17:00:10 <bcotton> #startmeeting F32 Beta Go/No-Go meeting
17:00:10 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Mar 12 17:00:10 2020 UTC.
17:00:10 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
17:00:10 <zodbot> The chair is bcotton. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:10 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:10 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f32_beta_go/no-go_meeting'
17:00:11 <bcotton> #meetingname F32-Beta-Go_No_Go-meeting
17:00:11 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f32-beta-go_no_go-meeting'
17:00:22 <bcotton> #topic Roll Call
17:00:25 <jlanda> morning
17:00:28 * pwhalen is here
17:00:29 * coremodule is present.
17:00:34 * sumantro is here
17:00:54 <adamw> .hello adamwill
17:00:55 <zodbot> adamw: adamwill 'Adam Williamson' <awilliam@redhat.com>
17:01:05 * nirik is here, but also dealing with an outage.
17:01:18 <adamw> is that why pagure's acting weird?
17:01:25 <nirik> yes
17:01:37 <frantisekz> .hello2
17:01:38 <zodbot> frantisekz: frantisekz 'František Zatloukal' <fzatlouk@redhat.com>
17:02:09 <mboddu> Hello
17:02:15 <mboddu> .hello mohanboddu
17:02:16 <zodbot> mboddu: mohanboddu 'Mohan Boddu' <mboddu@bhujji.com>
17:02:42 <kalev> .hello kalev
17:02:43 <zodbot> kalev: kalev 'Kalev Lember' <klember@redhat.com>
17:03:04 * mhroncok is here, but watching amovie. ping me when needed
17:03:15 <bcotton> mhroncok: ack
17:03:37 <bcotton> okay, let's start the process
17:03:46 <bcotton> #topic Purpose of this meeting
17:03:47 <bcotton> #info Purpose of this meeting is to check whether or not F32 Beta is ready for shipment, according to the release criteria.
17:03:49 <bcotton> #info This is determined in a few ways:
17:03:51 <bcotton> #info 1. No remaining blocker bugs
17:03:53 <bcotton> #info 2. Release candidate compose is available
17:03:54 <bcotton> #info 3. Test matrices for Beta are fully completed
17:04:03 <bcotton> #topic Current status - blockers
17:04:04 <bcotton> #link https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/32/beta/buglist
17:04:19 <bcotton> hokay
17:04:39 <bcotton> let's start with the accepted blockers, since if they still exist, there's no need to review the proposed blocker
17:04:41 <bcotton> s
17:04:49 <bcotton> #topic (1807661) Display corruption on aarch64 virtual machines
17:04:50 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807661
17:04:52 <bcotton> #info Accepted Blocker, kernel, MODIFIED
17:05:03 <pwhalen> fixed in Beta 1.2
17:05:10 <bcotton> pwhalen: yay
17:05:21 <bcotton> #info BZ 1807661 is fixed in Beta 1.2
17:05:44 <adamw> note here
17:05:50 <bcotton> adamw: go ahead
17:05:52 <adamw> if you look at openqa results you may see some failures still looking like this bug
17:06:24 <adamw> don't worry about that, it's due to boring details of how the test process works and is because those tests install what's on the mirrors at present, not the beta candidate ocmpose, so they're booting to an older kernel that still has the bug
17:06:47 <adamw> once the fixed kernel is pushed stable and we do a nightly compose that will be ok.
17:06:55 <adamw> it's not a bug in the images.
17:07:18 <bcotton> #info openqa results will wrongly show failures for this bug until the fixed kernel is pushed to stable and a nightly compose is run. it is not in the images
17:07:29 <bcotton> NOTABUGs are my favorite bugs :-)
17:08:01 <bcotton> anything else on BZ 1807661?
17:08:35 <bcotton> sounds like a no
17:08:38 <bcotton> #topic (1798792) blivet.errors.DeviceTreeError: failed to add slave root00p2 of device root00
17:08:39 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798792
17:08:41 <bcotton> #info Accepted Blocker, python-blivet, MODIFIED
17:09:56 <bcotton> this one appears to have a fix (python-blivet-3.2.0-3.fc32). is it confirmed an in Beta 1.2?
17:10:20 <adamw> not yet, sorry
17:10:31 <adamw> i guess lnie didn't get to it and i'm still triangulating stuff, haven't got onto running tests yet
17:10:36 <adamw> i can try to confirm it shortly
17:10:51 <bcotton> so it's in Beta 1.2 and we just need to confirm it?
17:10:58 <adamw> yes
17:11:07 <adamw> the intended fix is in the Beta, we just haven't confirmed it yet.
17:11:24 <bcotton> #info the intended fix is in Beta 1.2, but has not been confirmed yet
17:11:58 <bcotton> adamw: if we move on to the rest of the process, will you be able to do a confirmation before it's time to make a decision?
17:12:20 <bcotton> (where "you" is anyone on QA, obi
17:12:26 <bcotton> obviously*
17:12:28 <adamw> um
17:12:41 <adamw> this is going to be a sort of theme today: we're not quite done with all the testing
17:12:54 <adamw> i don't know if we're gonna get ALL of it done during this meeting. it depends how long the meeting is and stuff. :)
17:13:01 <bcotton> so stall, got it :-)
17:13:29 <adamw> send in the clowns!
17:13:40 <bcotton> i'm already here
17:13:59 <bcotton> okay, so let's move on to the proposed blockers and see what time that buys us
17:14:08 <bcotton> or it may render the delay moot
17:14:19 <bcotton> #topic (1812026) No visible cursor in Workstation Live
17:14:21 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812026
17:14:22 <bcotton> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, MODIFIED
17:14:43 <frantisekz> this doesn't seem to happen on beta 1.2
17:14:56 <sumantro> this is fine in 1.2
17:14:58 <kalev> frantisekz: great, thanks for checking
17:15:21 <bcotton> #info BZ 1812026 is fixed in Beta 1.2
17:15:22 <adamw> please set it to VERIFIED then
17:15:33 <bcotton> y'all are really bad at stalling
17:16:21 <frantisekz> adamw, done
17:16:24 <bcotton> #topic (1811800) Multiple packages have broken dependencies due to PostgreSQL 12
17:16:25 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811800
17:16:26 <bcotton> #info Proposed Blocker, postgresql, ASSIGNED
17:16:29 <adamw> -1
17:16:37 <bcotton> mhroncok: was this something you wanted pinged for?
17:16:53 <kalev> -1 beta blocker
17:16:54 <mhroncok> no, I agree that this does not violate any criteria
17:17:26 <bcotton> okay
17:17:32 <bcotton> -1 beta blocker
17:17:33 <frantisekz> -1 Beta Blocker
17:17:41 <sumantro> -1 beta blocker
17:17:49 <bcotton> now's the opportunity for someone to make a compelling argument that this should be a blocker
17:17:56 <pwhalen> -1 BB
17:18:33 <nirik> -1BB
17:18:55 <jlanda> -1bb
17:19:24 <bcotton> #agreed BZ1811800 is rejected as a blocker as it does not violate any release criteria
17:19:33 <coremodule> this should be a blocker because compelling argument
17:19:39 <bcotton> coremodule++
17:19:39 <zodbot> bcotton: Karma for coremodule changed to 3 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:19:43 <coremodule> lol
17:19:58 <bcotton> yes, let's debate this for *looks at watch* the next 60 minutes or so
17:20:04 <coremodule> at least!
17:20:18 <bcotton> #info BZ1811800 was accepted as a Prioritized Bug this week
17:20:26 <mhroncok> well the compelling argument is: the contingency could not happen at the time of contingency, becasue the tracker bug was set CLOSED
17:20:42 <coremodule> noooooooooooooooo
17:21:03 <mhroncok> but I don't care :/
17:21:24 <bcotton> yeah, that's a bit of a process failure that i own
17:21:51 * bcotton has a plan for fixing^W mitigating it in F33+
17:22:01 * mhroncok crawls back under his rock
17:22:28 <bcotton> i'd be open to the idea of FESCo deciding it's a final blocker, fwiw, but it pretty clearly doesn't meet any criteria
17:22:36 <bcotton> mhroncok: they have movies under rocks now?
17:23:00 <mhroncok> bcotton: they do in here :)
17:23:07 <bcotton> #topic Current status - blockers
17:23:39 <bcotton> #info 1 accepted blocker has a confirmed fix, 1 proposed blocker has a confirmed fix, 1 accepted blocker has a possible fix that is being tested as we speak
17:23:52 * sgallagh arrives late
17:23:57 <bcotton> anything else we want to say as blockers? have any last-minute blockers been proposed?
17:24:04 <bcotton> "as" -> "about"
17:24:18 <frantisekz> previous release blockers bcotton? or are you planning to go through that?
17:24:27 <sgallagh> bcotton: I think both versions of that sentence are accurate :)
17:24:32 <bcotton> frantisekz++
17:24:36 <bcotton> frantisekz: good call
17:25:02 <bcotton> #topic (1767351) Cannot upgrade to Fedora 32: Modules blocking the upgrade path
17:25:02 <frantisekz> :) mhroncok pinged me off irc not to forget :D
17:25:03 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767351
17:25:05 <bcotton> #info Accepted Previous Release Blocker, dnf-plugins-extras, ON_QA
17:26:01 <bcotton> looks like this one has an update, which I assume went into Beta 1.2?
17:26:30 <frantisekz> it doesn't need to be in beta 1.2
17:26:32 <nirik> no, only has to be in stable updates for the old releases
17:26:35 <sgallagh> bcotton: Previous release blockers go to... previous releases
17:26:37 <frantisekz> having it in F30 and F31 is enough
17:26:38 <bcotton> oh duh
17:26:54 <adamw> we need karma for f30 i think
17:26:58 <adamw> f31 should be gone or ready to go
17:27:17 <sgallagh> adamw: I dunno... I'm not sure I want to get what I deserve from that one...
17:27:38 <bcotton> #info FEDORA-2020-717d521d35 (F31) is waiting for a stable push
17:27:55 <bcotton> #info FEDORA-2020-02ee4b1a1c (F30) is in testing and needs karma
17:28:21 <bcotton> #help testing & karma needed for update FEDORA-2020-02ee4b1a1c
17:29:36 * adamw discovers that he neglected to run ethernet to his testing box
17:29:40 <adamw> this is all working out great so far!
17:30:30 <bcotton> so for our purposes, do we want previous release blockers to be at least on their way to stable before giving a thumbs up?
17:30:50 <mhroncok> bcotton: yes please
17:31:32 <bcotton> okay, so if someone can test this and give it one more +1, then it's good to go, but...
17:31:45 <bcotton> #topic (1804564) Cannot upgrade to Fedora 32: Modules blocking the upgrade path
17:31:47 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804564
17:31:48 <bcotton> #info Accepted Previous Release Blocker, PackageKit, ASSIGNED
17:31:53 <adamw> naturally this ethernet cable needs to run behind a bookcase i've screwed into the wall
17:32:05 <adamw> so, this is also prevrel, which means it doesn't need to go in the compose
17:32:22 <adamw> we *do* need someone to say 'hey this is totally gonna be fixed by monday' though. which...hasn't happenedf
17:32:45 <adamw> is nayone sitting within poking range of hughsie?
17:32:51 <bcotton> yeah, there appears to be no action on it at the moment
17:33:17 <sgallagh> Last I heard, hughsie had abandoned this project.
17:33:26 <sgallagh> I think kalev is most on-point here.
17:34:59 <bcotton> well that seems like a problem
17:35:17 * adamw fishes ethernet cable with a toilet-cleaning brush
17:35:21 <adamw> this is all totally fine and professional
17:35:31 <bcotton> kalev: any chance you're around?
17:35:53 <kalev> I am, but I haven't worked on packagekit lately. hughsie seemed to take on this bug reading the ticket, I'd suggest asking him
17:36:21 <bcotton> kalev: okay, thanks
17:36:54 <bcotton> well i think we can safely say this will not be fixed before monday
17:37:33 <bcotton> #action bcotton to check with hughsie on plan for BZ 1804564
17:37:55 <bcotton> #topic Current status - blockers
17:38:06 <adamw> bcotton: i dunno, it shouldn't be too hard. there should be a corresponding change from last cycle. someone else can probably hack it if necessary.
17:39:01 <bcotton> #info BZ 1804564 is a previous release blocker that will likely not be ready in time for target release date
17:39:14 <bcotton> adamw: i'm happy to let someone else do it, too :-)
17:40:03 <bcotton> okay, anything else for blockers (again)?
17:41:01 <sgallagh> kalev: Would you be comfortable landing the change if adamw identified what it needs?
17:41:52 <adamw> sgallagh: pfah, i can just dump it in the package dist-git
17:41:56 <adamw> no-one gets to tell me no :P
17:41:59 <frantisekz> :D
17:42:16 <bcotton> i tried telling adamw "no" once. i got hit with a toilet-cleaning brush
17:42:19 <sgallagh> Just pre-empting any complaints
17:42:33 <cmurf> adamw: no
17:42:35 <adamw> okay, fine, no-one was crazy enough to put me in the group of people who can build bootchain stuff yet. so they get to tell me no. boooo
17:42:47 <bcotton> #topic Current status - test matricies
17:42:49 <bcotton> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fedora_32_Test_Results
17:42:55 <adamw> okay, so, yeah, we're not done yet
17:43:11 <frantisekz> compose was done pretty late today to make it in time
17:43:11 <bcotton> well the good news is that you seem to have another week?
17:43:18 * kparal is finishing the KDE install test
17:43:19 <adamw> i'm working on the usb tests that kamil isn't working on
17:43:29 <adamw> (hence the toilet brush ethernet fishing)
17:44:00 <adamw> also will cover hw raid
17:44:07 <kparal> adamw: just one of the netinst/dvd stuff on uefi should be fine
17:44:24 <kparal> s/fine/enough
17:44:28 <bcotton> #info Testing is incomplete but ongoing
17:44:39 <adamw> anyone have a firmware raid with linux support?
17:45:10 <frantisekz> we have one in the office, I won't make it there today though
17:45:21 <adamw> oh, someone needs to run the checksum checks too
17:45:32 <adamw> someone with shell access to a box with the images on it
17:45:58 <pwhalen> arm checksums are good
17:46:09 <kparal> adamw: I usually ask mboddu
17:46:27 <mboddu> Oh, I can run them
17:46:30 <adamw> thanks
17:46:37 <mboddu> Sorry, didn't get time to do it
17:46:53 <adamw> there's a few Base workstation tests that need knocking out
17:47:19 * nirik was hoping to do some test installs on the macbook, but I just haven't had time
17:48:03 <bcotton> anything else that needs to be explicitly called out now?
17:48:38 <adamw> we haven't done cloud testing in any actual clouds yet
17:48:50 <adamw> some server coverage is missing for aarch64, i may be able to bodge openqa up to do that later
17:48:55 <bcotton> well the cloud is just other people's comptuers, soo... :-)
17:49:03 <adamw> most kde tests are missing
17:49:06 <pwhalen> adamw, I tested the aarch64 image in aws
17:49:11 <bcotton> #info Cloud testing in actual clouds is missing
17:49:16 <adamw> pwhalen: sorry, i meant x86_64
17:49:23 <adamw> patch that bcotton :)
17:49:32 <bcotton> #undo
17:49:32 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by bcotton at 17:49:11 : Cloud testing in actual clouds is missing
17:49:32 <sgallagh> pssh, who uses x86_64 anymore? ;-)
17:49:37 <pwhalen> right?
17:49:39 <bcotton> #info Cloud testing in actual clouds is largely missing
17:50:00 <adamw> i would've said 'on x86_64' but oaky
17:50:01 <adamw> so
17:50:03 <bcotton> #info Most KDE tests are missing
17:50:12 <adamw> status is: we're clearly not done yet. we could probably be done by end of today, US time.
17:50:19 <coremodule> bcotton, I can do the cloud tests after the meeting
17:50:53 <bcotton> #info Testing is not done, but could probably finish by EOD (US time)
17:51:02 <adamw> so what i'm kind angling towards here is
17:51:08 <adamw> can we do a 24 hour slip?
17:51:19 <adamw> if we can do that it would clear up...lots of stuff.
17:51:28 <frantisekz> yeah, 24 hours slip would help
17:51:41 <bcotton> that depends. we still have that unfixed previous release blocker looming over us
17:52:02 <sgallagh> If QA is comfortable with that (and I assume they are, since they're requesting it), then I suppose it's reasonable
17:52:14 <bcotton> but a 25-hour slip is on the table (i, like an idiot, made plans the day after a go/no-go)
17:52:29 <adamw> bcotton: that's one of the things i'm hoping to clarify
17:52:35 <adamw> as in 'can i hack C good enough to fix it' :P
17:52:45 <bcotton> i believe in you
17:52:54 <sgallagh> adamw: I'll back you up/do the review for you.
17:53:19 * mboddu also wants to run another rc compose to get silverblue images
17:53:47 <bcotton> but i also don't want to do a short slip unless we're pretty confident we'll be go tomorrow. otherwise, we're putting an undue burden on people (particularly QA and releng)
17:53:50 <adamw> (and/or 'can i find hughsie and annoy him enough to make him do it')
17:54:03 <adamw> bcotton: i think there's a pretty reasonable chance.
17:54:11 <adamw> we haven't found any new blockers yet, coverage isn't *so* terrible.
17:54:15 <sgallagh> Probably not if we respin though
17:54:20 <sgallagh> (sorry, Silverblue)
17:54:44 <bcotton> okay, well let's go over the RC and then we'll come to a decision on that
17:54:47 <adamw> no, this would be to ship this candidate
17:54:53 <adamw> what's up with silverblue?
17:55:03 <bcotton> #topic Current status - RC
17:55:15 <bcotton> #info Beta 1.2 is the current release candidate
17:55:22 <bcotton> what's missing besides silverblue?
17:55:51 <mboddu> adamw: The compose box that I ran for RC is using an older version of pungi which had issues with silverblue composes
17:56:34 <adamw> ah
17:57:22 <mboddu> Hence, I want to run another rc compose which will get us silverblue images
17:57:42 <sgallagh> If we do that, we're committing to a full-week slip.
17:57:59 <frantisekz> hmm, with another spin, wouldn't installation tests be enough?
17:58:04 <frantisekz> if everything else is same?
17:58:12 * sgallagh looks at adamw
17:58:21 <adamw> grmph
17:58:41 <adamw> i feel like 24-hour slip *and* a new compose is kinda pushing things
17:58:48 * sgallagh nods
17:59:10 <sgallagh> I request that we either do the 24-hour slip *or* we slip a week and get a new RC
17:59:10 <kparal> because we had this spin for so long... :-)
17:59:13 <adamw> do we really need silverblue *in* the beta compose? can we not just point people at a nightly?
17:59:19 <kparal> *compose
17:59:23 <adamw> kparal: at least i can do some testing on it today
17:59:26 <sgallagh> But... I think policy is that we don't slip for non-blocking media
17:59:32 <adamw> if we run a new compose it basically knocks out my and tim's and geoff's working day
17:59:32 <sgallagh> Which pretty much makes this decision for us
17:59:50 <adamw> in theory we don't re-compose for non-blocking bugs, right.
17:59:56 <adamw> we can only re-spin if we have a blocker to fix.
18:00:06 <adamw> we've broken that rule i think a couple of times for *really bad* FEs.
18:00:17 <bcotton> agreed. i think 1-day and RC is an xor here
18:00:35 <mboddu> I prefer slipping by a week
18:00:49 <bcotton> it's suboptimal for us to not have silverblue in the compose, but it's allowable
18:00:52 <sgallagh> Proposal: We slip 24 hours and hope that Beta RC 1.2 passes tests. If not, we respin with blocker fixes and hopefully pick up Silverblue then
18:01:14 <bcotton> mboddu: apart from silverblue, is anything notable missing?
18:01:22 <mboddu> bcotton: Nope
18:01:24 * nirik notes spinning another rc now is dicy, as rabbitmq is blowing up
18:01:38 <adamw> i'm +1 on that. silverblue *in the beta compose* just doesn't seem that important.
18:01:50 <bcotton> #info Silverblue is missing from Beta 1.2
18:01:52 <adamw> we'll have silverblue nightlies we can link to from get.fpo or whatever
18:02:07 <adamw> rabbitmq is blowing up? it must be a day that ends in 'y'!
18:02:23 <adamw> kparal: everything netinst usb uefi passes
18:02:25 <adamw> i'll do kde next
18:02:26 <bcotton> #topic Go/No-Go decision
18:02:32 <bcotton> okay, so here's what we're going to do
18:02:40 <bcotton> i'll poll the three teams that get a say in the matter
18:02:48 <pjones> yay.
18:03:27 <bcotton> reply "go" or "no-go" and if you're "no-go", say if you want a 1-day or 1-week slip. 1-day means we proceed with Beta 1.2
18:03:31 <bcotton> FESCo?
18:03:50 <sgallagh> no-go 1-day
18:03:54 <bcotton> #info FESCo is no-go and wants a 1-day slip
18:04:00 <bcotton> Releng?
18:04:03 <mhroncok> no-go, whatever works for the packagekit thing
18:04:04 <sgallagh> Well, I'm not the only FESCo member here...
18:04:10 * mhroncok was for fesco
18:04:15 <bcotton> mhroncok: ack
18:04:57 <bcotton> any present FESCo members are welcome to object now
18:05:34 <mboddu> no-go, 1 week
18:06:08 <bcotton> #info FESCo is no-go and wants a 1-week slip
18:06:13 <bcotton> QA?
18:06:14 <sgallagh> ?
18:06:15 <bcotton> #undo
18:06:15 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by bcotton at 18:06:08 : FESCo is no-go and wants a 1-week slip
18:06:22 <bcotton> #info Releng is no-go and wants a 1-week slip
18:06:23 <mboddu> Nope, that was releng
18:06:27 <mboddu> Okay :)
18:06:35 <bcotton> i am having a thursday
18:07:06 <mboddu> bcotton: Haven't we decided that releng should get a request by Tue before go/no-go or else its a week slip or something?
18:07:29 * mboddu remembers talking about it
18:07:35 <bcotton> mboddu: iirc it was proposed and rejected
18:07:43 <pwhalen> mboddu, I remember
18:08:09 <mboddu> bcotton: Ah, well, I cant use that as a reason then :(
18:08:30 <adamw> is it our turn now
18:08:31 <adamw> ?
18:08:34 <bcotton> adamw: yes
18:08:59 <adamw> clearly no-go per QA policy. i'd say we can try the 1-day slip as proposed by sgallagh
18:09:11 <adamw> frantisekz/kparal, wdyt?
18:09:21 <sumantro> no-go 1day slip
18:09:22 <adamw> also pwhalen and cmurf
18:09:22 <pwhalen> will results carry over?
18:09:25 <adamw> and sumantro :)
18:09:31 <frantisekz> 1 day slip sounds good for me
18:09:42 <adamw> pwhalen: i said 1-day slip as proposed by sgallagh, which means no new compose
18:09:46 <bcotton> pwhalen: for a 1-day slip? yes because it's the same RC
18:09:46 <adamw> so nothing to carry over to
18:09:53 <adamw> we either ship Beta-1.2 or slip a week and recompose
18:10:03 <pwhalen> oh, then no issues here :)
18:10:08 <bcotton> #info QA is no-go and wants a 1-day slip
18:10:29 <bcotton> #agreed Fedora 32 Beta is No-Go
18:10:39 <bcotton> so now we need to #agreed on the duration of the slip
18:10:55 <kparal> adamw: 1day ack
18:11:08 <bcotton> i'm not going to force releng into a 1-day if they're unwilling
18:11:46 * sgallagh cracks his knuckles
18:11:46 <mboddu> bcotton: We are no-go and at least for 1 day, can we keep this meeting to continue and get back tomorrow and make the final decision?
18:11:58 <adamw> mboddu: that's what a 1-day slip means...
18:12:07 <adamw> we come back tomorrow and do this again
18:12:10 <mboddu> Luckily I am not sitting next to sgallagh today
18:12:13 <adamw> if we're no-go then, we slip for a week (6 days)
18:12:17 <adamw> at least that'd be my understanding
18:12:24 <bcotton> adamw: you understand correctly
18:12:26 <cmurf> i don't mind either 1 day or 1 week slip, there are advantages/disadvantages either way, is a wash
18:12:31 <sgallagh> That matches my understanding
18:13:04 <bcotton> mboddu: i guess it comes down to whether or not you're firmly opposed to a 1-day delay or just prefer to not
18:13:05 <mboddu> adamw: Right, but can we make the decision of either 1 day or 1 week tomorrow?
18:13:31 <sgallagh> mboddu: I think you're confused. If we make that decision tomorrow, that *is* a one-day slip
18:13:32 <adamw> er
18:13:40 <sgallagh> It doesn't change the delivery date of Tuesday
18:13:41 <adamw> yeah
18:13:56 <sgallagh> s/delivery/release/
18:14:31 <mboddu> sgallagh: What if we find a blocker? And also we have the previous release blocker which we are not sure will be fixed by then? I want to punt the decision to tomorrow of when we are going to release
18:14:35 <mboddu> bcotton: ^
18:14:46 <sgallagh> That is literally what I proposed :)
18:14:50 <bcotton> mboddu: that's what the 1-day slip is
18:15:06 <bcotton> calling it a "slip" is probably not the best decision
18:15:12 <cmurf> haha right
18:15:18 <mboddu> ^^ that confused me
18:15:20 <adamw> yeah.
18:15:21 <bcotton> but it's basically "do we have a go/no-go again tomorrow or a week from now"?
18:15:23 <adamw> sorry :)
18:15:26 <cmurf> 1day delay to decide tomorrow whether to slip a week
18:15:56 <mboddu> Okay, I am okay with 1 day delay in decision, sorry, I got confused
18:16:03 <bcotton> mboddu: sorry for being confusing
18:16:07 <pwhalen> I do think we should discuss a policy like the "If no RC by Tuesday, auto slip" to avoid this.
18:16:08 <adamw> sorry for being sorry
18:16:21 <cmurf> i agree with pwhalen
18:16:23 <bcotton> pwhalen: i'm happy to have that discussion again
18:16:24 <kparal> adamw: that's the proper canadian way!
18:16:28 <adamw> pwhalen: we can discuss it again, but maybe not now and here :)
18:16:33 <pwhalen> sure
18:17:03 <mboddu> Thanks pwhalen and I can create/reopen the ticket
18:17:29 <cmurf> kparal: haha
18:17:44 <bcotton> okay, so before we call this a final decision, is everyone okay with 1800 UTC tomorrow? (one hour later that our start time today) we'll plan on a 1-hour meeting since it should be pretty obvious either way
18:18:08 * pwhalen is OK with it
18:18:26 <coremodule> wfm
18:18:31 <sgallagh> So that's 23:42 from now?
18:18:31 <adamw> sure
18:18:38 <bcotton> sgallagh: correct
18:18:41 <sgallagh> OK
18:18:48 <sgallagh> I can probably manage that
18:19:02 <mboddu> Works for me
18:19:05 <sumantro> yep
18:19:10 <bcotton> okay
18:19:41 <bcotton> #agreed We will have another Go/No-Go meeting at 1800 UTC on Friday 13 March to re-evaluate RC 1.2
18:20:22 <bcotton> adamw, sgallagh: let me know as soon as possible if the PackageKit fix won't make it and I'll preemptively cancel the meeting
18:20:28 <sgallagh> ack
18:20:31 <cmurf> good idea
18:21:03 <mboddu> adamw: On side note, checksum checks are successful, I will update the test matrix
18:21:11 <adamw> thanks
18:21:12 * sgallagh goes spelunking
18:21:22 <adamw> bcotton: will do
18:21:25 <bcotton> #info the 13 March meeting will be canceled if the previous release blocker will not be fixed on time or if any obvious no-go conditions arise
18:21:31 <bcotton> #action bcotton to announce the decision
18:21:51 <bcotton> i'm not sure if being Friday the 13th qualifies as an "obvious no-go condition" in it's own
18:22:00 <bcotton> #topic Open floor
18:22:01 <bcotton> Anything else we need to discuss before closing?
18:22:52 <sgallagh> Anyone know where to get a hockey mask by tomorrow? Asking for a friend.
18:23:16 <mhroncok> masks are hard to come by those days
18:23:16 <pwhalen> Bottom of Crystal Lake. Where it belongs.
18:23:35 <bcotton> okay, sounds like we're set
18:23:51 <bcotton> see you in 37 minutes right here for the release readiness meeting!
18:23:56 <bcotton> thanks everyone
18:23:58 <bcotton> #endmeeting