21:00:27 #startmeeting F17 Beta Go No Go Meeting 21:00:27 Meeting started Wed Mar 28 21:00:27 2012 UTC. The chair is rbergeron. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 21:00:27 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 21:00:35 #meetingname F17 Beta Go No Go Meeting 21:00:35 The meeting name has been set to 'f17_beta_go_no_go_meeting' 21:00:39 #topic Roll Call 21:00:54 yo 21:00:56 * tflink is present 21:01:14 you are both presents. from the miracle. what would we do without you! 21:01:24 dgilmore: ping, are you around 21:01:36 #info adamw, rbergero, tflink, brunowolff present 21:02:03 #topic Agenda 21:02:36 #info Welcome to the F17 Go/No-Go meeting. Purpose of this meeting is to determine whether the release criteria are met for the impending release of F17 Beta! WOO 21:02:41 rbergeron: not really 21:02:58 the summary of the answer is: as of right now, no. could they be by tomorrow? possibly. 21:03:09 now let's spend an hour dissecting this in excruciating detail! 21:03:10 #info Here we check ot see if validation tests for this release (F17 Beta) are completed, verify there are no unaddressed accepted blocker bugs in the release candidate, etc. 21:03:27 #info And now we shall dissect this in excruciating detail (tm, adamw.) 21:03:33 #topic Blockers 21:03:43 #link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Current_Release_Blockers 21:03:49 #chair adamw tflink 21:03:49 Current chairs: adamw rbergeron tflink 21:04:06 #chair brunowolff j_dulaney 21:04:06 Current chairs: adamw brunowolff j_dulaney rbergeron tflink 21:04:17 rbergeron: want to go through all the blockers in a mini-review or just the highlights? 21:04:28 i think we can probably summarize the state of play first... 21:04:34 adamw or tflink, can you go through the "remaining" blockers, I know that one apparently just got fixed, but you can do highlights, whatever, first. 21:04:42 and here I was hoping to bore everyone to tears :( 21:04:51 whatever you think is best. 21:05:06 I have been on the telephone the majority of the day and I am just enjoying not having a sweaty thing on my ear. 21:05:11 * nirik is here. 21:05:16 nirik! hi 21:05:24 #chair nirik 21:05:24 Current chairs: adamw brunowolff j_dulaney nirik rbergeron tflink 21:05:30 validation is reasonably close to complete 21:05:39 (of rc1) 21:06:04 there are some gaps in the matrix, but we already know rc1 isn't releasable, so in itself that isn't a huge problem. the tests we haven't done yet are unlikely to provide hugely significant new info. 21:06:21 * rbergeron nods 21:06:25 rc1, as mentioned, is not releasable, it has several blockers. so, we should probably go over those! 21:06:46 is it worth saying anything about the ones in ON_QA? 21:06:52 #info validation of rc1 is reasonably close to complete, there are gaps in the matrix but we know it's not releasable, has several blockers. 21:06:59 there was an anaconda 17.15 which is intended to fix all of those. 21:07:05 I usually assume those are good unless you guys tell us otherwise. 21:07:09 oh, the fix for 804522 was slightly buggy, there will be a better fix in 17.16. 21:07:17 intended or known fo sho to fix all of those? 21:07:28 rbergeron: hard to test w/o a compose 21:07:35 +1 21:07:44 so intended 21:07:45 we have a boot.iso 21:07:50 but yeah, mostly intended. 21:08:15 745202 is in 'new', but it can be considered addressed 21:08:39 rc1 included a gnome-shell which blacklists nv3x cards. the bug isn't 'modified' because this is a workaround, not at all a fix for the actual corruption. 21:08:52 tflink: okay, fair enough, just didn't know if someone had cobbled it together 21:08:58 so that leaves us with the proposed blockers, and #806784. 21:09:02 adamw: okay 21:09:14 #806784 we just, like about 15 minutes ago, figured out. 21:09:33 Proposed blockers are modified and on_qa, so that is a plus 21:09:46 yay for figuring things out 21:09:47 grub installation to dmraid devices fails because anaconda has the MALLOC_PERTURB env var set; that's actually intended to make things break in order to flag bugs in memory allocation code 21:10:10 but if we unset MALLOC_PERTURB then it works well enough, and we can bug upstream grub to fix their damn memory allocation. 21:10:22 yay obscure bugs! 21:10:38 so in effect, we now have fixes for all accepted blockers, but no compose yet that includes those fixes. 21:10:41 wow. 21:10:49 Hmm 21:10:53 (note: all credit to pjones and tflink for figuring that one out.) 21:10:59 are you telling me this is going to be one of *those* meetings? :) 21:11:11 well, i think next we should review the proposed blockers 21:11:19 LOL 21:11:19 okay 21:11:20 and actually proposed nth, as there's some fixes we'd really like to have in there, i think. 21:11:29 at least one 21:11:42 tflink, you have things lined up for a mini-blocker-review, right? 21:11:47 yep 21:11:50 #topic (807397) updates.img images do not work on live installs since the new format 21:11:53 #link http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807397 21:11:56 #info Proposed Blocker, POST 21:12:53 Fix is easy enough 21:12:54 +1 blocker on this. 21:12:56 +1 blocker 21:13:05 +1 blocker 21:13:16 updates.img are broken in live images. it's a 'conditional' breakage (they work in dvd/netinst), but i think bad enough to take. 21:13:31 and yeah, there's a fix lined up. 21:13:46 +1 blocker 21:13:48 proposed #agreed - 807397 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the beta criterion "The installer must be able to use an installer update image retrieved from removable media, remote installation source and HTTP server" for live images 21:13:53 ack/nak/patch? 21:13:55 +1 21:13:58 +1 blocker/ack 21:14:01 ack 21:14:07 * nirik nods. ack 21:14:11 #agreed - 807397 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the beta criterion "The installer must be able to use an installer update image retrieved from removable media, remote installation source and HTTP server" for live images 21:14:19 next! 21:14:20 #topic (807003) Booting F17 Beta RC1 installer in basic video with radeon falls back to text mode 21:14:23 #link http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807003 21:14:25 #info Proposed Blocker, MODIFIED 21:14:59 I'm -1 blocker on this, even though I reported it 21:15:35 if the fix gets in due to 804514, OK but this is way to HW specific to be a blocker 21:15:37 * rbergeron looks at bugzilla and begs it to load up 21:15:39 -1 blocker 21:15:53 After looking through comments 21:16:09 right, the intent of the criterion is that the mechanism for loading vesa must basically work, it doesn't really cover specific configurations where loading vesa doesn't work well 21:16:23 especially when those configurations work fine with their native driver and hence don't need vesa anyway. 21:16:35 * rbergeron is -1 blocker 21:16:55 proposed #agreed - 807003 - RejectedBlocker - While this does mostly hit the alpha criterion "The boot menu for all installation images should include an entry which causes both installation and the installed system to use a generic, highly compatible video driver (such as 'vesa'). This mechanism should work correctly, launching the installer and attempting to use the generic driver", this is very HW specific and therefore not considered to be a bloc 21:16:59 ack 21:17:15 ack 21:17:27 do we want to take it as nth? or just leave it for post-beta? 21:17:46 * nirik would say post-beta 21:17:48 I am leaning towards post-beta, tbh 21:17:53 +1 21:17:54 it's probably okay to leave it. i think this has been about the same through at least 15 and 16. 21:17:56 okay 21:17:59 adamw: I think it's mostly academic since the fix is already going to be pulled into beta as a fix for another blocker 21:18:05 How risky is the change. It sure feels like NTH, but we are probably going to get at most one chance to do an RC or slip. 21:18:12 tflink: is it? I don't think it is. the other fix is in a different package. 21:18:24 adamw: it is? my mistake 21:18:35 otherwise post-beta sounds good to me 21:18:37 804514, right? that fix is in mesa. 21:18:51 brunowolff: that's sort of how i feel, is the risk worth it 21:19:09 adamw: yeah, I was thinking ATI for some reason 21:19:09 If the release is going to slip anyway, I'd be +1 NTH. 21:19:13 brunowolff: the fix for this is claimed to be disabling UMS code in radeon, for some reason. 21:19:29 brunowolff: we could always re-evaluate it later 21:19:33 I was wondering what that was about. 21:19:44 i'm not entirely sure how that interferes with vesa, but hey. 21:20:37 it sounds like the majority of people are voting post-beta 21:20:54 but rejecting as a blocker either way, so: 21:21:03 #agreed - 807003 - RejectedBlocker - While this does mostly hit the alpha criterion "The boot menu for all installation images should include an entry which causes both installation and the installed system to use a generic, highly compatible video driver (such as 'vesa'). This mechanism should work correctly, launching the installer and attempting to use the generic driver", this is very HW specific and therefore not considered to be a blocker 21:21:11 ack 21:21:18 ack 21:21:19 we can kick about nth status later, not super important 21:21:27 sounds like a plan 21:21:35 OK that's all of the proposed blockers 21:22:09 okay 21:22:13 do we want to go through all 12 proposed NTH? 21:22:16 no need 21:22:19 or just cherry pick 21:22:19 let's just look at the ones that have fixes 21:22:33 #topic (807083) iscsi tools do not exist on F17 beta RC1 DVDs 21:22:33 #link http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807083 21:22:33 #info Proposed NTH, ASSIGNED 21:22:33 since we'd be composing in, like, 30 minutes, if we decide to... 21:23:15 patch was posted and I thought that we had a build for this 21:23:24 * adamw is a bit confused by '804522 will handle this' - does it just mean there's a fix in the new lorax? 21:23:26 even though its still ASSIGNED 21:23:31 That seems to be an easy fix 21:23:51 adamw: yeah, it was grouped in with the mdraid spaces fix to lorax 21:24:00 the 'details' for the lorax update read "Add iscsi utils" 21:24:05 so i'm guessing it can be considered as fixing this too 21:24:08 anyway, +1 nth 21:24:11 +1 nth 21:24:14 obviously good to have iscsi in beta so we can test it 21:24:15 +1 21:24:33 +1nth 21:24:38 +1 nth 21:24:43 proposed #agreed - 807083 - AcceptedNTH - This would be a final blocker and has a fix ready to go 21:24:47 ack 21:25:38 ack 21:25:42 ack 21:25:43 #agreed - 807083 - AcceptedNTH - This would be a final blocker and has a fix ready to go 21:26:17 #topic (749235) No method for setting e.g. media size 21:26:17 #link http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749235 21:26:17 #info Proposed NTH, MODIFIED 21:27:11 there is a fix for this but ... what is the consequence of not taking it? 21:27:22 this seems like it'd work fine as an update. 21:27:34 no-one does much printing from beta live images, i don't think. 21:27:35 yep, unable to set paper size in printer 21:27:44 * nirik nods. 21:27:50 -1 nth 21:27:50 -1 nth, i think 21:27:54 -1 nth 21:27:55 -1 nth 21:27:57 -1 from me too 21:27:59 -1 21:28:18 HEY LOOK ONE BILLION DOLLARS 21:28:26 proposed #agreed - 749235 - RejectedNTH - Printing from beta live images seems unlikely and this fix would work well as an update 21:28:31 ack 21:28:37 ack 21:28:40 ack 21:28:51 acked 21:29:05 #agreed - 749235 - RejectedNTH - Printing from beta live images seems unlikely and this fix would work well as an update 21:29:19 #topic (805813) the seventh test (random number sequence) fails at about 129 MiB 21:29:22 #link http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805813 21:29:25 #info Proposed NTH, ON_QA 21:29:32 this is another that would be a final blocker but we have a fix for it now 21:29:32 +1 nth for me, it's nice to have memtest that works 21:29:46 +1 nth, as well 21:29:48 +1 nth 21:30:14 +1 nth 21:30:15 +1 nth 21:30:27 +1 nth 21:30:30 proposed #agreed - 805813 - AcceptedNTH - This would be a final blocker, can't be fixed with an update and it would be nice to have a working memtest on the beta images 21:30:33 ack 21:30:39 ack 21:30:40 ack 21:30:49 ack-ed 21:30:49 ack 21:30:56 #agreed - 805813 - AcceptedNTH - This would be a final blocker, can't be fixed with an update and it would be nice to have a working memtest on the beta images 21:31:08 #topic (805902) Scrollwheels on tablets are broken 21:31:08 #link http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805902 21:31:08 #info Proposed NTH, MODIFIED 21:31:49 +1 nth 21:32:19 This is another I'd be +1 NTH for sure if we didn't have just one shot to do it 21:32:30 i'm still pretty +1, it's been well tested 21:32:39 and...not having scrolling in VMs is SO DAMN ANNOYING 21:32:44 wheel scrolling, that is. 21:32:50 +1nth 21:32:58 * adamw realizes this is a highly unprofessional basis for voting, and doesn't care. 21:32:59 That was going to be my next question. Given that it's been well tested I'm +1 NTH right now. 21:33:17 * rbergeron sits with brunowolff on that ughhhhhh, but if we're confident in the well-testedness then +1nth 21:33:18 I'm in the same boat, if it's been tested, I'm ok with NTH 21:34:07 proposed #agreed - 805902 - AcceptedNTH - This is a visible annoyance that would be nice to not have, fix has been tested 21:34:13 ack 21:34:19 ack 21:34:32 ack 21:34:40 acky 21:34:48 #agreed - 805902 - AcceptedNTH - This is a visible annoyance that would be nice to not have, fix has been tested 21:35:04 unless I'm missing something, that's all the NTH bugs with fixes 21:35:13 looks good to me. 21:35:57 cool, I do believe that we're done with the mini blocker review 21:36:02 #topic Blockers 21:36:08 oh, wait. 21:36:13 #undo 21:36:13 Removing item from minutes: 21:36:14 i lied. 21:36:14 ? 21:36:24 adamw: which one did I miss? 21:36:43 you missed http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807457 21:36:59 yes, I did 21:37:02 #topic (807457) systemd-units %preun wipes /etc/systemd/system/default.target when updating to the systemd that obsoletes it, breaking boot on non-graphical installs 21:37:06 #link http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=807457 21:37:08 #info Proposed NTH, ON_QA 21:37:46 +1 NTH 21:37:54 basically, if you upgrade a system which isn't capable of starting X from 16 to 17, you'll wind up looking at a cursor. 21:38:10 ouch 21:38:28 (because default.target disappears, so it reverts to being graphical.target, so systemd tries to start X, and fails, and tty1 just sits there looking foolish.) 21:38:39 +1 nth 21:38:43 tty2+ are available, so it's not horrible, but it looks bad. 21:38:47 +1 from me. 21:38:59 +1 nth 21:39:30 +1 nth 21:39:54 proposed #agreed - 807457 - AcceptedNTH - This is reasonably easy to work around but does smewhat break non-graphical upgrades from 16 to 17 21:40:00 ack 21:40:04 ack 21:40:08 ack 21:40:13 #agreed - 807457 - AcceptedNTH - This is reasonably easy to work around but does smewhat break non-graphical upgrades from 16 to 17 21:40:24 ok, I think we're ACTUALLY done this time 21:40:36 * tflink waits for a minute, hopes for silence 21:40:54 wow, i can make X very confused by spinning my scroll wheel fast. 21:41:14 #topic Blockers 21:41:22 since adam seems to be bored ... 21:41:35 I'M TESTING SCROLLING 21:41:44 LOL 21:41:51 blockers! 21:42:03 * tflink thinks he put the topic back the way it was 21:42:29 * j_dulaney doesn't have a scroll wheel to test X with 21:42:35 okay, so, I guess it's back to... building a new RC. 21:43:04 Or something. God, my brain sucks today 21:43:17 #topic To Go or Not To Go 21:43:24 no go 21:43:27 I think that's where we're at, now. 21:43:36 obviously we can't go with RC1. 21:44:19 * j_dulaney is no go 21:44:20 I gues the question is whether we're ready to proceed with doing RC2. 21:44:30 rbergeron: slip 1 week 21:44:35 yeah, we can vote on the no-go'ing, but I think it's pretty clear that it doesn't meet requirements. 21:45:10 is everyone in agreement that we are not going? :) 21:45:19 * nirik is also sadly no go. 21:45:36 we could do another hero sprint, it's not impossible. 21:45:44 since we have all required changes, build an rc2 now, validate overnight. 21:45:51 i'm not saying i'm wedded to the idea, just saying it's possible. 21:46:16 adamw: bad adamw bad 21:46:20 i still think having a go/no-go nearly 24 hours before the readiness meeting is needlessly restrictive on the rc testing time. 21:46:34 #agreed We are no-go on RC1; we have outstanding blockers that need to be pulled into a second RC. 21:47:02 adamw: yeah, I was wanting to have go/no-go a day later, but oh well, I guess I need to really ask for that a cycle ahead. 21:47:11 adamw: the readiness meeting is pretty much an "is everyone else ready" check anymore, but ... yeah, what nirik just said. 21:47:14 the only time it comes up is now. ;) 21:47:33 rbergeron: we can still have a go/no-go. it can just be one hour before readiness instead of one day before. 21:47:54 there's absolutely nothing we have to do between go/no-go and readiness, so it's pointless to have a day of dead air between them, is the point. 21:48:42 I thought the consensus the last time one of these happened was that we were going to change the schedule? 21:48:48 well, i'm saying that the readiness meeting doesn't necessarily hinge on what you guys are doing, except that on the times we ship on time, we relate that "we're actually shipping on time" during tha tmeeting. if we slip, we still have the meeting. 21:49:58 i think maybe the consensus was to "evaluate after release" but i do'nt think it hit a retrospective, that's probably my fault 21:50:11 anyway, we're kinda in the bushes, i guess. 21:50:48 if someone links me a retrospective page i'll list it and someday my successor, if we ever create a requisition, can yell at me aobut it 21:50:49 * j_dulaney likes hanging in the bushes 21:51:02 adamw: bushes, yes, again. 21:51:19 * j_dulaney has his bow and is waiting for some tasty Bambi to wander by 21:51:23 though i am also of the opinion that no matter when it was we'd always be making magic happen at the absolute last second 21:51:42 so, no going and looking at changing things next cycle? or did we want to try the hero's effort? 21:52:47 well, i think we can look at changing it, i think that's separate from the hero's effort 21:52:49 * nirik listens to no one commiting to anything. ;) 21:53:03 everyon'es grabbing the second cocktail for the last 7 minute stretch 21:53:19 i don't mind doing it, or not doing it. 21:53:29 I'm just about in the same boat 21:53:30 i was kinda expecting more resistance to slipping, but hey. 21:53:37 it depends mostly on (a) if pepole think it's kosher (b) if rel-eng wants to build it (c) if there are enough people willing to test it. 21:53:45 * j_dulaney is little Indian here 21:53:51 I don't like forcing everyone to stay up all night for multiple days. 21:53:55 or requesting it really 21:53:56 ;) 21:53:57 would be nice to do a release where we didn't slip, i guess. 21:53:57 * nirik nods. 21:53:59 I'll go along with whatever at this point 21:54:04 rbergeron: no-one's stayed up nights yet, i don't think 21:54:05 adamw: IT WOULD BE A MIRACLE 21:54:06 I put up my objections last time 21:54:36 yay indecision! 21:54:45 You know what? Screw it 21:55:00 i guess if we have no pressing reason to try and pull a crazy miracle to meet the schedule, we should go with process and just slip. 21:55:04 * nirik thinks also it would be nice to not slip a release for once... but I'm in the same boat of not wanting to force people to a short deadline. 21:55:07 Proposed #agreed We go for the hero's effort! 21:55:11 LOL 21:55:17 heh 21:55:28 everyone make a half-hearted decision in a different direction! 21:55:32 does someone have a magic 8 ball? 21:55:47 Yes, right here in my office. 21:55:52 ASK THE 8 BALL 21:56:08 My boss gave everyone in our group one this last Christmas. 21:56:10 "ask again later" 21:56:15 http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~ssanty/cgi-bin/eightball.cgi 21:56:24 "maybe" 21:56:32 that doesn't help 21:56:45 oh, for the record, according to QA's published rules for voting, we would vote no-go at the current time. the debate is whether to delay the vote till tomorrow in the hopes of a miracle. 21:56:54 My try came up on an edge! How's that for not making a decision. 21:57:01 do 8 balls *have* edges? 21:57:06 right, so... dgilmore: all set to do a rc2 after the meeting? qa: willing to retest tonight? 21:57:14 adamw: i would love to see an on-time release. but it's QA's decision. 21:57:24 * j_dulaney is for it 21:57:27 we could play it like this: if we get a build to test, we can do some smoke tests to see if the big blockers are indeed fixed - if they are, we can keep testing 21:57:27 speaking for myself, i can give it a shot. 21:57:40 The icosohedrons do. I probably didn't have it level. The next time I got ask again later. It's not much help. 21:57:43 yeah, sure. 21:57:53 if i wanted to help test, where do i go after the meeting - #fedora-bugzappers? 21:57:54 'ask again later' sounds like delaying the decision. ;) 21:57:58 proposal: meet again 1 hour before readyness meeting and reassess go/no-go? 21:57:58 As long as rel-eng gets a compose done in the next three hours, I'll test 21:57:58 ianweller: #fedora-qa 21:58:04 adamw: 21:58:05 you beat me to it 21:58:06 adamw: indeed 21:58:06 ianweller: and read the RC2 announcement on test@ when it hits 21:58:15 nirik: ack 21:58:31 * nirik can try and get some testing done too. 21:58:39 nirik: ack 21:58:39 nirik: ack 21:58:56 nirik: ack 21:59:20 I can probably only do a smoke test of a live install tonight. 21:59:38 we'll have the beijing rh staff on it 'overnight' us time. 21:59:53 and we only have to do the beta tests. 22:00:09 and we can keep most of the desktop results from rc1, i think. 22:00:11 alph and beta 22:00:15 right. 22:00:21 * rbergeron tries to recall how she reported the non-results of this meting lsat time around 22:00:33 hopefully without typographical errors 22:00:36 we can always just leave the meeting running. ;) 22:00:42 thank god for archives 22:00:43 IT'S JUST A VERY LONG MEETING 22:00:49 * ianweller looks at the meeting schedule 22:00:52 A FOOT LONG 22:01:04 We are in the meeting-1 channel, so there may not be another here for a while. 22:01:22 Go for Longest Fedora Meeting record? 22:01:30 none in this channel for all of thursday UTC 22:01:39 j_dulaney: you haven't been to any of the epic blocker meetings, have you? 22:01:46 Yeah, I have 22:01:51 nvm, then 22:01:56 the longest blocker meeting was like 7 hours 22:02:01 But, I none of them have hit twelve+ hours 22:02:03 so if we left this one open till tomorrow it'd comfortably beat that :P 22:02:21 * j_dulaney is +1 for that 22:02:40 okay, who is requesting RC2, or has it already been requested :) 22:03:01 rbergeron: I think we're waiting on news of a new anaconda build 22:03:11 ohhhhhhhhh 22:03:28 ETA on when the build will happen ~ 5 minutes or so 22:03:33 or so I'm told 22:03:52 meta ETA :) 22:04:29 m(eta) 22:04:30 propose #agreed we will do the hero's effort for RC2, will finish this meeting starting 1 hour before readiness meeting tomorrow 22:04:41 yes? 22:04:42 ack 22:04:45 ack 22:05:04 ack 22:05:35 * nirik nods. ack 22:05:59 #agreed we will do the hero's effort for RC2, will finish this meeting starting 1 hour before readiness meeting tomorrow 22:06:13 #topic Please continue to hold 22:06:19 i wonder if it times out. 22:06:19 :) 22:06:25 and a additional proposal: move go/no go out a day in the f18 schedule? or at least discuss doing that. 22:06:27 Anyone know what time that will be? 22:06:51 erm 22:06:54 did dgilmore disappear? 22:07:04 i just noticed he hasn't said anything for a bit, unless i missed it. 22:07:08 and if we're doing a compose, we need him. 22:07:20 * nirik nods. He probibly hates the idea... :) 22:07:33 * adamw plays prod the dgilmore 22:07:48 the last thing I remember seeing was him scolding adamw for suggesting the effort :) 22:08:04 yeah 22:08:19 LOL 22:08:25 Maybe he ran away 22:08:39 "Not getting involved with this!" 22:11:05 well, i think we'd need an rc2 anyway, or at would like one so we can get tihngs going even if we were slipping a week 22:11:08 or even if we do slip a week 22:13:49 adamw: sorry 22:13:49 true 22:14:31 i needed to get to the post office before it shut. and still forgot one thing i had to mail 22:14:45 d'oh 22:14:51 are you okay to fire off a compose in the next hour or two? 22:15:05 adamw: yeah 22:15:14 okay then 22:15:19 * dgilmore has no MAcy tonight 22:15:27 i do want to go for a run 22:15:37 but that only takes 30 mins 22:15:41 sure 22:15:46 it'll take that long to get ducks in a row i think 22:15:51 anaconda build isn't in yet 22:16:06 ok 22:17:55 Who wants to poke Anaconda? 22:24:00 j_dulaney: we're working on it 22:24:09 j_dulaney: trying to get in one more nth fix, so network is up on boot 22:27:47 I'm going to head home now, but will leave the session active. Most likely I won't be able to make the continuation of the meeting tomorrow. 22:28:59 brunowolff: thanks for coming today, your input is always appreciated 22:30:55 * j_dulaney waits for a compose 22:31:25 I'll likely download several images to test on and report results tomorrow 22:32:47 BTW, congrats to you Red Hatter's for hitting $1 Billion 22:36:57 * j_dulaney shall return in an hour or so 00:22:55 j_dul: oh, right, that happened today...heh 00:47:33 https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5141#comment:2 01:32:42 one 01:32:47 beeeeiiiilion dollars 01:32:54 it was while we were in the meeting 01:39:10 some would say we are still meeting... even now... ;) 01:39:48 your meeting is important to us. please continue to hold. 10:10:07 oh, right 10:10:21