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