var/lock/lockdev world writeable
18:05:27 <rbergeron> thanks :)
18:05:45 <adamw> mezcalero: so, we agreed this should be NTH but not blocker, as it's only a local DoS vuln - is that assessment accurate?
18:05:46 <mezcalero> let me say a few things on that:
18:06:00 <mezcalero> i don't think it should be a beta blocker, but a blocker for the eventual release
18:06:08 <mezcalero> so feel free to delay this
18:06:25 <mezcalero> i think it's a big thing adding another world-writable directory
18:06:31 <mezcalero> and we shouldn't allow that
18:06:37 <mezcalero> but it's true, no need to block the beta for that
18:06:46 <mezcalero> was just a bit too annoyed when i found that yesterday
18:06:50 <adamw> ok
18:07:00 <adamw> you can make it block F15Blocker and we'll re-evaluate it for final blocker status at the next minute
18:07:14 <adamw> for me this is probably one where i just hope it goes away in the meantime so we don't have to worry about it :P
18:07:17 <rbergeron> :)
18:07:24 <rbergeron> shall i move on?
18:07:27 <adamw> s/minute/meeting/
18:07:35 <mezcalero> changed it now
18:07:39 <adamw> cool, thanks
18:07:41 <rbergeron> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678927
18:07:43 <buggbot> Bug 678927: unspecified, unspecified, ---, lpoetter, ASSIGNED, Password prompt for unlocking encrypted /home partition sometimes does not appear
18:07:51 <adamw> mezcalero: the best thing is if you can just get the maintainer to fix it before next week then no-one has to worry :D
18:08:09 <adamw> so, recent comments on this indicate that it went away, right?
18:08:17 <brunowolff> Not for me.
18:08:28 <brunowolff> But it did change a bit this morning.
18:08:30 <adamw> or was
18:08:34 <adamw> oh, that was a different one
18:08:43 <brunowolff> I didn't have time to do lots of reboots though.
18:08:46 <adamw> mezcalero: do you have any input on this one btw?
18:09:05 <mezcalero> adamw: hmm, i would presume it is fixed
18:09:26 <mezcalero> but it's a mess of a bug report
18:09:33 <mezcalero> too much input from different people on it
18:09:33 <adamw> brunowolff: since you're the only one who can reproduce now i think we kinda need you to test it a few times :/
18:09:53 <mezcalero> i think we should close it, and ask everybody to reopen a new one if they managed to reproduce it with systemd 22, and newest policy
18:10:11 <brunowolff> Well I did confirm the password supplied in the early boot doesn't get used in the later part of the boot.
18:10:30 <mezcalero> brunowolff: thios is about password caching?
18:10:33 <brunowolff> But it least now I get asked again so that I didn't need to mount the extra partitions by hand.
18:10:37 <mezcalero> this is known not to work, there's a different bug about that
18:10:48 <mezcalero> needs changes in ply to fix for good
18:10:54 <adamw> i think the only beta blocker here is if you can't get the partitions unlocked
18:11:01 <mezcalero> yes, me too
18:11:06 <rbergeron> adamw: care to make a proposal here
18:11:08 <rbergeron> :)
18:11:13 <adamw> lennart's suggestion seems reasonable here
18:11:41 <brunowolff> Well, I think since is seems to not happen in the standard case now, the remaining issue is probably not a beta blocker.
18:11:45 <adamw> i like lennart's idea: close this bug, if anyone still has a case where they sometimes can't get the partitions unlocked, ask them to verify with latest systemd and report a new buhg
18:11:53 <adamw> and propose that bug as a blocker if they think it's appropriate
18:12:23 <brunowolff> I did add systemd debugging output from last night and this morning that might point more closely at the issue.
18:12:32 <rbergeron> propose agreed close 678927, if anyone still has a case where they sometimes can't get partitions unlocked, plz verify with latest systemd and report a new bug, propose as blocker if they deem appropriate
18:12:42 <adamw> ack
18:12:54 <mezcalero> ack (but i don't know if i can vote...)
18:13:01 <rbergeron> you're here :) vote away
18:13:05 <rbergeron> imo
18:13:13 <mezcalero> adamw: are there more systemd related bugs on the list, shall i stay?
18:13:20 <brunowolff> Is there already a bug for the password caching issue? I want to add myself to it if there is.
18:13:26 <mezcalero> brunowolff: yes, there is
18:13:29 <adamw> rbergeron: you have the list open - anything else involving lennart?
18:13:34 <mezcalero> brunowolff: against ply i think
18:13:37 <rbergeron> not that is readily obvious to me.
18:13:38 <brunowolff> OK, I'll find it. Thanks.
18:13:40 <adamw> mezcalero: we take votes from anyone :P
18:13:47 <adamw> okay
18:13:53 <adamw> mezcalero: i'll poke you again if anything comes up
18:13:54 <rbergeron> #agreed close 678927, if anyone still has a case where they sometimes can't get partitions unlocked, plz verify with latest systemd and report a new bug, propose as blocker if they deem appropriate
18:13:55 <mezcalero> adamw: ok, i vote +11 then ;-)
18:13:56 <brunowolff> +1 for the proposal.
18:13:59 <rbergeron> lol
18:14:04 <adamw> vote early, vote often!
18:14:09 <rbergeron> (sorry, brunowolff, didn't mean to skip you there)
18:14:10 <rbergeron> :)
18:14:14 <rbergeron> OKAY
18:14:19 <rbergeron> That's it for proposed blockers
18:14:21 <mezcalero> brunowolff: i'll find the bug for you, mom
18:14:30 <rbergeron> #topic Approved Blockers
18:14:42 <rbergeron> adamw: i know we don't review anaconda bugs in modified these days
18:14:44 <adamw> small cheer
18:14:52 <rbergeron> what about ON QA and VERIFIED?
18:15:04 <rbergeron> same scoop?
18:15:15 <adamw> rbergeron: i think we usually skip all accepted blockers in those states
18:15:16 <clumens> there shouldn't be much in modified right now anyway
18:15:16 <mezcalero> what's the best way btw to find all blocker bugs on my own packages?
18:15:32 <adamw> mezcalero: search for anything with whiteboard field 'AcceptedBlocker'
18:15:43 <adamw> mezcalero: or blocking bug 'F15Beta'
18:15:46 <rbergeron> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676968
18:15:48 <buggbot> Bug 676968: medium, unspecified, ---, clumens, ASSIGNED, system halts after first reboot during kickstart installation
18:15:57 <adamw> clumens: the stuff from 15.26 i think that didn't go through yet
18:16:13 <clumens> yeah i need to go back and re-look at that one.  the title is horrible.
18:16:14 <mezcalero> brunowolff: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679907
18:16:15 <buggbot> Bug 679907: unspecified, unspecified, ---, rstrode, NEW, please add atomic request to plymouth protocol for asking for cached passwords and input passwords
18:16:24 <mezcalero> (sorry, unrelated, just for bruno)
18:16:29 <rbergeron> np
18:16:54 <adamw> okay, so action here on anaconda team
18:17:06 <brunowolff> Thanks!
18:17:44 * rbergeron wonders what any notes shoyuld be in the meeting logs?
18:18:23 <rbergeron> just needs verification?
18:18:26 <adamw> rbergeron: usually something like #agreed 676968 remains a blocker, action on anaconda team to evaluate and fix
18:18:41 <rbergeron> propose agreed (cut and paste what adamw just said here) ;)
18:18:55 <adamw> rbergeron: and we can put in a #agreed clumens to look at 676968 if we like
18:19:03 <rbergeron> #agreed 676968 remains a blocker, action on anaconda team to evaluate and fix
18:19:09 <rbergeron> action, rather?
18:19:12 <adamw> yeah
18:19:20 <adamw> just fix it whenever i'm a jackwagon :P
18:19:26 * rbergeron thinks that sounds like a fabulous idea if he agrees, which I assume he does by his above statement. ;)
18:19:30 <brunowolff> mezcalero: It seems likely that I am just hitting the caching bug now and I was having trouble seeing the password
18:19:31 * rbergeron loves that word
18:19:41 <brunowolff> prompts with all of the debugging output.
18:19:50 <rbergeron> #action clumens to to look at 676968
18:20:27 <rbergeron> Okay. I'm skipping openbios 679179 (in ON QA), and preupgrade 646843 (in MODIFIED), correct?
18:20:56 * rbergeron peeks in them really quicklike
18:21:27 <rbergeron> okay, skipping.
18:21:36 <rbergeron> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679486
18:21:38 <buggbot> Bug 679486: medium, low, ---, ajax, ASSIGNED, Unable to start graphical installer on RC1 KDE live image
18:22:00 <adamw> yeah, once a bug's fixed we usually track the process of making sure the update gets pulled in via the compose trac tickets...
18:22:08 * rbergeron nods, okay
18:23:27 <adamw> looks like this one may have gone away but we need a re-check with the latest kde images to be sure
18:23:34 * rbergeron wonders if anyone's tried this since the new NM landed
18:23:50 <adamw> lemme chase down sandro
18:24:07 * rbergeron hangs
18:24:25 <adamw> i pinged him, let's give him a minute
18:24:34 * rbergeron stands up and stretches
18:25:23 <adamw> hmm, i guess he's away
18:25:32 * jsmith grabs a glass of ice water
18:25:42 <adamw> so...we should add a needinfo on sandro here i think
18:25:52 <adamw> ask him to re-test with latest nightly or beta tc1 kde live
18:26:10 <rbergeron> propose agreed 679486 need to do a needinfo w/sandro, retest with latest nightly or beta tc1 kde live
18:26:33 <jsmith> That sounds reasonable
18:26:36 <rbergeron> #agreed 679486 need to do a needinfo w/sandro, retest with latest nightly or beta tc1 kde live
18:26:46 <rbergeron> #topic Proposed NTH
18:27:04 <rbergeron> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691995
18:27:05 <buggbot> Bug 691995: high, unspecified, ---, mclasen, MODIFIED, Extremely long login time in F15
18:27:48 * rbergeron doens't know that this hits any specific criteria, but thinks +1 NTH
18:27:51 <adamw> i'm +1 nth on this
18:27:56 <adamw> rbergeron: we don't have criteria for nth really
18:27:59 <rbergeron> oh
18:28:02 <rbergeron> WELL THERE WE GO
18:28:06 <rbergeron> :)
18:28:08 <jsmith> +1 on NTH
18:28:13 <adamw> rbergeron: we have the principles at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_nth_bug_process
18:28:25 <rbergeron> #agreed 691995 Accepted NTH
18:28:50 <rbergeron> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691461
18:28:52 <buggbot> Bug 691461: medium, unspecified, ---, bskeggs, NEW, nouveau: bug with shader used in gnome-shell applications view
18:29:31 <rbergeron> propose agreed 691461 Accepted NTH, we <3 polish
18:29:43 <adamw> yeah
18:30:00 <adamw> this one's an obvious polish issue, it looks pretty icky if you're hit by it, and it hits i think all nvidia cards or smth.
18:30:08 <rbergeron> #agreed 691461 Accepted NTH, we <3 polish
18:30:27 <rbergeron> And we skip approved NTH, IIRC.
18:31:05 <adamw> yeah, unless we really want to enjoy the meeting a bit longer =)
18:31:10 <rbergeron> HA HA
18:31:12 <rbergeron> ohhhhhh
18:31:17 <rbergeron> #topic Open Floor / Any other business
18:31:28 <rbergeron> (did i skip anything? I don't think i did.)
18:31:48 <tflink> I'm not as fast as adamw on the bug updating. Will finish that up after the meeting and update the wiki page again
18:31:55 <adamw> tflink: don't worry about it
18:32:03 <rbergeron> #action tflink to update BZ's this week and refresh wiki page, THANK YOU!
18:32:08 <adamw> (i mean, don't worry about being slow, not don't do it :>)
18:32:18 <rbergeron> #info IT'S A BEEFY MIRACLE! Done in 1 hr 32 min.
18:32:24 * rbergeron holds for a moment before ending meeting
18:32:30 <tflink> adamw: aww, I was hoping there for a sec ;)
18:32:31 <rbergeron> anyone, anyone?
18:32:35 * rbergeron grins at tflink
18:32:53 <adamw> nothing from me
18:32:55 <rbergeron> #action rbergeron to send out logs and it should work this time now that she's actually on the right list :)
18:33:01 <rbergeron> #endmeeting