#fedora-bugzappers: F17-beta-blocker-review-2

Meeting summary

1. roll call (adamw, 17:02:19)
   
2. Introduction (adamw, 17:07:47)
   1. 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. (adamw, 17:07:57)
   2. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Current_Release_Blockers (adamw, 17:08:04)
   3. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Beta_Release_Criteria (adamw, 17:08:07)
   4. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting (adamw, 17:08:11)
   5. 9 Proposed Blockers (adamw, 17:08:30)
   6. 7 Accepted Blockers (adamw, 17:08:48)
   
   
3. http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801782 (adamw, 17:09:48)
   1. AGREED: 801782 is a blocker per beta criterion "The default update manager in release-blocking desktops must not periodically check for updates when the system is booted live, but must periodically check for updates when running on an installed system" (adamw, 17:14:28)
   
   
4. http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787744 (adamw, 17:16:31)
   1. AGREED: 787744 is rejected as a blocker: it doesn't really prevent direct kernel boot of the installer from working, you just need to specify some parameters for it. i.e. it's 'easily workaroundable'. accepted as NTH, if the fix is not too invasive. (adamw, 17:44:58)
   
   
5. http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800316 (adamw, 17:45:29)
   1. AGREED: 800316 is not a blocker as the impact is fairly small (it affects only the rarely used 'skip bootloader' option). we have other bugs for more serious problems with bootloader handling on upgrade (adamw, 17:54:07)
   
   
6. http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797507 (adamw, 17:54:20)
   1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800205 (pschindl, 17:59:33)
   2. AGREED: 797507 is a dupe of 785815, we also have 800205 for the preupgrade case (which could be fixed on preupgrade side if it is not fixed on anaconda side) (adamw, 18:13:59)
   
   
7. http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736993 (adamw, 18:16:31)
   1. AGREED: 736993 is a beta blocker: general consensus that serial console should be beta blocking, we will tidy up the criteria to reflect this (adamw, 18:25:02)
   
   
8. http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=748964 (adamw, 18:25:32)
   1. AGREED: 748964 can now be considered a dupe of 736993 as that's been re-opened for F17 Beta. 736993 is accepted as a beta blocker as it breaks serial install. (adamw, 18:34:39)
   
   
9. http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799174 (adamw, 18:35:32)
   1. AGREED: 799174 is not a blocker: dependency issues in updates-testing are pretty common place and don't affect releases unless the problems get pushed to stable, which we would catch later (adamw, 18:38:19)
   
   
10. http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800205 (adamw, 18:38:31)
    1. AGREED: 800205 is a blocker per criterion "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" (adamw, 18:41:14)
    
    
11. http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591630 (adamw, 18:41:25)
    1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591630#c19 (adamw, 18:42:47)
    2. AGREED: 591630 is a blocker: the bug infringes criteria cited in the report in the specific case of 'IPv6-only network'. we are making the determination that this is a significant enough case at this point in time to make the bug a blocker. we will report this decision to devel list and FESCo for their review (adamw, 18:50:11)
    
    
12. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800376 (adamw, 18:51:24)
    1. AGREED: 800376 is not a blocker: it's likely not the desired design, but in practice, upgrade *does* work with the default option. if anaconda team want to improve the design that's great, but it's not a blocker (adamw, 19:03:51)
    
    
13. bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742207 (adamw, 19:04:49)
    1. an updates.img is available for 742207, so it's on QA to check that out and give feedback to bcl (adamw, 19:05:30)
    
    
14. http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753421 (adamw, 19:06:55)
    1. 753421 has an updates.img available for testing, so again, needs us to test (adamw, 19:08:24)
    
    
15. bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787461 (adamw, 19:09:18)
    
16. http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787461 (adamw, 19:09:53)
    1. AGREED: 787461 has morphed into a much less serious bug than initially reported, let's re-close it and ask hongqing to report his bug as a new one (adamw, 19:18:45)
    
    
17. http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787893 (adamw, 19:19:01)
    1. fix for 787893 is in Beta TC1 and needs testing - simple f16 to f17 upgrade test should be enough (adamw, 19:21:50)
    
    
18. http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=796155 (adamw, 19:22:02)
    1. bcl says this bug should go away with the landing of noloader, which will happen Real Soon Now: ball is in anaconda team's court on this one (adamw, 19:25:05)
    
    
19. http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798373 (adamw, 19:25:24)
    1. 798373 fix is in and tested by kparal but needs to be pushed stable and added to beta tc2 compose (adamw, 19:26:16)
    
    
20. bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754568 (adamw, 19:27:25)
    1. ACTION: adamw to bug ajax about 754568 (adamw, 19:30:08)
    2. 754568 no movement from developer (adamw, 19:31:17)
    3. AGREED: meeting was unacceptably short. let's not make that mistake again. (adamw, 19:32:22)
    
    
21. open floor (adamw, 19:32:47)

Action items

1. adamw to bug ajax about 754568

Action items, by person

1. adamw
   1. adamw to bug ajax about 754568

People present (lines said)

1. adamw (336)
2. kparal (160)
3. bcl (56)
4. fenrus02 (55)
5. maxamillion (47)
6. pschindl (35)
7. buggbot (20)
8. nirik (15)
9. brunowolff (14)
10. zodbot (4)