17:00:50 <tflink> #startmeeting F16-blocker-review
17:00:50 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Sep 23 17:00:50 2011 UTC.  The chair is tflink. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:50 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:01:02 <tflink> #meetingname F16-beta-blocker-review
17:01:02 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f16-beta-blocker-review'
17:01:07 <tflink> #topic rollcall
17:01:17 <tflink> OK, who's ready for some blocker bug review fun?
17:01:34 * brunowolff is for at least a while
17:01:35 * jsmith is here
17:01:39 * jdulaney is here for a bit
17:01:44 <jdulaney> Class at two
17:01:57 * tflink is hoping for a shorter meeting today, it's a shorter list than usual
17:02:16 <tflink> brunowolff, jsmith, jdulaney: welcome
17:04:26 <tflink> adamw: you around?
17:04:56 <tflink> any volunteers to do secretary duty?
17:05:18 * jdulaney won't be here long enough
17:05:48 <tflink> ok, let's get this party started
17:05:54 * nirik is lurking around. ping if I can help
17:05:57 <tflink> #topic why are we here?
17:06:00 <jdulaney> Woo, party time!
17:06:10 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
17:06:19 <tflink> The list I'll be working off of:
17:06:30 <tflink> s/I/We
17:06:36 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Current_Release_Blockers
17:07:02 <tflink> I think that everyone here is familiar with what we're doing, but just in case ...
17:07:06 <tflink> #info Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs.
17:07:32 <tflink> any objections to starting with the proposed blockers?
17:07:59 <jdulaney> Nope
17:08:03 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736793
17:08:04 <jsmith> WORKSFORME
17:08:04 <buggbot> Bug 736793: unspecified, unspecified, ---, rstrode, ASSIGNED, gdm 3.1.90-1 No way to reboot or shutdown system from gdm
17:08:07 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736793
17:08:08 <buggbot> Bug 736793: unspecified, unspecified, ---, rstrode, ASSIGNED, gdm 3.1.90-1 No way to reboot or shutdown system from gdm
17:08:17 <tflink> #info gdm 3.1.90-1 No way to reboot or shutdown system from gdm
17:08:39 <jdulaney> Tough one
17:08:50 <tflink> this is somewhat related to:
17:08:59 <tflink> http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739253
17:09:00 <buggbot> Bug 739253: unspecified, unspecified, ---, rstrode, MODIFIED, unable to shut down from gdm greeter
17:09:26 <tflink> This could fit into "All release-blocking desktops' offered mechanisms (if any) for shutting down, logging out and rebooting must work"
17:09:43 <tflink> but my question ends up being, is it really offered if it isn't there?
17:09:47 <jdulaney> +1
17:10:00 <jdulaney> There is a fix, but do we want to go that far?
17:10:06 <tflink> AFAIK, the option to shutdown from gdm greeter is back in 3.1.92
17:10:26 <jdulaney> Indeed
17:10:28 <tflink> and I think that ties into the question surrounding 739253
17:10:33 * jdulaney has tested and verified
17:10:52 <tflink> the fix IS in 3.1.92 but do we really want to pull in that whole update for beta?
17:11:15 * jdulaney wonders how hard it would be to get just the fix?
17:11:28 <tflink> I think that I'm -.5 on blocker for this
17:11:34 <jdulaney> But, it takes more than just that one package update to get the fix working
17:11:41 <jsmith> tflink: How much risk do you think there is in pulling in the 3.1.92 package?
17:12:06 <tflink> jsmith: honestly, I'm not sure. I haven't looked into what all changed for .92
17:12:35 <brunowolff> That we don't know why it is working in some situations and not others makes me nervous.
17:13:08 <jdulaney> See adamw's comment at the end:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739253
17:13:09 <buggbot> Bug 739253: unspecified, unspecified, ---, rstrode, MODIFIED, unable to shut down from gdm greeter
17:13:09 <tflink> it sounds like this happened because gnome-shell is now responsible for the greeter screen
17:13:54 <brunowolff> Does that mean it works differently depending on whether or not gnome shell can run on your hardware?
17:14:14 <tflink> it sounds like, yeah
17:14:37 <jdulaney> It shouldn't do that
17:14:53 * tflink wonders if the power options from gdm greeter show up in fallback mode only
17:14:55 <jdulaney> The gnome team is making some odd decisions of late
17:15:17 <tflink> jdulaney: as long as it looks the same on fallback and shell, I don't think it's a problem
17:15:24 <tflink> and it sounds like that is true for .92
17:16:11 <tflink> with adam's comment on 739253, I'm leaning more towards -1 blocker on this
17:16:29 <tflink> any other votes? I'm seeing +1 -~1 so far
17:16:40 * jsmith is undecided
17:16:58 * nirik is -1 blocker.
17:17:01 <jdulaney> I don't like not being able to shutdown from GDM
17:17:03 <brunowolff> If we reject this as a blocker, I think the criteria should be reworded to account for why it was OK to let it go in this case.
17:17:11 <jdulaney> Indeed
17:17:18 <jdulaney> It does hit the criteria
17:17:43 <tflink> it does hit the criteria, but the fix is either big or messy enough to justify letting this one slide, I think
17:18:02 * jdulaney stands at +1 blocker
17:18:11 <brunowolff> Then it should be classified as NTH.
17:18:36 <jdulaney> How hard would it be to do a test compose with the big messy fix?
17:18:45 <tflink> not very hard
17:18:46 <jsmith> I'd like to hear what the GNOME folks think, personally
17:18:56 <nirik> there's a workaround tho thats pretty easy, no?
17:19:04 <tflink> yeah, switch to a VT and reboot
17:19:09 <jsmith> Try a TC with the messy fix in the meantime?
17:19:30 <brunowolff> I think it meets the criteria as stated for a blocker, though personally I don't think we need to block for it because you can login to do a graceful shutdown.
17:19:31 <tflink> unforutnately, the messy fix isn't available
17:19:39 <nirik> tflink: or just login and reboot/shutdown from there.
17:19:50 <tflink> it would be a lot of work to backport the messy fix
17:19:54 <jdulaney> I can confirm that the fix works, and I haven't had any major bugs with it
17:19:58 <tflink> most likely not worth the effort
17:20:12 <nirik> also, it will be fixed for people who update post beta.
17:20:29 <jdulaney> Hence, why not go ahead to .92 with a TC?
17:20:30 <tflink> it sounds like we are mostly -1 blocker
17:20:35 <brunowolff> I have been using the .92 updates as they fix a problem I am having with the main menu icon in fallback mode.
17:20:41 * jdulaney was always a rebel
17:20:44 <brunowolff> It seems to be OK in normal use.
17:20:45 <tflink> jdulaney: becuse we would have to retest all of the desktop stuff
17:20:52 <jdulaney> Ah
17:20:53 <nirik> jdulaney: and re-test the entire set of desktop tests?
17:21:04 <jdulaney> True, that
17:21:05 <nirik> I suppose if folks think we have time...
17:21:22 <jdulaney> No, we've slipped twice already
17:21:44 <tflink> like jsmith said, it would be nice to have some input from the gnome folks on this
17:22:08 <tflink> and adamw, since it sounds like he's more familiar with what's going on with these bugs
17:22:11 <brunowolff> I think that perhaps the criteria could be reworded to say there needs to be a working way to shut gracefully using a gui interface.
17:22:14 <nirik> well, from the desktop channel, they said backporting the fix was not really possible, and the fix requires new gnome-shell.
17:22:51 <tflink> so we're down to shipping with the bug or re-testing the whole desktop
17:23:00 <jdulaney> Tough call
17:23:23 <jdulaney> I don't want to ship that bug
17:23:35 <jdulaney> But, do we really have time to test everything?
17:23:36 <fenrus02> shipping with that known bug sounds problematic.
17:23:42 <brunowolff> So if you can shutdown from either gdm or gnome (for desktop spin) things are good enough for beta.
17:23:56 <tflink> brunowolff: +1
17:23:59 <nirik> brunowolff: +1
17:24:05 <jdulaney> could .92 wind up in Final?
17:24:16 * nirik is -1 blocker. document bug in release notes.
17:24:23 <brunowolff> I would expect at least .92 will be in final.
17:24:38 <tflink> yeah, gnome 3.2 is supposed to be released by final
17:24:38 <nirik> jdulaney: I expect final 3.2 to be in final.
17:25:22 <jdulaney> In that case, I'll say -1
17:25:40 <jdulaney> -1 to beta, but I will say +1 to this blocking Final
17:25:45 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 736793 - RejectedBlocker - This bug does hit the release criteria but the fix involves pulling in a new version of shell and other packages - too big to retest this late. This will be fixed by final
17:25:58 <nirik> also, we should note to revise the critera here.
17:26:02 <nirik> (later)
17:26:21 <brunowolff> I'd like to include that we think the criteria is too strict for beta.
17:26:28 <jdulaney> Keep in mind, this really hits most criteria on the revision
17:26:37 <jdulaney> In some ways
17:26:46 <jdulaney> But, that needs to go to the list
17:27:07 <tflink> #info agreed that the beta release critera are a bit too strict, should be modified such that this isn't a bug
17:27:21 <brunowolff> isn't a blocker
17:28:03 <tflink> #info #info the release criteria could be reworded to say there needs to be a working way to shut gracefully using a gui interface. So if you can shutdown from either gdm or gnome (for desktop spin) things are good enough for beta.
17:28:09 <tflink> ooh, duble info
17:28:12 <tflink> double
17:28:15 <tflink> #undo
17:28:15 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0xafd8cec>
17:28:23 <tflink> #info the release criteria could be reworded to say there needs to be a working way to shut gracefully using a gui interface. So if you can shutdown from either gdm or gnome (for desktop spin) things are good enough for beta.
17:28:42 <tflink> so, ack/nak/patch on the proposal?
17:28:49 <jdulaney> ack
17:28:49 <nirik> ack
17:28:52 <brunowolff> +1
17:29:00 <tflink> #agreed - 736793 - RejectedBlocker - This bug does hit the release criteria but the fix involves pulling in a new version of shell and other packages - too big to retest this late. This will be fixed by final
17:29:06 <fenrus02> release/ga should have more stringent requirements than beta.
17:29:23 <tflink> on the bright side, we only had the one proposed blocker :)
17:29:35 <jdulaney> Yay!
17:29:45 <jdulaney> Magical Unicorns!
17:29:46 <tflink> let's do the lone proposed NTH before moving on to the accepted blockers
17:29:56 <tflink> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737532
17:29:57 <buggbot> Bug 737532: unspecified, unspecified, ---, anaconda-maint-list, MODIFIED, FormatDestroyError: error wiping old signatures from /dev/sda-1: 1
17:30:00 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737532
17:30:01 <buggbot> Bug 737532: unspecified, unspecified, ---, anaconda-maint-list, MODIFIED, FormatDestroyError: error wiping old signatures from /dev/sda-1: 1
17:30:09 <tflink> #info FormatDestroyError: error wiping old signatures from /dev/sda-1: 1
17:30:28 <tflink> we already have +2 NTH from the comments, so not much is needed here
17:30:58 <tflink> this is a bug that came out of the fix for another NTH (http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737916)
17:31:01 <buggbot> Bug 737916: unspecified, unspecified, ---, dlehman, MODIFIED, FormatSetupError: invalid device specification
17:31:19 <jdulaney> +1 for NTH
17:31:29 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 737532 - AcceptedNTH - This is a fix for a bug that came out of another NTH, would be nice to have fixed for beta
17:31:33 <tflink> ack/nak/patch?
17:31:38 <jdulaney> ack
17:31:46 <tflink> #agreed - 737532 - AcceptedNTH - This is a fix for a bug that came out of another NTH, would be nice to have fixed for beta
17:32:36 <tflink> alrighty, let's go over the non-VERIFIED beta blockers
17:32:44 <brunowolff> +1
17:32:52 <tflink> #topic Unable to make system bootable due to bootloader choice
17:33:01 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738964
17:33:03 <buggbot> Bug 738964: unspecified, unspecified, ---, anaconda-maint-list, NEW, Unable to make system bootable due to bootloader choice
17:33:36 <tflink> this one is still in active testing, hopefully the .6 image in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738964#c65 will be the last one
17:33:37 <buggbot> Bug 738964: unspecified, unspecified, ---, anaconda-maint-list, NEW, Unable to make system bootable due to bootloader choice
17:34:11 <tflink> #info needs testing with http://dlehman.fedorapeople.org/updates-738964.6.img
17:34:21 <tflink> but I don't think that much else needs to be said about this one
17:34:35 <tflink> a new anaconda build is one of the bigger things keeping us from TC3/RC2 atm
17:35:01 <clumens> we have a small pile of patches on the mailing list to get built in today.  it'll happen.
17:35:16 <tflink> #info there is an alternative update available that doesn't use quite so big of a hammer - http://dlehman.fedorapeople.org/updates-738964.6.img
17:35:46 <tflink> clumens: thanks for the update
17:36:01 <jdulaney> Apologies, but I must take my leave
17:36:33 <tflink> #info there are patches on anaconda-devel@ that should be built in to today, no problems expected in getting a new build
17:36:44 <tflink> jdulaney: thanks for being here
17:37:01 <tflink> unless there are other concerns/updates on this bug ...
17:37:05 <clumens> shore
17:37:34 <tflink> #topic (739746) dhcp / bind mismatch on f15 to f16 upgrade: no network
17:37:40 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739746
17:37:41 <buggbot> Bug 739746: unspecified, unspecified, ---, atkac, MODIFIED, dhcp / bind mismatch on f15 to f16 upgrade: no network
17:37:56 <tflink> #info builds are available, need more testing and karma
17:38:19 <tflink> I don't think that there is much else to say about this one - it doesn't look like getting it finished will be a problem at this point
17:38:43 <tflink> #topic (739253) - unable to shut down from gdm greeter
17:38:49 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739253
17:38:51 <buggbot> Bug 739253: unspecified, unspecified, ---, rstrode, MODIFIED, unable to shut down from gdm greeter
17:38:55 <adamw> sorry folks, was in the shower
17:39:06 <tflink> adamw: about time you showed up :)
17:39:36 <tflink> I think that this one falls into the same category as the related 736793
17:40:04 <tflink> in that we have a choice between shipping with this known issue or pulling in the whole 3.1.92 gnome update
17:40:19 <adamw> yup.
17:40:44 <tflink> since 736793 was rejected, I'm thinking move to final on this one
17:41:01 <tflink> unless a fix to remove the power options from gdm greeter would be easy
17:41:18 <tflink> any other thoughts?
17:41:24 * nirik is +1 to move to final.
17:41:36 <adamw> ack
17:41:40 <adamw> well
17:41:49 <adamw> we can make it nth and pull in 3.1.92 to fix this
17:42:04 <adamw> aiui right now, pulling gdm 3.1.92 fixes the pm options when they show up (i.e., fallback mode)
17:42:17 <brunowolff> This one is a bit worse than the otehr one, since people may think all shutdown buttons are broken rather than just the gdm button.
17:42:22 <adamw> but i may be missing stuff.
17:42:30 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 739253 - This bug is a blocker but the only available fix involves pulling in gnome-shell 3.1.92 and that seems to be a bit large to be re-testing this late
17:42:42 <adamw> nack
17:43:01 <tflink> I suppose that a resolution would have been nice on that
17:43:02 <adamw> the specific bug in 739253 is fixable with gdm 3.1.92, i think.
17:43:04 <tflink> #chair adamw
17:43:04 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw tflink
17:43:15 <brunowolff> I still think we would be OK. But if the related bug is masking this one now, it probably is moot.
17:43:20 <tflink> can we pull in gdm without all the rest?
17:43:23 <adamw> yes.
17:43:33 <adamw> the only problem is that it doesn't fix the Shell case, so the bug report has gotten confused.
17:43:47 <adamw> but I *think* you only see PM options in fallback mode, with gdm 3.1.90 they didn't work, with gdm 3.1.92 they do.
17:43:51 <tflink> ah, so pulling in new gdm will fix for everything using gdm other than shell
17:43:53 <adamw> it could stand a bit more data and testing, though.
17:43:58 <tflink> and for shell, the PM options would just disappear
17:44:02 <adamw> that's my current read on it, yes.
17:44:12 <tflink> I'd be OK with that fix
17:44:17 <adamw> i don't think what gdm version we have makes any difference to whether you see PM options in the shell or not/
17:44:36 <tflink> unless there are unresolved dependencies from pulling in gdm only
17:45:10 <adamw> don't think so, i built a live image that way with no problems.
17:45:41 <tflink> #info this particular bug could be fixed by pulling in gdm-3.1.92 only without the rest of that update
17:46:03 <tflink> #info gnome-shell still wouldn't have PM options @ gdm greeter, but what is there would work
17:46:51 <adamw> i'd like to be more sure about the above, but i think that's the case.
17:46:54 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 739253 - pulling in gdm-3.1.92 alone sounds like a reasonable solution to fix this particular bug even though it won't touch 736793
17:47:14 <adamw> ack
17:47:15 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 739253 - pulling in gdm-3.1.92 alone sounds like a reasonable solution to fix this particular bug even though it won't touch 736793. This needs to be tested more before pulling it in to beta release, though
17:47:25 <tflink> any other ack/nak/patch?
17:47:31 <nirik> but I thought it requires more of the newer stack?
17:48:02 <nirik> adamw: new gdm doesnt pull in more of 3.1.92/
17:48:03 <nirik> ?
17:48:16 <tflink> yeah, I would have thought so, too
17:48:46 <tflink> #info pulling in gdm-3.1.92 needs more testing to verify that it can be pulled in alone
17:49:02 <adamw> tflink: no, not afaict.
17:49:14 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 739253 - Assuming that it can be pulled in by itself, pulling in gdm-3.1.92 alone sounds like a reasonable solution to fix this particular bug even though it won't touch 736793. This needs to be tested more before pulling it in to beta release, though
17:49:15 <nirik> huh. ok
17:49:21 <adamw> it only has three gnome deps, and only one of them is versioned - gnome-settings-daemon >= 2.21.92
17:50:07 <nirik> ack I guess.
17:50:09 <brunowolff> +1
17:50:14 <tflink> nirik: are you OK with proposed?
17:50:14 <adamw> ack
17:50:29 <nirik> sure
17:50:40 <tflink> #agreed - 739253 - Assuming that it can be pulled in by itself, pulling in gdm-3.1.92 alone sounds like a reasonable solution to fix this particular bug even though it won't touch 736793. This needs to be tested more before pulling it in to beta release, though
17:51:00 <tflink> another one that should be quick
17:51:11 <tflink> #topic (738735) repoclosure failure for 16-Beta.RC1 DVD
17:51:17 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738735
17:51:18 <buggbot> Bug 738735: unspecified, unspecified, ---, rpandit, NEW, repoclosure failure for 16-Beta.RC1 DVD
17:52:04 <tflink> so the build that we think is causing problems was just pushed to stable
17:52:05 <adamw> not much to say about this one, we just need digikam update karma'ed and pushed
17:52:27 <tflink> #link https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-13116
17:52:42 <tflink> #info digikam was recently pushed to stable
17:52:51 <tflink> #info this bug should be fixed @ next compose
17:53:01 <tflink> anything else?
17:53:21 * tflink assumes not
17:53:25 <adamw> nope, just confirm it's fixed in RC2 and close
17:53:54 <tflink> #agreed - 738735 - Need to confirm fixed in RC2 and close
17:54:04 <tflink> #topic (737731) Bootloader is left in F15 configuration when preupgrading to F16
17:54:14 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737731
17:54:16 <buggbot> Bug 737731: high, unspecified, ---, hughsient, ASSIGNED, Bootloader is left in F15 configuration when preupgrading to F16
17:54:31 <tflink> not sure if there has been much progress on this lately
17:54:46 <tflink> #info fix for this will be in F15's preupgrade
17:55:21 <adamw> it doesn't block image compose, is the good thing
17:55:26 <adamw> i can never seem to find hughsie, is the bad thing
17:55:43 <tflink> #info since fix for 737731 is in F15, it isn't blocking compose
17:55:49 <adamw> this should be relatively easy to patch, except a variable that'd probably be needed for the necessary logic doesn't currently seem to exist in firstboot (see my comment)
17:56:36 <tflink> #info proposed solution in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737731#c13
17:56:37 <buggbot> Bug 737731: high, unspecified, ---, hughsient, ASSIGNED, Bootloader is left in F15 configuration when preupgrading to F16
17:57:01 <tflink> it sounds like we "just" need to find the right person to fix this
17:58:30 <tflink> any other thoughts?
17:58:40 <adamw> that's about it.
17:58:57 <tflink> alrighty, on to what I think is the last of the accepted blockers
17:59:09 <tflink> #topic (735866) boot hangs with udevadm settle - timeout of 120 seconds
17:59:15 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735866
17:59:16 <buggbot> Bug 735866: unspecified, unspecified, ---, harald, ASSIGNED, boot hangs with udevadm settle - timeout of 120 seconds
18:00:10 <tflink> it sounds like we still haven't quite pinned this down yet
18:00:29 <tflink> but on the bright side, it also sounds like there aren't too many users hitting it, either
18:00:38 <adamw> yeah, i'm getting sour on this one
18:00:48 <adamw> it doesn't feel like anyone cares about it much, as no-one who's hitting it is providing any info
18:00:50 <tflink> and if they do hit it, a reboot will often fix the problem
18:01:08 <adamw> yeah, i think we can just say 'workaround == reboot'
18:01:31 * tflink contemplates between -1 blocker or move to final
18:01:47 <tflink> maybe NTH?
18:02:16 <jsmith> -1 blocker from me
18:02:37 <tflink> jsmith: beta and final, I assume?
18:02:37 <jsmith> If folks are able to reproduce it and can provide info, I don't mind it being on the final list
18:03:00 <adamw> mmf, i think it's either beta or nothin'
18:03:02 * tflink is thinking NTH and re-propose if it becomes a bigger issue
18:03:06 <adamw> yeah, i'm with tflink
18:03:10 <jsmith> That works
18:03:18 <adamw> we should at least get more data with the beta release
18:04:11 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 735866 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedNTH - This has turned out to be a little less common and severe than we originally thought. If it turns out to be a bigger issue, re-propose as blocker
18:04:26 <tflink> ack/nak/patch?
18:04:29 <brunowolff> +1
18:04:32 <adamw> ack
18:04:34 <nirik> ack
18:04:41 <tflink> #agreed - 735866 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedNTH - This has turned out to be a little less common and severe than we originally thought. If it turns out to be a bigger issue, re-propose as blocker
18:04:54 <tflink> ok, I think that's it
18:05:00 <tflink> is there anything that I missed?
18:05:10 <adamw> not off the top of my head
18:05:21 <tflink> #topic open floor
18:05:27 <adamw> note there are two updates images to test for the bootloader bug now
18:05:31 <adamw> we should really get on that as a priority
18:05:41 <tflink> yep, I noted that when the bug came out
18:05:56 <adamw> if everyone can test their reproducers with both updates images and report back we should have good data to go ahead with the anaconda build
18:05:58 <tflink> but I think that an email to test@ explaining why there are 2 images and what we're looking for in testing would help
18:06:01 <adamw> yup
18:06:12 <tflink> adamw: you want to send that email out or should I?
18:07:14 <nirik> FYI, I didn't get the digikam update signed right, so thats why branched didn't show up today.
18:07:24 <nirik> it should show up tomorrow with the ones pushed to stable.
18:07:26 <tflink> #action tflink or adamw send out request for testing BOTH of the updates for 738964, explaining why there are 2 updates and what we're looking for in testing and data for feedback
18:07:37 <tflink> nirik: ok, thanks for the update
18:08:25 <tflink> #info digikam update for 738735 had issues with pushing for stable, it has been fixed and should show up with the next push to stable
18:08:45 <tflink> unless there are any other topics ... #endmeeting in 2 minutes
18:09:31 <tflink> #info next blocker meeting (if needed) will be 2011-09-30 @ 17:00 UTC
18:09:46 * tflink hopes that it won't be needed
18:10:22 <tflink> OK, thanks for coming everyone!
18:10:39 <tflink> Time for some testing and getting TC3/RC2 out today!
18:10:51 * tflink will send out minutes shortly
18:10:51 * jsmith just finished a successful installation with the .6.img anaconda update, fwiw
18:10:53 <tflink> #endmeeting