17:00:49 <jkurik> #startmeeting F27 Final and Server Beta Go/No-Go meeting
17:00:50 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Oct 26 17:00:49 2017 UTC.  The chair is jkurik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:50 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:50 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f27_final_and_server_beta_go/no-go_meeting'
17:00:56 <jkurik> #meetingname F27-final-and-Server-Beta-Go-No-Go-meeting
17:00:56 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f27-final-and-server-beta-go-no-go-meeting'
17:01:05 <jkurik> #topic Roll Call
17:01:08 <jkurik> .hello2
17:01:10 <zodbot> jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' <jkurik@redhat.com>
17:01:11 <contyk> .hello psabata
17:01:12 <zodbot> contyk: psabata 'Petr Šabata' <psabata@redhat.com>
17:01:18 <jkurik> #chair nirik adamw sgallagh mboddu tmlcoch rnargund
17:01:18 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw jkurik mboddu nirik rnargund sgallagh tmlcoch
17:01:30 <geppetto> .hello2
17:01:31 <zodbot> geppetto: geppetto 'Gep Petto' <geppetto.muc@gmail.com>
17:01:33 <jkurik> Hi contyk
17:01:35 <geppetto> ha
17:01:41 <adamw> .hello adamwill
17:01:42 <geppetto> .hello james
17:01:42 <zodbot> adamw: adamwill 'Adam Williamson' <awilliam@redhat.com>
17:01:45 <zodbot> geppetto: james 'James Antill' <james.antill@redhat.com>
17:01:46 <contyk> geppetto: Gep Petto? :)
17:01:57 <geppetto> contyk: don't ask me
17:01:58 <mboddu> .hello mohanboddu
17:01:59 <zodbot> mboddu: mohanboddu 'Mohan Boddu' <mboddu@bhujji.com>
17:01:59 <sgallagh> .hello2
17:02:01 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
17:02:22 <rashmi> .hello rashmin
17:02:23 <zodbot> rashmi: rashmin 'Rashmi Nargundkar' <rnargund@redhat.com>
17:02:29 <jkurik> ok, so we have qa, fesco, releng - lets start
17:02:49 <jkurik> #topic Purpose of this meeting
17:02:55 <jkurik> #info Purpose of this meeting is to check whether or not F27 Final and F27 Server Beta are ready for shipment, according to the release criteria.
17:03:01 <jkurik> #info This is determined in a few ways:
17:03:07 <jkurik> #info * Release candidate compose is available
17:03:13 <jkurik> #info * No remaining blocker bugs
17:03:18 <jkurik> #info * Test matrices for Beta are fully completed
17:03:23 <jkurik> #topic Current status
17:03:32 <jkurik> As far as I am aware, the RC for F27 Final is not yet ready. The same applies for F27 Server Beta.
17:03:39 <jkurik> As such, we do not have test matrices for the F27 Final not F27 Server Beta RCs.
17:03:44 <jkurik> Anyone wants to add/correct something ?
17:04:06 <jkurik> adamw, sgallagh: ^^^ ?
17:04:52 <sgallagh> That is accurate. I expected to have an RC for server yesterday.
17:05:07 <sgallagh> But we had some unfortunate infrastructure issues.
17:05:14 <adamw> agreed, seems accurate.
17:05:17 <sgallagh> Hopefully today.
17:05:26 <geppetto> sgallagh: base just finished 30 mins. ago
17:05:34 <jkurik> Thanks for the confirmation
17:05:38 <geppetto> sgallagh: we got docker images
17:05:39 <sgallagh> Base?
17:05:45 <contyk> if we produce a working compose today, we should also verify the required content is installable and works
17:05:45 <jkurik> #info RC for the F27 Final is not yet ready.
17:05:46 <adamw> sgallagh: what about all the unaddressed blockers?
17:05:51 <adamw> sgallagh: at least https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1504745 seems like it would preclude an RC.
17:05:52 <jkurik> #info RC for the F27 Server Beta is not yet ready.
17:05:56 <contyk> before declaring it an RC
17:05:58 <geppetto> sgallagh: -27, what I assume is the beta compose
17:06:12 <adamw> contyk: that's not how that works. we decide if a compose is an RC when producing it, not after.
17:06:40 <contyk> adamw: we produce multiple composes every day
17:06:47 <adamw> and none of those would be RCs.
17:06:53 <sgallagh> adamw: I think he meant “before we launch the formal RC compose”
17:07:03 <adamw> because RC composes are done slightly differently and must be requested and run manually.
17:07:03 <contyk> adamw: surely we can produce one, see what state it is in-- yes
17:07:05 <contyk> what sgallagh says
17:07:27 <sgallagh> Terminology error, not a disagreement.
17:07:29 <adamw> anyway, we're a bit off track, sorry jkurik
17:07:45 <jkurik> np
17:07:50 <jkurik> #info As we have no RCs there are subsequently no Test Matrices for the F27 Final nor F27 Server Beta.
17:08:02 <jkurik> adamw: Would you like to do the Mini-blocker review or can we skip ?
17:08:58 * jkurik is proposing to go through proposed blockers at least
17:09:11 <adamw> we should do one, we need to decide statuses.
17:09:19 <jkurik> #topic Mini-Blocker Review
17:09:30 <jkurik> adamw: The chair is yours
17:09:59 <adamw> thanks
17:10:07 <adamw> #info starting with F27 Final proposed blockers
17:10:24 <adamw> #topic (1505090) In text installation mode,unable to continue installation without selecting any add-ons
17:10:24 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1505090
17:10:24 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST
17:10:54 <adamw> my best understanding of the 'true' description of this bug is: in text mode, if you change the installation source, your software selection becomes invalid and you must make *some* change to it to make anaconda re-process it and be happy
17:11:41 <sgallagh> I'd be -1 blocker on that; if you're changing the installation source, what is the likelihood you aren't also changing the package set?
17:12:02 <sgallagh> I could be a +1 FE, certainly
17:12:05 <adamw> i'm just checking with mkolman that my understanding is right
17:12:06 <adamw> it may not be
17:12:32 <mkolman> looking at it
17:13:15 <mkolman> I *think* the problem is that when you change the source to the same one
17:13:33 <mkolman> it would let you start the installation unless you select at least one addon in software spoke
17:13:35 <jkurik> according this comment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1505090#c4 - it applies only on non-modular server edition
17:13:56 <jkurik> ... which is non-blocking
17:14:12 <mkolman> (jkonecny was looking into that & created the fix, so I don'T know much about the issue)
17:14:51 <adamw> i suspect it's not really about selecting an addon
17:14:55 <adamw> it's just about making any change to the package set
17:15:00 <adamw> because making a change causes anaconda to 'recalculate'
17:15:12 * adamw looks at the fix
17:15:15 <mkolman> yeah, likely something gets triggered by clicking on an addon
17:16:44 <adamw> the PR description is "When the installation source changed the environment in the software selection TUI spoke stays the same. Because of this when user changed source and leave the same settings for the environment and addons as before then the payload wasn't restarted at all.
17:16:45 <adamw> Fixing by removing old saved environment after payload restart."
17:18:37 <adamw> so...i *think* i'm -1 blocker / +1 FE :P
17:18:58 <sgallagh> Given that a fix is incoming and we are No-Go anyway, it's likely academic
17:19:41 <jkurik> I am -1 to block and 0 on FE
17:19:42 <adamw> well, possibly. mkolman did just do a new build without this fix.
17:19:55 <adamw> and of course whether we're + or - FE is significant.
17:21:02 * mkolman can certainly do more builds with more stuff later :)
17:21:16 <jkurik> adamw: ok, so +1FE then
17:21:51 <sgallagh> adamw: Right, I meant whether it's a blocker or an FE, it's almost certain that it will get fixed.
17:22:05 <sgallagh> So I meant the distinction between them was academic
17:26:46 <adamw> anyone else got a vote?
17:28:43 <adamw> i guess we have +3 FE...
17:29:36 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1505090 - RejectedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - so far as we understand this, as it involves source selection, is specific to text mode and can be worked around by tweaking the package selection it is not a blocker, but we grant FE status as it's an installer issue that can't be fixed with an update
17:29:48 <jkurik> ack
17:31:06 <sgallagh> ack
17:31:59 <adamw> #agreed 1505090 - RejectedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - so far as we understand this, as it involves source selection, is specific to text mode and can be worked around by tweaking the package selection it is not a blocker, but we grant FE status as it's an installer issue that can't be fixed with an update
17:32:07 <adamw> #topic (1506479) unable to boot into the former existing system after do another  shrink installation
17:32:07 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506479
17:32:07 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
17:32:24 <adamw> there's a couple of these, where lnie has run into various issues while trying to install 27 server alongside 27 workstation
17:32:31 <adamw> which is interesting, but afaik, not really something we support...
17:33:48 <adamw> so i'm -1/-1 as we probably don't want to try poking this late in a cycle
17:34:04 <sgallagh> We don't have any blocker criterion for dual-boot except Windows, right?
17:34:22 <jkurik> sgallagh: and os-x
17:34:36 <sgallagh> ok
17:34:52 <jkurik> I am -1 blocker / -1 FE as well
17:35:19 <sgallagh> -1/-1
17:36:49 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1506479 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this involves a scenario (dual-install of two Fedora 27 flavors) which is not covered by the release criteria at all, therefore rejected
17:37:40 <jkurik> ack
17:38:03 <sgallagh> ack
17:38:38 <adamw> #agreed 1506479 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this involves a scenario (dual-install of two Fedora 27 flavors) which is not covered by the release criteria at all, therefore rejected
17:38:46 <adamw> #topic (1506509) workstation system is out of network when double installed with server system
17:38:46 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506509
17:38:46 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
17:38:53 <adamw> this is the other similar one, i'm -1/-1 on the same basis
17:38:59 <sgallagh> Yes
17:39:01 <sgallagh> -1/-1
17:40:04 <jkurik> -1 blocker / -1 FE
17:41:21 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1506509 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this involves a scenario (dual-install of two Fedora 27 flavors) which is not covered by the release criteria at all, therefore rejected
17:41:43 <jkurik> ack
17:42:31 <sgallagh> ack
17:42:59 <adamw> #agreed 1506509 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this involves a scenario (dual-install of two Fedora 27 flavors) which is not covered by the release criteria at all, therefore rejected
17:43:05 <adamw> #topic (1504059) Include Firefox 57 at compose
17:43:05 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1504059
17:43:05 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, distribution, NEW
17:43:11 <adamw> we're still essentially waiting for a fesco decision here
17:43:22 <adamw> they're at +4 / -0 for nirik's proposal i believe
17:43:32 <jkurik> ok
17:43:53 <sgallagh> Yeah, less of FESCo chimed in than I would have liked.
17:44:10 <sgallagh> But several folks were at conferences this week too
17:44:49 <jkurik> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1783 <- is the fesco ticket right ?
17:45:30 <adamw> yeah
17:45:52 <adamw> once we're actually in a position to do an RC i figure we can just take whatever decision fesco seems to be leaning towards at the time...
17:45:53 <sgallagh> Hmm, I only count +3 there.
17:46:06 <sgallagh> adamw: I put it on the agenda for tomorrow
17:46:20 <sgallagh> So it'll be decided one way or another in about 24 hours
17:46:37 <gholms> It's +4 if nirik agrees with his own proposal.
17:47:14 <adamw> yeah, which i was assuming he did :P
17:47:18 <adamw> sgallagh: coolbeans
17:47:30 <sgallagh> gholms: I only count nirik, myself and bowlofeggs there. Who did I miss?
17:47:36 <adamw> #info we are still waiting for a fully-ratified, doubleplus-bureaucratized fesco decision
17:47:44 <gholms> sgallagh: jhogarth
17:48:05 <gholms> He just didn't explicitly say "+1".
17:48:10 <adamw> #topic (1495509) [abrt] dnfdragora-gui: perform(): __init__.py:250:_handle_dbus_error:dnfdaemon.client.DaemonError: g-io-error-quark: GDBus.Error:org.freedesktop.DBus.Python.dnf.exceptions.RepoError: Traceback (most recent call last):
17:48:10 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1495509
17:48:10 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, dnfdragora, NEW
17:48:12 <sgallagh> He's not on FESCo
17:48:21 <gholms> Well then  :)
17:48:23 <adamw> sgallagh: wot, you mean people who aren't on fesco can comment on tickets?!
17:48:25 <adamw> mind blown
17:48:32 <sgallagh> ...
17:48:49 * gholms returns to the shadows
17:49:59 <jkurik> back to the dnfdragora issue: I am +1 to block
17:51:55 <adamw> i'm -1, now we know it only happens when there's no network connection available
17:52:25 <adamw> well...i mean, i guess i'm open to arguments
17:52:27 <adamw> i'm not a hard -1.
17:52:59 <sgallagh> So it crashes at a time it would not be expected to succeed anyway?
17:53:16 <jkurik> btw: my Bannana PI R2 board got into fire today (literaly), but I do not expect it has something to do with the Fedora on arm, so I do not consider it as blocking :-)
17:53:23 <sgallagh> I'm a solid -1 blocker on that.
17:54:39 <jkurik> The release criterion does not say there must be a network available
17:54:47 <adamw> sgallagh: well, i mean, you can do things with a package manager with no network connection, i guess.
17:55:05 <adamw> jkurik: no, but the fact that it doesn't *always* crash makes it subjective, meaning we can make a call on it.
17:55:16 <adamw> sgallagh: like, remove packages. or read about them.
17:55:21 * sgallagh nods
17:55:30 * adamw feels like we had this discussion once before
17:56:06 <sgallagh> I'm still -1; I don't think it would pass the  "last blocker" test
17:58:09 <adamw> any other votes?
17:58:20 <jkurik> hmm... what about FE ? If there is a fix, might it be dangerous to accept it ?
17:59:29 <adamw> on the face of it i wouldn't think so, it's just going to come down to wrapping something somewhere in a try/except block or similar
17:59:45 <jkurik> we can also fix this in updates, right ?
18:00:09 <sgallagh> jkurik: Well, there's a certain irony to fixing the updater in an update, but in this case we know it works when online
18:00:16 <sgallagh> So yes
18:00:28 <jkurik> sgallagh: exactly
18:00:42 <jkurik> ok, I am changing my mind to -1
18:00:55 <adamw> how about FE?
18:01:18 <jkurik> I would be +1 FE to avoid the update-irony
18:02:50 <adamw> sgallagh: ?
18:02:58 <sgallagh> I'll vote +1 FE, but I'd want to see the patch before we accept the build in
18:03:22 <sgallagh> Because if it's non-trivial, I don't want to break updating in general
18:03:56 <adamw> okay
18:05:22 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1495509 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this is rejected as a blocker: it only occurs when no network connection is available, and we think that makes it not important enough to block the release. however we grant an FE as it would still be nice to avoid such crashes in live and freshly-installed systems if possible, but we will only push a fix if it seems fairly small and safe
18:05:42 <jkurik> ack
18:05:59 <sgallagh> ack
18:06:30 <adamw> #agreed 1495509 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this is rejected as a blocker: it only occurs when no network connection is available, and we think that makes it not important enough to block the release. however we grant an FE as it would still be nice to avoid such crashes in live and freshly-installed systems if possible, but we will only push a fix if it seems fairly small and safe
18:06:45 <adamw> #topic (1506052) Package build of official release notes required for Fedora 27 Final
18:06:45 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506052
18:06:45 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, fedora-release-notes, NEW
18:06:58 <adamw> this is kind of an obvious one, i'm still sad that every damn release i have to file blocker bugs to make this stuff happen
18:07:04 <adamw> at least the artwork seems to be done this time around!@
18:07:53 <jkurik> hwo is the maintainer for the package ?
18:08:02 <jkurik> s/hwo/who/
18:08:03 <sgallagh> adamw: As a follow-up on this, could you file a FESCo issue asking if it's okay for us to *not* ship the relnotes on the media?
18:08:23 <smooge> thinks the docs should say "This is your install. It is like everyone else's install, but it is your install."
18:08:36 <adamw> sgallagh: that again feels like something we've gone around on before...
18:08:41 <sgallagh> smooge: "There are many like it, but this one is mine"?
18:09:08 <sgallagh> adamw: Humor me? I think it doesn't really make sense in this day and age.
18:09:25 <sgallagh> The closest people get to actually reading relnotes is whatever parts of them get quotes by tech websites.
18:09:31 <adamw> sgallagh: i just mean, it's something we may already have started somewhere...
18:09:46 <sgallagh> adamw: It's not an open ticket that I can find.
18:09:59 <adamw> no, but check your test@ archives.
18:10:06 <adamw> for "remove media part of release notes criterion"
18:10:20 <adamw> from June 2015, and June 2017...so we went over it for f26
18:10:23 * adamw looks
18:10:32 <adamw> aha
18:10:43 <adamw> we changed it from requiring them to be in the release, to requiring them to be in the repository
18:10:50 <adamw> so this should be a 0Day blocker
18:10:57 <sgallagh> That seems more reasonable.
18:12:09 <adamw> well
18:12:13 <adamw> there's a problem i pointed out in june
18:12:23 <adamw> the 'standard' package group includes fedora-release-notes
18:12:36 <adamw> so media that include 'standard' will include outdated release notes, which i think is pretty bad
18:12:49 <adamw> i.e. they include release notes for fedora 25 or something, not even old 27 ones
18:13:05 <sgallagh> adamw: I'll send a PR to remove it from @standard
18:14:00 <adamw> so only me and mattdm chimed in on the discussion, but we basically agreed the principle that 'anywhere where release notes actually exist, they need to be up to date'
18:14:21 <adamw> so i'm gonna say i'm generally +1 blocker on this, and i'll explain the exact circumstances in the bug?
18:14:56 <sgallagh> Sure.
18:15:10 <jkurik> ack
18:15:10 <adamw> i do sort of like release notes being a part of the release from one perspective, though, it's one people tend to forget...the Far Future
18:15:17 <sgallagh> adamw: As long as "drop relnotes from the media" is an acceptable solution for getting to an RC
18:15:21 <adamw> i do occasionally look at software from like 1995 or whatever
18:15:33 <adamw> and any kind of contemporary website with documentation or whatever is extremely likely not to exist any more
18:15:40 <adamw> but whatever was shipped actually as part of the software, i can still read that
18:15:46 <adamw> sgallagh: yeah, it will be.
18:17:16 * jkurik is going to buy a good book for adamw, so he does not need to read ancient release notes
18:18:11 <adamw> =)
18:18:13 <sgallagh> +1 blocker with clarification
18:19:19 <jkurik> I am the same: +1 blocker with clarification
18:19:27 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1506052 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - there's a bit of a backstory about exactly what we want to require with regard to release notes, but at least the inclusion of outdated release notes in the repos and some media is clearly against both the existing criterion and our generally-agreed intent, so this is accepted as a blocker
18:19:50 <sgallagh> ack
18:19:53 <jkurik> ack
18:21:41 <adamw> #agreed 1506052 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - there's a bit of a backstory about exactly what we want to require with regard to release notes, but at least the inclusion of outdated release notes in the repos and some media is clearly against both the existing criterion and our generally-agreed intent, so this is accepted as a blocker
18:21:54 <adamw> #topic (1505906) Disable f27 updates testing repo for F27 final
18:21:54 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1505906
18:21:54 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, fedora-repos, ON_QA
18:22:04 <adamw> this kinda covers all required changes to fedora-release and fedora-repos etc. for final release
18:22:07 <adamw> obvious +1
18:24:50 <jkurik> +1 to block; and we need one more +1 karma to close the bug
18:24:53 <sgallagh> +1 block
18:25:59 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1505906 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is a clear violation of "A fedora-release package containing the correct names, information and repository configuration for a final Fedora release must be present on release-blocking images and the appropriately versioned Package-generic-release package must be available in the release repository"
18:26:14 <jkurik> ack
18:26:58 <sgallagh> ack
18:27:14 <adamw> #agreed 1505906 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is a clear violation of "A fedora-release package containing the correct names, information and repository configuration for a final Fedora release must be present on release-blocking images and the appropriately versioned generic-release package must be available in the release repository"
18:28:31 <adamw> #topic (1496489) After upgrading to Fedora 27: Failed to Update - Too many results returned
18:28:31 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496489
18:28:31 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-software, MODIFIED
18:28:46 <jkurik> we have a targeted fix, so +1 FE
18:28:49 <adamw> this doesn't really seem serious enough to be a blocker to me. i think it's OK to give it an FE to try and ensure first-day updaters don't hit it.
18:28:58 <adamw> well, pre-release upgraders.
18:30:03 <sgallagh> -1 Blocker, +1 FE
18:30:53 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1496489 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this doesn't actually break the upgrade process so it doesn't constitute a blocker, but we think it's worth an FE just to avoid the issue hitting people who upgrade before the 0-day update push
18:31:05 <jkurik> ack
18:31:15 <sgallagh> ack
18:31:50 <adamw> #agreed 1496489 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this doesn't actually break the upgrade process so it doesn't constitute a blocker, but we think it's worth an FE just to avoid the issue hitting people who upgrade before the 0-day update push
18:31:56 <adamw> #topic (1506050) spin-kickstarts package build needed for Fedora 27 final
18:31:56 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506050
18:31:57 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, spin-kickstarts, NEW
18:32:02 <adamw> this is just another box-checker
18:32:25 <adamw> usually bruno picks up these bugs quite quickly but i guess maybe he's away atm...
18:32:40 <adamw> if i can do a build i will, not sure if i need any rights i don't have
18:32:58 <jkurik> it is assigned to vpavlin, not to bruno
18:33:24 <adamw> he's in CC
18:33:30 <adamw> he usually actually does the builds, when i request one
18:33:39 <jkurik> ok
18:34:20 <jkurik> so, per the criterion: +1 to block
18:34:32 * satellit I just did a f26 wks to f27 upgrade and it worked
18:35:43 <sgallagh> +1 to block
18:36:11 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1506050 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - clear violation of "A spin-kickstarts package which contains the exact kickstart files used to build the release must be present in the release repository. The included kickstarts must define the correct set of release repositories."
18:36:27 <jkurik> ack
18:37:14 <sgallagh> ack
18:38:35 <adamw> #agreed 1506050 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - clear violation of "A spin-kickstarts package which contains the exact kickstart files used to build the release must be present in the release repository. The included kickstarts must define the correct set of release repositories."
18:39:03 <adamw> #info we have a couple of proposed Final freeze exceptions
18:39:10 <adamw> let's do these quick as it'd be good to get 'em in
18:39:13 <adamw> #topic (1471401) SELinux is preventing systemd from read, write access on the chr_file /dev/input/event9.
18:39:13 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1471401
18:39:13 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, selinux-policy, MODIFIED
18:39:24 <adamw> this is kinda a proxy for 'let's get the new selinux-policy build in'
18:39:37 <adamw> it has a ton of changes to allow things
18:40:32 <jkurik> is not it too big for FE ?
18:42:26 <adamw> well, selinux-policy is kinda special
18:42:31 <adamw> all the changes are explicitly *permitting* something
18:42:50 <jkurik> ok, then +1FE
18:42:51 <adamw> i'm leery of selinux-policy changes that introduce new restrictions, but in general ones that allow things are fine
18:43:47 <sgallagh> Yeah, relaxing the restrictions are fine
18:43:49 <sgallagh> +1 FE
18:45:40 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1471401 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - it'd be good to avoid some commonly-encountered AVCs for the final release
18:46:03 <jkurik> ack
18:48:24 <adamw> sgallagh: ?
18:48:38 <sgallagh> ack
18:48:53 <adamw> #agreed 1471401 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - it'd be good to avoid some commonly-encountered AVCs for the final release
18:49:00 <adamw> #topic (1499170) ibus not working in fresh Workstation Live install with user account setup in gnome-initial-setup
18:49:00 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1499170
18:49:00 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, selinux-policy-targeted, NEW
18:49:29 <jkurik> yet another selinux, so +1 FE
18:50:48 <adamw> we just found out it's selinux-related this morning, but that's good as it means the fix should be safe :)
18:50:49 <adamw> +1
18:51:09 <sgallagh> +1
18:52:45 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1499170 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - the impact of this is quite bad for a specific subset of users, can't be fixed with an update as it affects initial install and boot, and the fix should be safe as it will be an SELinux policy loosening
18:52:56 <jkurik> ack
18:53:38 <jkurik> sgallagh ?
18:54:25 <sgallagh> ack
18:55:24 <adamw> #agreed 1499170 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - the impact of this is quite bad for a specific subset of users, can't be fixed with an update as it affects initial install and boot, and the fix should be safe as it will be an SELinux policy loosening
18:55:29 <jkurik> adamw: Can we skip the blocker review for Modular Server as the time for this meeting is almost up ?
18:56:20 <adamw> sgallagh: do we need to review the two proposed blockers here?
18:56:33 * sgallagh looks
18:57:16 <sgallagh> adamw: O
18:57:20 <sgallagh> I'd say both are blocker
18:57:28 <adamw> let's just vote in-bug
18:57:28 <sgallagh> And both should be fixed in the compose that's currently running
18:57:33 <adamw> okay
18:57:38 <adamw> jkurik, back to you
18:57:42 <jkurik> thanks
18:57:46 <jkurik> #topic Test Matrices coverage
18:57:52 <jkurik> #info As there are no RCs yet, Test matrices are not ready as well and we are skipping the Test Matrices coverage check.
18:57:57 <jkurik> #topic Go/No-Go decision
18:58:07 <jkurik> QE, FESCo, RelEng - we need +1/-1
18:58:18 <sgallagh> No Go
18:58:23 <jkurik> mboddu, adamw ^^^
18:58:32 <adamw> no go, obviously
18:59:33 <mboddu> jkurik: no go
18:59:44 <rashmi> No go
18:59:44 <jkurik> ok, thanks
18:59:58 <jkurik> First for the F27 Server Beta:
19:00:07 <jkurik> proposed #agreed Due to missing RC for the F27 Server Beta release the decision is “No Go”. The F27 Server Beta release slips for one week. F27 Server Final GA dates (the Target one as well as the Rain one) remains unchanged.
19:00:15 <mboddu> +1
19:00:30 <adamw> didn't we already slip once?
19:00:35 <adamw> can we really slip again without affecting the final dates?
19:01:15 <jkurik> adamw: what I saw from the modularity team, they are pretty sure they can finish the Final fast, when Beta is available
19:01:29 <jkurik> sgallagh: perhaps you can comment
19:01:35 * mboddu looking for the modular schedule
19:02:13 <sgallagh> our agreement last week was that if we slip today, we slip Final
19:02:30 <sgallagh> I think that's the only reasonable thing to do
19:02:37 <jkurik> sgallagh: ok
19:02:51 * stickster notes that if Final slips past current 2017-12-19, that means likely no release until 2018-01-09
19:03:10 <mboddu> 2017-11-28	Fedora Modular Server 27 Final Release (GA) (Target date)
19:03:17 <stickster> unless Christmas and New Year are canceled
19:04:07 <jkurik> proposed #agreed Due to missing RC for the F27 Server Beta release the decision is “No Go”. The F27 Server Beta release slips for one week. F27 Server Final GA date slip to the Final Rain date 2017-Dec-19.
19:04:15 <sgallagh> stickster: Yes, and that would be unfortunate.
19:04:33 <sgallagh> I'm not prepared to argue for a shorter gap between Beta and Final today.
19:04:45 <sgallagh> Maybe we can revisit that next week if things look really good
19:04:51 <stickster> sgallagh: presumably we could discuss pulling it in once... yeah. *jinx.
19:05:12 <adamw> NO MORE CHRISTMAS FOR YOU
19:05:18 <jkurik> may I have acks or comments to the proposal please ?
19:05:32 <mboddu> jkurik: ack
19:06:32 <adamw> sure, ack
19:06:44 <sgallagh> ack
19:06:46 <jkurik> #agreed Due to missing RC for the F27 Server Beta release the decision is “No Go”. The F27 Server Beta release slips for one week. F27 Server Final GA date slip to the Final Rain date 2017-Dec-19.
19:06:50 <jkurik> Now for the F27 Final:
19:07:03 <jkurik> proposed #agreed Due to missing RC for the F27 Final release the decision is “No Go”. The GA date for the F27 Final release moves from Target date to Rain date, which is 2017-Nov-07.
19:08:01 <jkurik> may I have more acks or comments to the proposal please ?
19:08:01 <mboddu> ack
19:08:06 <sgallagh> ack
19:08:37 * stickster not sure if he's ackworthy but ack
19:08:44 <jkurik> #agreed Due to missing RC for the F27 Final release the decision is “No Go”. The GA date for the F27 Final release moves from Target date to Rain date, which is 2017-Nov-07.
19:08:53 <jkurik> #action jkurik to publish the Go/No-Go result
19:09:07 <adamw> stickster: ack-empowered?
19:09:08 <jkurik> #action jkurik to organize the Go/No-Go meeting on Thursday, November 2nd at 17:00UTC
19:09:10 <sgallagh> stickster: Anyone can ack. It's a confirmation of the phrasing, not a decision
19:09:19 <stickster> :-)
19:09:22 <jkurik> #topic Open floor
19:09:39 <jkurik> I would move directly to the Readiness, if no one has anything....
19:09:48 <stickster> +1 readiness.
19:10:07 <jkurik> #endmeeting