14:01:34 <bcotton> #startmeeting Prioritized bugs and issues 14:01:34 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Aug 1 14:01:34 2018 UTC. 14:01:34 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 14:01:34 <zodbot> The chair is bcotton. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:01:34 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 14:01:34 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'prioritized_bugs_and_issues' 14:01:43 <bcotton> #meetingname Fedora Prioritized bugs and issues 14:01:43 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_prioritized_bugs_and_issues' 14:01:49 <bcotton> #topic Purpose of this meeting 14:02:00 <bcotton> #info The purpose of this process is to help with processing backlog of bugs and issues found during the development, verification and use of Fedora distribution. 14:02:01 <bcotton> #info The main goal is to raise visibility of bugs and issues to help contributors focus on the most important issues. 14:02:02 <bcotton> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/Prioritized_bugs_and_issues_-_the_process 14:02:07 <bcotton> #topic Roll call 14:03:36 * jsmith is lurking 14:04:03 <bcotton> woo. that's double the attendance from last time :-) 14:07:40 <bcotton> well, let's go through the motions 14:07:50 <bcotton> #topic Nominated bugs 14:07:51 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=POST&bug_status=MODIFIED&bug_status=ON_DEV&bug_status=ON_QA&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=RELEASE_PENDING&classification=Fedora&keywords=Triaged&keywords_type=nowords&list_id=9195844&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced&status_whiteboard=PrioritizedBug&status_whiteboard_type=allwords 14:07:57 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026119 14:08:35 <bcotton> #info this bug was originally filed in 2013 14:09:31 <bcotton> it seems to still be an issue, but there's a workaround 14:09:36 <bcotton> any comments? 14:09:47 <jsmith> Doesn't seem like a blocker to me, but it's something I would like to see fixed. 14:11:50 <bcotton> i concur. i'll defer action on this until the next meeting (and try to get a broader attendance) 14:12:01 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563674 14:12:27 <bcotton> #info this one is NEEDINFO for almost 2 months 14:13:09 <bcotton> #info BZ includes a candidate patch to fix the issue 14:13:31 <bcotton> #action bcotton to nudge owner about the proposed patch 14:14:10 * jsmith looks 14:14:43 <bcotton> it does seem like a pretty important issue, though. i'd be in favor of accepting it as a prioritized bug 14:15:32 <jsmith> I'm ambivalent... but sure... let's accept it. 14:15:42 <bcotton> #agreed accepted as a PrioritizedBug 14:16:25 <mattdm> bcotton: sorry. is this still a thing? 14:16:31 <bcotton> mattdm: yessir, welcome 14:16:39 <mattdm> okay. sorry 'bout that. 14:16:40 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1575281 14:17:23 <bcotton> #info this bug was originally reported in 2014 14:17:38 <bcotton> i don't see that it actually causes harm 14:17:59 <jsmith> Neither do I -- nor have I noticed it myself (on my Rawhide system) 14:18:40 <bcotton> there is a case where it matters https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098749#c25 14:18:41 <mattdm> hmmm. r/mildlyannoying 14:19:33 <mattdm> wait that's a different bug 14:19:37 <bcotton> certainly for en-US, it's not a case that will likely come up 14:19:38 <mattdm> #superconfused 14:19:44 <bcotton> d'oh 14:19:52 <bcotton> # https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098749 14:20:01 <bcotton> sorry, copy-paste error. ^ is what we should be talking about 14:20:05 <mattdm> ah. okay. 14:21:09 <mattdm> so... I think this will get cleaned up in the boot changes peter jones is working on 14:21:13 <bcotton> but we'll come back to that one, since i apparently skipped it :-) 14:21:37 <jsmith> Yeah, I see this as a minor annoyance, and not something that needs to be prioritized 14:22:17 <bcotton> proposed: reject 1098749 as a prioritized bug 14:22:34 <mattdm> Yeah. I'm -1 to this as prioritized bug. We've only got so much clout we can spend with this process 14:22:59 <mattdm> worth noting that this is likely to be cleand up in general grubby reworking/replacement 14:23:33 <bcotton> i'll include that in the rejection notice 14:23:56 <bcotton> #agreed 1098749 rejected as a PrioritizedBug 14:24:09 <bcotton> okay, now let's go back to where i accidentally took us 14:24:24 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1575281 14:24:51 <jsmith> Still haven't noticed it, and I don't see it has harmful. 14:25:38 <mattdm> this is the lag-when-opening-urls? 14:26:05 <bcotton> yes 14:26:25 <mattdm> the "existing user" thing makes me think maybe some extension is involved 14:27:13 <bcotton> it also appears to be an issue on Ubuntu 14:27:46 <bcotton> so i don't know how much leverage we have to do anything about this 14:27:57 <mattdm> suggestion: ask the Workstation team if this is something they want to prioritize 14:28:22 <mattdm> mclasen: you around? 14:28:30 <mclasen> yup 14:28:45 <mattdm> have you been seeing reports like https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1575281 ? 14:28:50 <mattdm> wondering how widespread this is 14:28:56 <mattdm> quite a few people have chimed in 14:29:17 <mattdm> and it seems like a fairly annoying wayland experience if people are hitting a lot 14:29:19 <mclasen> haven't seen that, no 14:29:39 <mclasen> I'll pass it on 14:29:54 <mattdm> thanks 14:30:37 <bcotton> for the purposes of this process, do we want to call that rejected or should we defer it until the workstation team weighs in? 14:30:47 <jsmith> I'm fine with deferring 14:30:57 <mattdm> sure, let's called it deferred 14:31:21 <bcotton> #agreed 1575281 is deferred pending input from the Workstation team 14:32:09 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573873 14:33:30 <bcotton> seems like it's waiting for Mesa to add 10-bit colors 14:34:04 <bcotton> #info this bug was rejected as a blocker for F29: ""As things stand, nothing is broken for F29 Beta. There is no blocker bug here. If the 10-bit support is reintroduced in Mesa without affected applications being fixed, we will revisit this." 14:35:57 <jsmith> I tend to agree with that last statement. 14:36:03 <jsmith> (but am no expert on the details) 14:36:29 <mattdm> I don't think this is right for the prioritized bug process 14:36:34 <bcotton> there's a workaround in place and it sounds like several layers of upstream fixes that need to happen 14:36:47 <bcotton> agreed. i'm -1 on this 14:36:50 <mattdm> and we can keep applying the workaround 14:36:56 <mattdm> yeah so officially -1 14:37:23 <bcotton> #agreed bug 1573873 is rejected as a PrioritizedBug 14:38:07 <bcotton> mattdm: the other one we talked about before you joined is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026119 14:39:03 <bcotton> jsmith and i agreed to defer it, but if you want to weigh in. there's a workaround in place, an dit's an old and annoying issue for those affected 14:40:38 * mattdm looks 14:41:52 <mattdm> does it really affect everyone with encrypted /? 14:42:12 <mattdm> because I have that and hadn't noitced :) 14:42:23 <bcotton> ditto 14:42:58 <bcotton> "It looks like this only happens if you have /var as a separate partition and it's encrypted (or, according to the upstream bug, a bind mount, which...why would you even)" - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026119#c14 14:43:25 <bcotton> so it sounds like if /var is on / it doesn't matter 14:43:37 <bcotton> which would explain why my machines haven't seen this 14:43:37 <mattdm> see the next comment though 14:43:51 <bcotton> ah, yes 14:44:00 <mattdm> Let's ask Christian to retest on a fresh f28 install? 14:44:16 <bcotton> can do 14:44:38 <bcotton> #action bcotton to ask Christian to retest on a fresh F28 install 14:44:48 <bcotton> we'll revisit it after that 14:46:10 <bcotton> #topic Accepted bugs 14:46:10 <jsmith> WORKSFORME 14:46:11 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=POST&bug_status=MODIFIED&bug_status=ON_DEV&bug_status=ON_QA&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=RELEASE_PENDING&classification=Fedora&keywords=Triaged&keywords_type=allwords&list_id=9195442&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced&status_whiteboard=PrioritizedBug&status_whiteboard_type=allwords 14:46:49 <bcotton> so we have 5 previously accepted prioritized bugs 14:46:58 <bcotton> 4 of which are still in NEW state 14:47:27 <bcotton> several of which haven't been updated in months 14:48:21 <bcotton> how about i nudge the owners of the current prioritized bugs and if we don't hear back by the 29 Aug meeting, we reconsider their status? 14:48:53 <jsmith> Sounds reasonable 14:50:13 <bcotton> that's the day after the f29 code complete deadline, so it's pretty fair to say that if we haven't heard back by then, it's not getting fixed in f29 anyway (and then how prioritized is it really) 14:51:04 <bcotton> #action bcotton to follow up with owners of existing PrioritizedBugs 14:52:06 <bcotton> for the next meeting, i'll also make sure to explicitly invite the owners of accepted or proposed bugs so we can have a more informed input 14:52:46 <bcotton> anything else for today? 14:53:46 * jsmith has nothing to add. 14:55:22 * bcotton bangs gavel 14:55:24 <mattdm> thanks bcotton! 14:55:24 <bcotton> #endmeeting