17:00:02 <bcotton_> #startmeeting F33 Beta Go/No-Go meeting
17:00:02 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Sep 24 17:00:02 2020 UTC.
17:00:02 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
17:00:02 <zodbot> The chair is bcotton_. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:02 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:02 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f33_beta_go/no-go_meeting'
17:00:04 <bcotton_> #meetingname F33-Beta-Go_No_Go-meeting
17:00:04 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f33-beta-go_no_go-meeting'
17:00:17 <bcotton_> #topic Roll call
17:00:25 <bcotton_> alright, friends, who's here?
17:00:49 <coremodule> good morning bcotton , /me is here
17:00:50 <mboddu> .hello mohanboddu
17:00:51 <zodbot> mboddu: mohanboddu 'Mohan Boddu' <mboddu@bhujji.com>
17:00:57 <mattdm> I am here, with my foot hovering over the GO! pedal
17:01:01 <nirik> morning
17:01:08 <coremodule> .hello2
17:01:12 <zodbot> coremodule: coremodule 'Geoffrey Marr' <gmarr@redhat.com>
17:01:14 <bcotton_> #agreed we're go because matthew says so :-)
17:01:23 <pwhalen> .hello2
17:01:24 <zodbot> pwhalen: pwhalen 'Paul Whalen' <pwhalen@redhat.com>
17:01:37 <bcotton_> #chair bcotton
17:01:37 <zodbot> Current chairs: bcotton bcotton_
17:01:44 <bcotton_> #chair coremodule
17:01:44 <zodbot> Current chairs: bcotton bcotton_ coremodule
17:02:01 <bcotton_> welcome everyone
17:02:29 <frantisekz> .hello2
17:02:30 <zodbot> frantisekz: frantisekz 'František Zatloukal' <fzatlouk@redhat.com>
17:02:46 <bcotton_> #topic Purpose of this meeting
17:02:48 <bcotton_> #info Purpose of this meeting is to check whether or not F33 Beta is ready for shipment, according to the release criteria.
17:02:50 <bcotton_> #info This is determined in a few ways:
17:02:51 <bcotton_> #info 1. No remaining blocker bugs
17:02:53 <bcotton_> #info 2. Release candidate compose is available
17:02:54 <bcotton_> #info 3. Test matrices for Beta are fully completed
17:03:10 <bcotton_> #topic Current status - blockers
17:03:11 <bcotton_> #link https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/33/beta/buglist
17:03:17 <bcotton_> okay, this is going to take a while, so let's start
17:03:31 <bcotton_> #info 4 Proposed Blockers
17:03:32 <bcotton_> #info 2 Accepted Blockers
17:03:34 <bcotton_> #info 0 Accepted 0-day Blockers
17:03:48 <bcotton_> #topic (1882358) Installing KDE from the Everything Iso, results in a system with no web browser.
17:03:50 <bcotton_> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882358
17:03:51 <bcotton_> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/125
17:03:53 <bcotton_> #info Proposed Blocker, comps, NEW
17:04:00 <mboddu> Since mattdm wants a release, betablocker -1 for all ;P
17:04:08 <mattdm> yay!
17:04:11 <nirik> IMHO, this is intended behavior... -1 blocker
17:04:13 <mattdm> this is easy
17:04:18 <bcotton_> #info in the ticket BetaBlocker (+0, 2, -4)
17:04:23 <mboddu> Yeah, -1 blocker
17:04:33 <frantisekz> -1 Blocker
17:04:42 <bcotton_> coremodule: btw, will you secretarialize these after the meeting, pleeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaase
17:05:02 <coremodule> :) you got it
17:05:18 <mattdm> one down! mwhahaha
17:05:23 <frantisekz> :)
17:05:30 <pwhalen> -1 Blocker
17:05:33 <bcotton_> proposed #agreed 1882358 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - This is intended behavior, but it may be worth later discussion about how we apply the criterion in question
17:05:41 <coremodule> ack
17:05:43 <frantisekz> (everyone, prepare late blocker procedure! :D )
17:05:44 <frantisekz> ack
17:05:45 <mboddu> ack
17:05:49 <nirik> ack
17:05:52 <pwhalen> ack
17:06:12 <bcotton_> #agreed 1882358 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - This is intended behavior, but it may be worth later discussion about how we apply the criterion in question
17:06:30 <bcotton_> #topic (1881495) Outdated Firefox is going to be shipped in the Fedora 33 Beta
17:06:32 <bcotton_> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881495
17:06:33 <bcotton_> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/118
17:06:35 <bcotton_> #info Proposed Blocker, firefox, ON_QA
17:06:50 <frantisekz> -1 Blocker, we have no criterion for it
17:06:51 <nirik> -1 blocker. We can push it stable as soon as we are go, so it will be used by upgrades.
17:07:03 <nirik> and yeah, no critera at beta also
17:07:06 <coremodule> agreed, -1 blocker on criteria
17:07:08 <Southern_Gentlem> -1 blocker
17:07:11 <bcotton_> #info in the ticket: BetaBlocker (+0, 2, -8), Accepted BetaFE (+5, 0, -0), 0Day (+1, 0, -0)
17:07:14 <zbyszek> I think there's general agreement to reject blocker.
17:07:21 <mboddu> As per criterion -1 Blocker +1FE (in case we need another rc compose)
17:07:32 <pwhalen> -1 blocker
17:07:34 <bcotton_> Workstation WG seemed a little unhappy about this, fwiw
17:08:09 <lruzicka> .hello2
17:08:10 <zodbot> lruzicka: lruzicka 'Lukáš Růžička' <lruzicka@redhat.com>
17:08:20 <mboddu> Yeah, its good if we can ship the latest FF, oh well...
17:08:29 <nirik> any workstation WG folks here want to clarify on why?
17:08:29 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 for final but beta people expect little issues
17:08:31 <frantisekz> so, this would be fixed for upgrades, I've already requested it in https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9725
17:08:38 <bcotton_> but as there's a fix that can be in stable on release day, the case where it's harmful is "installed f33 beta and launched firefox before running updates" which for beta i think we can say "don't do that"
17:08:40 <frantisekz> so, users wouldn't lose data on upgrade
17:08:41 <bcotton_> frantisekz++
17:09:30 <mattdm> firefox is on a _monthly_ release cycle. It is highly likely that we are going to be in this situation over and over again
17:09:32 <nirik> anyhow, I think we can just reject blocker on this and move on?
17:09:34 <bcotton_> proposed #agreed 1881495 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - A fixed package is built and will be available in the stable repo on release day
17:09:40 <frantisekz> ack
17:09:43 <zbyszek> ack
17:09:43 <nirik> patch?
17:09:45 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:09:46 <coremodule> ack
17:09:48 <bcotton_> nirik: go ahead
17:09:52 <nirik> "has been built"
17:09:54 <nirik> :)
17:09:57 <frantisekz> :) +1
17:09:59 <mboddu> ack
17:10:03 <nirik> oh, I see...
17:10:04 <bcotton_> i'll allow it
17:10:05 <lruzicka> ack that patch
17:10:08 <nirik> ok, ack, either way.
17:10:11 <pwhalen> ack
17:10:21 <bcotton_> #agreed 1881495 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - A fixed package has been built and will be available in the stable repo on release day
17:10:27 <nirik> it just sounded like it wasn't made yet... doesn't matter. it is.
17:10:34 <bcotton_> #topic (1868141) Select Printer Driver hangs
17:10:36 <bcotton_> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868141
17:10:38 <bcotton_> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/124
17:10:39 <bcotton_> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-control-center, NEW
17:10:53 <bcotton_> oh!
17:11:04 <cmurf> i thought printing was final but ok...
17:11:05 <bcotton_> this one is already rejected, the app just didn't pick it up yet
17:11:06 <bcotton_> that's easy
17:11:12 <nirik> so, can anyone add a printer without hitting this?
17:11:14 <cmurf> *whew*
17:11:15 <mattdm> \o/
17:11:18 <nirik> ok...
17:11:23 <coremodule> yay
17:11:32 <frantisekz> lruzicka, you tested this, can you sum up somehow pretty please :) ?
17:11:32 <bcotton_> #info Rejected in the ticket: Rejected BetaBlocker (+0, 0, -5)
17:11:35 <frantisekz> okay
17:11:41 <lruzicka> Ok,
17:11:48 <frantisekz> I see it's in the bug
17:11:51 <frantisekz> no need then :)
17:11:52 <nirik> yep
17:11:52 <bcotton_> #topic (1880499) rpm-ostree rebase fails when using aarch64 disk images
17:11:54 <bcotton_> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880499
17:11:56 <bcotton_> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/104
17:11:57 <bcotton_> #info Proposed Blocker, ostree, NEW
17:12:09 <nirik> this is a fun one.
17:12:14 <bcotton_> #info in the ticket: BetaBlocker (+3, 0, -0)
17:12:30 * mboddu agrees with nirik
17:12:32 <lruzicka> this affects the Gnome Settings dialog for Adding/Modifying printers, because when you want to search through drivers, it becomes unresponsive and no drivers are shown.
17:12:44 <nirik> the 'fix' is in the f32 package, but that same version in f33 breaks iot composes.
17:12:55 <lruzicka> ohh, ok, will not waste your time then
17:12:57 <frantisekz> "If IoT isn't blocking for Fedora 32, and is newly blocking for Fedora 33 going forward, then I'd say it's not a blocker bug. If upgrades from 32 are release blocking, what about from 31?"
17:13:07 <frantisekz> from the ticket
17:13:23 <bcotton_> yeah, this is a bit of a case without precedent
17:13:31 <nirik> lruzicka: sorry, we moved on. ;) But if thats not a blocker (as noted) we will at least need common bugs on it, so thats good info for that
17:13:38 <coremodule> ^^ what frantisekz said
17:13:49 <bcotton_> legislating from the bench, as it were, i'd say N-1 upgrades should block but not N-2
17:13:52 <frantisekz> I think we shouldn't count votes in the ticket as they're made before that statement
17:13:58 <bcotton_> but that's a policy question to make later
17:14:01 <lruzicka> nirik, you can always set up printers using the web interface on cups
17:14:09 <cmurf> i think it's not a beta blocker, block on f32 upgrades to f33 until it's fixed in f32
17:14:46 <nirik> cmurf: well, that means we need a 0day update in f32 at f33 beta release
17:14:51 <bcotton_> i think this one also brough up the question of "can previous release blockers block beta?" because i think we've generally only used those to block fina
17:14:52 <frantisekz> -1 Beta Blocker, let's block on upgrades from F33 in the future, wdyt?
17:15:06 <Southern_Gentlem> but if no ostree there is not iot release correct
17:15:06 <nirik> also...
17:15:07 <frantisekz> we can block final, ofc
17:15:24 <cmurf> or reprovision
17:15:34 <cmurf> if you can't fix the bug in f32, then you have to clean install
17:15:35 <nirik> say we push a f32 update that fixes upgrades to f33. People still need to apply it... they won't always magically have it.
17:15:40 <bcotton_> pwhalen: (and pbrobinson if you can pull away from your other meeting) how do you feel about this, as IoT folks
17:16:13 <zbyszek> nirik: we specify that you're supposed to apply latest updates before upgrading
17:16:15 * nirik is inclined to say -1 blocker for f33 beta, if we can get a f32 fix out before beta release great. If not, too bad.
17:16:30 <nirik> zbyszek: sure, but we don't enforce that. :)
17:16:32 <cmurf> a significant feature of rpm-ostree has been that they are ephemeral installs to be blown away and reprovisioned
17:16:40 <cmurf> whenever necessary
17:17:05 <cmurf> so the idea of blocking on upgrades is a curiousity
17:17:07 * nirik doesn't think he agrees with that
17:17:56 <zbyszek> I'd be fine with a PreviousReleaseBlocker for F33final
17:18:34 <bcotton_> seems like the general consensus is "not a blocker"
17:18:39 <cmurf> nirik: that's what Colin Walters has said
17:18:40 <pwhalen> The f32 update has been pushed, so users should be able to upgrade now. But the f33 compose broke when the same fix was added in to f33. As per the last comment in the bug, something isn't quite right.
17:19:09 <pwhalen> those that do upgrade, won't be able to update further, fwiu
17:19:16 <nirik> well, if upgrades are "a curiosity" we shouldn't have them in release critera?
17:19:17 <pwhalen> until fixed in f33
17:19:49 <bcotton_> pwhalen: if we call Fedora-IoT-33-20200920.0 the Beta, does that solve^Whide the problem until we can fix 33 composes?
17:19:49 <mattdm> once it's fixed on the remote side, does it just start working? or is manual intervention now needed?
17:19:52 <pwhalen> x86 is not affect, just aarch64
17:20:51 <pwhalen> mattdm: not sure, manual intervention might be needed
17:21:09 <nirik> bcotton_: I don't think so... it just means they are on f33 and can't upgrade further until it's fixed?
17:21:12 <pwhalen> bcotton_: it gives us a compose, but I need to kick the tired. The 16th was the last fully tested
17:21:18 * sgallagh is here now.
17:21:23 <pwhalen> s/tired/tires
17:22:13 <mboddu> Since we cannot run updates on f33, that seems like a +1 betablocker for me (concerning security)
17:22:41 <pwhalen> mboddu: a fresh install of f33 is not affected, just the upgrade from f32
17:23:03 <walters> cmurf: I didn't say anything at all like that
17:23:07 <mattdm> which is why we are in the corner case
17:23:34 <mattdm> iot and coreos folks: what's your thoughts on blocking the release for this?
17:23:39 <nirik> pwhalen: is it possible to not offer the f32->f33 upgrade? or that already is possible by just rebasing now?
17:23:55 <mattdm> nirik++
17:24:04 <Eighth_Doctor> 👋
17:24:09 <Eighth_Doctor> .hello ngompa
17:24:10 <zodbot> Eighth_Doctor: ngompa 'Neal Gompa' <ngompa13@gmail.com>
17:24:23 <sgallagh> nirik: I don't think we prompt for upgrades at all; I think you have to know what release you want to rebase to ahead of time
17:24:25 <pwhalen> It *should* be possible to work around it as I did to test the upgraded package, I think
17:24:30 <sgallagh> So we could just... not announce it?
17:24:31 <mattdm> yeah is it possible to hide the f33 remotes (on aarch64 only, even) until this is fixed and not block the general release?
17:24:40 <cmurf> walters: rpm-ostree installs aren't primarily intended to be reprovisionable?
17:24:59 <cmurf> so just reprovision if you can't upgrade
17:25:02 <walters> cmurf: correct, it works just as well for "pet" systems as it does reprovisionable
17:26:04 <sgallagh> walters: Do I remember correctly that new rebase targets aren't visible on the system, you have to know what it will be and enter it manually?
17:26:26 <sgallagh> (I mean, they're reasonably guessable, but still)
17:26:42 <nirik> I think it should be possible... chmod 000 those refs... but not sure if that breaks other things or has weird side effects.
17:27:30 <cmurf> ok well if IoT is more of a "pet" than "reprovisionable" then I guess I'm just confused
17:27:59 <mboddu> nirik: What if there is a CVE after release?
17:28:00 <cmurf> but otherwise it's case of just blow it away and reinstall, no big deal
17:28:00 <mattdm> because we're in the weird edge-case land, and because it's beta not final, I think I'd prefer to do that and then common bugs it / put it in the release notes
17:28:18 <pwhalen> I think the small subset of users that might be affected can either remain on f32 until f33 is fixed in a future compose.
17:28:35 <walters> sgallagh: for coreos it both isn't a manual operation and is intended to feel "single stream"; silverblue has separate refs and manual action needed, but I am not aware of us building sb for aarch64 - this is mostly affecting iot
17:28:36 <nirik> mboddu: they would still be on f32 and get the upgrade there?
17:28:38 <mboddu> I know the chances are very low, but I dont know how to vote on this
17:28:49 <bcotton_> so i'm making my vote 0 based on what mattdm and pwhalen have said
17:28:51 <mkonecny> sgallagh: You can list available refs with ostree remote refs fedora
17:28:54 <pwhalen> mattdm: ..I see what you did there.. "edge" case : )
17:29:02 <mattdm> pwhalen: :)
17:29:03 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 mattdm
17:29:17 <mboddu> nirik: What about who are on f33? Since we are making the ref invisible, right?
17:29:32 <bcotton_> and if i'm being perfectly transparent, i'd be much more likely to call this a blocker 3 weeks ago
17:29:42 <walters> adding this revert is pretty safe
17:29:45 <mattdm> mboddu: you mean people who updated pre-beta?
17:29:47 <nirik> mboddu: if they did a new install... they would get it.
17:29:54 <mattdm> those people should know what they're in for :)
17:29:55 <mboddu> mattdm: Yes
17:30:16 <mboddu> haha :)
17:30:26 <Southern_Gentlem> but if they are on f33 what is the issue
17:30:30 <nirik> I expect this will be fixed before too long... lots of smart folks involved. We make no promises for SLA on CVE's.
17:30:35 <nirik> it's a beta. :)
17:31:17 <bcotton_> okay,let's put some votes out there
17:31:19 <mboddu> I guess we should just vote
17:31:21 <nirik> I suppose we could mention in the announcement "if you are a brave soul on aarch64 on iot, please stick with f32 for now, see...link for details'
17:31:26 <mboddu> bcotton++ ;)
17:31:26 <zodbot> mboddu: Karma for bcotton changed to 29 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:31:33 <frantisekz> -1 Beta Blocker
17:31:38 <mattdm> nirik++
17:31:42 <mattdm> -1 beta blocker
17:31:48 <nirik> -1 beta blocker
17:31:49 <Southern_Gentlem> -1BB
17:31:50 <lruzicka> -1 beta blocker
17:31:58 <zbyszek> -1 bb
17:32:04 <mboddu> -1 Beta Blocker, +1 Final Blocker
17:32:07 <cmurf> -1
17:32:24 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 FB
17:32:32 <bcotton_> let's just stick to beta for now
17:32:45 <bcotton_> we can deal with final in monday's regular review meeting
17:33:00 <cmurf> if we're still in this situation with final all the more reason to just reprovision
17:33:23 <mboddu> I guess we are making mattdm'
17:33:26 <mboddu> s wish come true
17:34:01 <bcotton_> proposed #agreed 1880499 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) CommonBugs - It affects a small group of users, is in a beta, and is an edge case, and we expect it to be fixed soon
17:34:01 <mattdm> :)
17:34:10 <bcotton_> mboddu: why do you think i told him to come? ;-)
17:34:11 <nirik> ack
17:34:13 <frantisekz> ack
17:34:16 <mboddu> ack
17:34:17 <pwhalen> ack
17:34:27 <coremodule> ack
17:34:31 <sgallagh> ack
17:34:42 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:34:54 <lruzicka> ack
17:34:55 <bcotton_> #agreed 1880499 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) CommonBugs - It affects a small group of users, is in a beta, and is an edge case, and we expect it to be fixed soon
17:35:12 <bcotton_> #action bcotton to update mattdm's release announcement draft with appropriate information
17:35:17 <mattdm> lol
17:35:26 <mattdm> this is the beta! it's mboddu's release announcement!
17:35:36 <bcotton_> mattdm: the magazine article, more specifically
17:35:56 <bcotton_> unless you want to hide it a little bit, but we can discuss that afterward
17:36:09 <mboddu> 2020 seems like a really long year, feels like its been ages since I made the beta announcement
17:36:22 <bcotton_> #agreed 2020 has been a long decade
17:36:38 <bcotton_> okay, i think we managed to reject all of the proposed blockers, so let's look at the accepted ones
17:36:39 <coremodule> lol
17:36:43 <cmurf> 2020beta branch
17:36:56 <bcotton_> #topic (1881745) abrt-action-generate-backtrace crashes during local processing
17:36:57 <bcotton_> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881745
17:36:59 <bcotton_> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/119
17:37:01 <bcotton_> #info Accepted Blocker, abrt, VERIFIED
17:37:12 <cmurf> fixed with -6 release
17:37:38 <frantisekz> so... can we demote this one to 0day blocker somehow :) ?
17:37:40 <cmurf> could plausibly be a 0day fix
17:37:41 <bcotton_> this one is verified, and we had a general consensus on monday that at this point we're willing to ship with a broken abrt rather than delay indefinitely to fix the onions
17:38:13 <cmurf> i don't think having it working on the beta media or as installed, is blocker worthy
17:38:34 <bcotton_> #topic (1861700) login stuck when changing users repeatedly (log out, log in a different one)
17:38:35 <bcotton_> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861700
17:38:35 <nirik> it's a kinda bad look, but perhaps it's ok...
17:38:37 <bcotton_> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/16
17:38:38 <bcotton_> #info Accepted Blocker, sddm, ASSIGNED
17:38:40 <bcotton_> okay, here's the other fun one
17:38:59 <mattdm> no fun!
17:38:59 <nirik> shouldn't we do one at a time? :)
17:39:05 <frantisekz> so... we won't release another Fedora... at all, never, it seems with this one, as a blocker
17:39:15 <mattdm> frantisekz yeah, that :(
17:39:17 <mboddu> Yeah, whats the decision on abrt bug?
17:39:19 <Southern_Gentlem> one at a time please
17:39:23 <cmurf> i was just gonna say this is one fast train
17:39:43 <bcotton_> 1881745 is in verified state so there's not much to do about it
17:39:52 <mboddu> But its not in the rc media
17:39:54 <lruzicka> non working abrt is annoying, but who can say how long does it take to fix all the issues
17:40:03 <bcotton_> okay, i'll back the train up for a moment
17:40:05 <bcotton_> #undo
17:40:05 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by bcotton_ at 17:38:38 : Accepted Blocker, sddm, ASSIGNED
17:40:07 <bcotton_> #undo
17:40:07 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Link object at 0x7fcccd7716d0>
17:40:08 <bcotton_> #undo
17:40:08 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Link object at 0x7fccdc721350>
17:40:10 <bcotton_> #undo
17:40:10 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x7fccd090c750>
17:40:10 <cmurf> lruzicka: therein lies the problem with making it 0day
17:40:34 <cmurf> the abrt bugs are clearly on their own schedule, they're gonna get fixed whenever they get fixed
17:40:38 <nirik> so, I guess our choices here are...
17:40:41 <sgallagh> lruzicka: One month. Of course, months in 2020 last somewhere between 50 and 3256 days.
17:40:44 <bcotton_> so longer story: we've been fighting a bunch of layers of abrt bugs
17:40:50 <lruzicka> sgallagh, :D
17:41:06 <bcotton_> and it's not clear that the abrt team has a good handle on the big picture at the moment
17:41:22 <nirik> a) just release and get the update, b) respin today and hurridly retest abrt stuff and try go tomorrow, c) slip/block for it... but we don't know when all the issues will be fixed.
17:41:37 <cmurf> (a) +1
17:42:00 <frantisekz> a+1
17:42:01 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 A
17:42:07 <lruzicka> (a) +1 because we might be blocking for a longer time
17:42:07 <nirik> yeah, thats seeming like the best option right now... since we don't even know how many more things are lurking
17:42:20 <mboddu> For now a:+1, but I will also hold on to b, based on the other blocker decision
17:42:22 <cmurf> and it's a beta, we get to find out later what else is lurking :)
17:42:41 <bcotton_> yeah A
17:42:41 <mattdm> I think we know my answer :)
17:42:41 <nirik> do we want to blocker vote? or ?
17:42:57 <bcotton_> seems like the consensus is "ship it"
17:43:01 <Southern_Gentlem> -1 bb
17:43:12 <mattdm> (insert boat emoji)
17:43:16 <frantisekz> yep, -1bb
17:43:39 <cmurf> insert trademarked version:  USS Ship It™
17:43:40 <lruzicka> -1bb
17:43:49 <mboddu> -1 beta blocker
17:43:52 <lruzicka> boat it?
17:43:55 <cmurf> -1 beta blocker
17:44:03 <bcotton_> so you're all wrong
17:44:04 * sgallagh runs off to register "HMS ShipIt"
17:44:05 <nirik> -1 pellet
17:44:08 <bcotton_> it's a blocker
17:44:10 <bcotton_> *BUT*
17:44:23 <bcotton_> it was nominated 2 days ago, so we can waive it
17:44:31 <bcotton_> which i'm going to take all of your -1s to mean
17:44:38 <mattdm> :)
17:44:40 <sgallagh> And we have the "infeasible to solve in a reasonable amount of time" option
17:44:53 <sgallagh> Since we have no way of knowing what else is lurking
17:45:04 <mattdm> I love the soudn of that
17:45:10 <mattdm> fills me with confidence!
17:45:12 <bcotton_> proposed #agreed 1861700 - Waived - We are waiving this under the late blocker exception since for Beta getting the fix in an update is sufficient
17:45:51 <lruzicka> ack
17:45:54 * nirik suspects some reviewer will complain about the bug reporting tool being broken when they try and report a bug
17:46:04 <mboddu> ack
17:46:08 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:46:10 <nirik> ack
17:46:18 <sumantro> ack
17:46:20 <lruzicka> nirik, but they still can report it manually
17:46:21 <Southern_Gentlem> nirik blame the move
17:46:22 <mattdm> nirik: probably :(
17:46:28 <mattdm> Southern_Gentlem++
17:46:30 <zodbot> mattdm: Karma for jbwillia changed to 7 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:46:34 <cmurf> update to -6 or better and abrt-cli report
17:46:36 <cmurf> it works :)
17:46:51 <bcotton_> #agreed 1861700 - Waived - We are waiving this under the late blocker exception since for Beta getting the fix in an update is sufficient
17:47:05 <nirik> sure, there's lots of options... we will see. ;)
17:47:10 <bcotton_> okay, now let's go have the fun one
17:47:14 <bcotton_> #topic (1861700) login stuck when changing users repeatedly (log out, log in a different one)
17:47:15 <bcotton_> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861700
17:47:17 <bcotton_> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/16
17:47:18 <bcotton_> #info Accepted Blocker, sddm, ASSIGNED
17:47:33 <bcotton_> so this one is based on a newly-added criterion and doesn't represent a regression
17:47:37 <nirik> do we have a 'this bug is too hard, skip' ? ;)
17:47:43 <cmurf> yes
17:47:50 <bcotton_> and comments earlier today suggest we're getting closer to an answer but
17:47:53 <cmurf> sgallagh mentioned it just before
17:47:53 <mboddu> nirik: I would like that option
17:48:00 <zbyszek> I think it's a complete mess. I would expect F34 beta to a good ETA for a fix.
17:48:00 <mattdm> i think we literally have to do that here :(
17:48:09 <bcotton_> yes, we can definitely invoke the "too hard to fix" exception
17:48:17 * nirik sighs at regression. Nothing in fedora really is a regression. :)
17:48:23 <frantisekz> yep, "too hard to fix" +1
17:48:29 <bcotton_> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process#Exceptional_cases
17:48:41 <Southern_Gentlem> -1 BB, +1 commonbugs
17:48:43 <cmurf> it's been ~3 weeks of this
17:48:44 <nirik> zbyszek: :( you have any idea what it is yet?
17:49:12 <mattdm> yeah we can't delay until f34 beta :(
17:49:23 <cmurf> catanzaro thinks it might explain a bug he was seeing in gnome-shell
17:49:31 <zbyszek> nirik: bberg points a finger at bad dbus interactin. My and cmurf's debugging points at busted qqt internals.
17:49:33 <bcotton_> proposed #agreed 1861700 - Waived - We are waiving this under the "Difficult to fix blocker bugs" exception due to the difficulty in isolating the cause
17:49:33 <Southern_Gentlem> "my old daddy said "if it hurts to do that, dont do that""
17:49:42 <cmurf> accessibility related
17:49:46 <zbyszek> It's probably both.
17:49:57 <nirik> ack
17:49:58 <cmurf> ack
17:50:03 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:50:09 <mboddu> ack
17:50:13 <sumantro> ack
17:50:14 <lruzicka> ack
17:50:15 <nirik> yeah, icky. well, at least lots of work for people to track it down. ;)
17:50:21 <sgallagh> ack
17:50:25 <mboddu> mattdm: Finally our chance to skip a release and work on clean up stuff ;P
17:50:30 * mboddu hides from mattdm :D
17:50:31 <frantisekz> ack
17:50:47 <bcotton_> #agreed 1861700 - Waived - We are waiving this under the "Difficult to fix blocker bugs" exception due to the difficulty in isolating the cause
17:51:06 <bcotton_> #topic Current status - blockers
17:51:06 <nirik> should likely be another common bugs?
17:51:27 <bcotton_> #info All accepted blockers are fixed or waived
17:51:27 <cmurf> doesn't hurt to inform
17:51:41 <mattdm> YAY
17:51:48 <mattdm> cmurf: yes
17:51:50 <nirik> nice
17:51:51 <Southern_Gentlem> thus +1 commonbug
17:52:03 <Lailah> Hi
17:52:08 <Lailah> .fas lailah
17:52:09 <zodbot> Lailah: lailah 'Sylvia Sánchez' <BHKohane@gmail.com>
17:52:23 <bcotton_> #topic Current status - test matrices
17:52:25 <lruzicka> I would say all waived blockers -> commonbugs
17:52:27 <bcotton_> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fedora_33_Beta_Test_Results
17:52:44 <bcotton_> frantisekz: are you the designated sharer of news?
17:53:11 <sgallagh> I'm still running AD tests for Server. I'm having some issues, but I *think* they're on the AD Server side and not Fedora
17:53:21 <frantisekz> yep
17:53:35 <sgallagh> I'm in the middle of installing a new AD Server VM to retry against.
17:53:48 <frantisekz> Test results are solid, the only major missing category is Active Directory
17:53:57 <cmurf> lruzicka: no objection
17:54:20 <cmurf> well...
17:54:21 <bcotton_> sgallagh++
17:54:33 <frantisekz> sgallagh++
17:54:33 <zodbot> frantisekz: Karma for sgallagh changed to 9 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:54:36 <bcotton_> #info Test results are solid, the only major missing category is Active Directory, which sgallagh is working on
17:54:45 <mattdm> frantisekz++
17:54:45 <zodbot> mattdm: Karma for frantisekz changed to 2 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:54:47 <mattdm> sgallagh++
17:54:47 <Southern_Gentlem> sgallagh++
17:54:48 <zodbot> mattdm: Karma for sgallagh changed to 10 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:54:51 <zodbot> Southern_Gentlem: Karma for sgallagh changed to 11 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:54:51 <mboddu> sgallagh++
17:54:58 <sumantro> sgallagh++
17:54:58 <zodbot> sumantro: Karma for sgallagh changed to 12 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:55:03 <cmurf> sgallagh++
17:55:03 <zodbot> cmurf: Karma for sgallagh changed to 13 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:55:04 <sgallagh> tl;dr version: I can join a domain and authenticate successfully, but I'm getting pam_access() rejected
17:55:24 <sgallagh> I suspect I changed something in the bowels of GPO last time around and now I can't find it, so I'm starting fresh to confirm
17:55:38 <sgallagh> I have ~90% confidence that we're good here
17:55:57 <bcotton_> sgallagh: how much time do you need to verify?
17:56:01 <cmurf> well, and it would be 100% within 5 days, and thus a late blocker exception :)
17:56:02 <nirik> we can play elevator music and tell dad jokes until you are done?
17:56:13 <bcotton_> cmurf++
17:56:28 <sgallagh> bcotton_: 10-20 minutes?
17:56:35 <zbyszek> So... I have a proposal how to fix the abrt server issue
17:56:47 <bcotton_> zbyszek: remove it from the default packages?
17:56:51 <cmurf> :D
17:56:51 <frantisekz> :D
17:57:00 <sgallagh> .fire bcotton_
17:57:00 <zodbot> adamw fires bcotton_
17:57:03 <Southern_Gentlem> now if you think about it, egg salad is still chicken
17:57:03 <Eighth_Doctor> 😢
17:57:05 <zbyszek> Better. Just fix all other bugs. Then the abrt server not needed.
17:57:13 <bcotton_> brilliant!
17:57:13 <Eighth_Doctor> 😆
17:57:18 <bcotton_> zbyszek++
17:57:20 <nirik> zbyszek++
17:57:20 <zodbot> nirik: Karma for zbyszek changed to 9 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:57:21 <cmurf> haha
17:57:39 <bcotton_> okay, are there any other questions or comments about the testing while we stall?
17:57:49 <mboddu> zbyszek++
17:57:49 <zodbot> mboddu: Karma for zbyszek changed to 10 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:58:06 <bcotton_> or should we go to releng with info about the RC and come back?
17:58:09 <Conan_Kudo> zbyszek++
17:58:09 <zodbot> Conan_Kudo: Karma for zbyszek changed to 11 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:58:16 * nirik sees no sugar testing. sighs sadly. ;(
17:58:25 <sumantro> zbyszek++
17:58:25 <zodbot> sumantro: Karma for zbyszek changed to 12 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:58:30 <cmurf> speaking of badges, reminder for anyone who has done btrfs testing and doesn't have a btrfs badge
17:58:38 <cmurf> ask me or Eighth_Doctor
17:59:06 <Lailah> OMG  Do we have a Time Lord here?
17:59:41 <Lailah> Eighth_Doctor  :-)
17:59:44 <Eighth_Doctor> 👋
17:59:51 <Eighth_Doctor> Would you like to have a jelly baby? :)
18:00:00 <Lailah> Yes, please, thank you!
18:00:08 <bcotton_> #topic Current status - RC
18:00:15 * Eighth_Doctor gives Lailah a couple of jelly babies
18:00:21 <bcotton_> okay mboddu what can you tell us about our lovely RC
18:00:37 <mboddu> bcotton_: Well, we got all the release blocking artifacts ;P
18:00:51 <bcotton_> hey, that's a good starting point
18:00:58 <bcotton_> what are we missing on the non-blocking side?
18:01:05 <mboddu> But silverblue on aarch64, Scientific_KDE, Robotics anf few images on armhfp failed
18:01:16 <mboddu> #info https://pagure.io/releng/failed-composes/issue/1806
18:01:24 <bcotton_> #info silverblue on aarch64, Scientific_KDE, Robotics and few images on armhfp failed
18:01:25 * mboddu is not a chair
18:01:25 <Eighth_Doctor> oh dear
18:01:37 <bcotton_> i think you can still #info
18:01:53 <bcotton_> are these transient issues or actual problems with the variants?
18:02:05 <bcotton_> i'm assuming the silverblue aarch64 one is the ostree issue we were talking about earlier?
18:02:06 <pwhalen> arnhfp images are expected failures
18:02:06 * Lailah makes happy noises and eats the jelly babies from Eighth_Doctor
18:02:13 <Eighth_Doctor> :)
18:02:27 <bcotton_> #info the armhfp failures are expected
18:02:38 <nirik> bcotton_: well, it's on the owners of those to debug them. ;)
18:02:40 <pwhalen> the ones we care about are there
18:02:54 <Eighth_Doctor> I don't see any variants that are release blocking failed
18:03:36 <nirik> yeah, the compose fails if any of those fail. :)
18:03:42 <mattdm> we do need to solve this problem though
18:03:50 <mattdm> not today :)
18:03:58 <mboddu> bcotton_: Yeah, what other had said
18:04:33 <bcotton_> is it fair to say that life in the new datacenter has reduced the occurence of "welp, this one just failed this time sorry" failures?
18:04:34 <nirik> scientific-kde failed due to some eclipse deps
18:05:03 <Eighth_Doctor> bcotton_: do we have enough time to quantify that yet?
18:05:23 <mboddu> The lab failures are missing deps
18:05:28 <sgallagh> Sorry, folks. This is taking longer than expected. My fresh install got a BSoD immediately upon login
18:05:29 <nirik> robotics failed due to fawkes broken deps
18:05:31 <bcotton_> Eighth_Doctor: maybe? maybe not. partly i'm giving sgallagh time :-)
18:05:32 <mboddu> armhfp are expected one's as pwhalen said
18:05:34 <zbyszek> Less stuff is up and running, so I'd say it's too early.
18:05:47 <sgallagh> ****ing Windows
18:05:52 <nirik> I'd say it's early, but optimistic. ;)
18:06:26 <Eighth_Doctor> sgallagh: alas it's too bad we can't use samba AD for testing AD stuff
18:06:27 <bcotton_> sgallagh: boo bsod. should we keep waiting or are you comfortable with the testing you've been able to do?
18:06:58 <sgallagh> Give me a few more minutes?
18:07:14 <Eighth_Doctor> 👍️
18:07:30 <nirik> mboddu / pwhalen: the armv7 ones are... ?
18:08:13 <bcotton_> sgallagh: we can do that
18:08:16 <bcotton_> #topic Intermission
18:08:19 <nirik> I mean, are caused by what? do we have a bug/etc?
18:08:41 <bcotton_> #info We are waiting a few more minutes for sgallagh to run a few AD tests
18:08:50 <nirik> some look space related (the image needs more space defined). Some look virt defined. (some weird kvm error)
18:08:54 <pwhalen> nirik: we do, I'd have to look for it, but I am pretty sure there was an update this week
18:09:05 * bcotton_ uses this time to get another coke
18:09:25 * bcotton_ is not sponsored by Coca-Cola, but can be bought
18:09:28 <mboddu> nirik: Yeah, I haven't paid attention to the bug, it should be there
18:09:31 * mboddu checks as well
18:09:56 <nirik> I think some of these can be fixed in kickstarts... or perhaps that would just expose the kvm/virt bug. :)
18:09:58 * Lailah already brought biscuits and coke
18:10:31 <pwhalen> nirik: even if the ks is fixed, they will likely fail until imagefactory is fixed
18:10:41 <zbyszek> Hmm, the kde-scientific failure is strange. 'dnf install eclipse-{egit,mpc,pde,pydev}' works fine in F33, with both updates-testing and not.
18:11:11 <nirik> zbyszek: modules? might be you get modular and the image doesn't?
18:12:12 <coremodule> coke =/= Coca-Cola in certain circles...
18:12:55 <Eighth_Doctor> I've always known Coke to mean Coca-Cola
18:13:10 <coremodule> Coke =/= coke
18:13:18 <zbyszek> nirik: no, I disabled modular repos, the result is the same.
18:13:26 <Lailah> coremodule:  We're healthy people, we don't do that another type of coke
18:13:54 <zbyszek> The other kind is only for heroics, and we said we're not doing that.
18:13:59 <Lailah> Also, originally Coca-Cola had coke in it so... not that far off.
18:14:05 <bcotton_> coremodule: i like to keep people guessing about what i mean when i say I had a "coke-fueled burst of productivity"
18:14:19 <Lailah> LOL
18:14:26 <coremodule> lol bcotton_++
18:14:42 <Lailah> bcotton:  That's brilliant!
18:14:45 <nirik> zbyszek: odd. then not sure whats going on.
18:15:24 <Lailah> zbyszek:  Is scientific lab still on?  I thought they took it down.
18:15:31 <bcotton_> Lailah: don't get used to it ;-)
18:15:57 <Lailah> bcotton:  Don't get used to coke or don't get use to your brilliance?
18:16:03 <sgallagh> Confirmed, it was an AD issue.
18:16:04 <mboddu> Lailah: Yeah, its still a thing
18:16:04 <bcotton_> Lailah: both, really
18:16:13 <bcotton_> hooray!
18:16:15 <mboddu> Uh oh
18:16:24 <sgallagh> So Fedora 33 AD support is fine
18:16:35 <cmurf> \o/
18:16:38 <bcotton_> #info Fedora 33 Beta AD support is fine
18:16:38 <Lailah> mboddu:  Great! I liked it even when I don't normally use it.
18:16:40 * nirik starts walking up the walkway to where the USS SHIPIT is docked.
18:16:50 <bcotton_> okay, let's get all NASA control room then
18:16:58 <bcotton_> #topic Go/No-Go decision
18:16:59 <bcotton_> I will poll each team. Please reply “go” or “no-go”
18:17:00 <zbyszek> nirik: hmm, I think I see. I removed eclipse-dltk-sh-5.11.0-1.fc31.noarch from my system, and now eclipse is uninstallable.
18:17:02 <bcotton_> FESCo?
18:17:05 <sgallagh> Go
18:17:08 <nirik> go
18:17:13 <bcotton_> #info FESCo is GO
18:17:17 <bcotton_> Releng?
18:17:27 <mboddu> Go
18:17:30 <bcotton_> #info RelEng is GO
18:17:31 <mboddu> go go go...
18:17:33 <bcotton_> QA?
18:17:44 <lruzicka> Go
18:17:49 <Lailah> Go
18:17:49 <sumantro> go
18:17:57 <bcotton_> #info QA is GO
18:18:07 <bcotton_> #agreed Fedora 33 Beta is GO
18:18:09 <bcotton_> #info Fedora 33 Beta will release on 2020-09-29
18:18:16 <Lailah> YES!
18:18:18 <nirik> mission control, we are go. over.
18:18:20 <frantisekz> thanks everybody for attending!
18:18:31 * bcotton_ nearly copypasta'ed the no-go text by accident. that would have been tragic
18:18:35 <zbyszek> \o/
18:18:38 <bcotton_> #action bcotton to announce decision
18:18:44 <Lailah> LOL
18:18:48 <bcotton_> #topic Open floor
18:18:49 <bcotton_> Anything else we need to discuss before closing?
18:19:01 <bcotton_> i think we covered it all in intermission, but
18:19:01 <lruzicka> I will update the common bugs tomorrow
18:19:05 <bcotton_> lruzicka++
18:19:14 <bcotton_> #action lruzicka to update commonbugs
18:19:30 <Lailah> Not that I can remember.  I have some pesky bugs but nothing worth the attention in a GO / NO GO meeting.
18:19:52 <mboddu> frantisekz: FYI, I am not pushing https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9725#comment-688133 since we will push all the stable updates that are on hold anyway before beta GA
18:19:55 <bcotton_> and just to make sure i don't lie in the email, the RC is 1.3, right?
18:19:59 <sgallagh> Thanks for the patience while I tied up that last loose end.
18:20:09 <lruzicka> bcotton_, yes
18:20:11 <frantisekz> mboddu: okay, thanks for letting me know :)
18:20:12 <bcotton_> sgallagh: thanks for subjecting yourself to it
18:20:15 <bcotton_> lruzicka: thanks
18:20:25 <mboddu> bcotton_: Yes
18:20:30 <Lailah> sgallagh:  no worries
18:20:36 <bcotton_> okay, well everyone take a deep breath. the window to final freeze is short!
18:20:38 * sgallagh goes to shower after dealing with Windows Server
18:20:42 <cmurf> bcotton_: what dates change? if any?
18:20:50 <bcotton_> none
18:21:05 <cmurf> ok yeah that's what i thought
18:21:20 <cmurf> so final freeze is in...
18:21:25 <bcotton_> a week and a half
18:21:26 <mboddu> 2 weeks
18:21:28 <Lailah> So we're still in schedule, right?
18:21:32 <Lailah> Dates didn't change
18:21:35 <sgallagh> Correct
18:21:41 <sgallagh> We hit our secondary Beta target date
18:21:42 <mboddu> Right
18:21:46 <bcotton_> #info Subsequent schedule milestones have not changed
18:21:48 <sgallagh> Which means we don't adjust the GA dates
18:21:48 <bcotton_> #link https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-33/f-33-key-tasks.html
18:22:02 <bcotton_> #info Final Freeze begins 6 October
18:22:03 <Southern_Gentlem> 10/20-10/27
18:22:05 <Lailah> sgallagh:  GA ?
18:22:07 <mboddu> sgallagh: Nope, we missed the secondary target date
18:22:16 <cmurf> i thought beta slipped twice
18:22:19 <bcotton_> mboddu: no, we missed the preferred and target date #1
18:22:24 <lruzicka> beta slipped twice
18:22:27 <sgallagh> Lailah: GA (General Availability) == Final
18:22:43 <sgallagh> Oh, my mistake
18:22:46 <zbyszek> nirik: so the eclipse snafu is fixed by the package in updates-testing.
18:23:04 <nirik> zbyszek: great. should fix up after the updates flood gates open again.
18:23:11 <zbyszek> Yep.
18:23:20 <mboddu> bcotton_: Ahh right, I assumed it wrong
18:23:20 <Lailah> oh, okay.  Thanks sgallagh
18:23:35 <bcotton_> alright, i'm going to call this done
18:23:38 <bcotton_> thanks everyone
18:23:39 <Southern_Gentlem> so it will be a zeroday for beta
18:23:45 <sgallagh> bcotton_++
18:23:49 <bcotton_> it was an adventure, but we did it!
18:23:57 <Lailah> bcotton_ ++
18:23:58 <bcotton_> #endmeeting