17:01:04 <jreznik> #startmeeting F21 Beta Go/No-Go meeting
17:01:04 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Oct 24 17:01:04 2014 UTC.  The chair is jreznik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:01:04 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:01:05 <jreznik> #meetingname F21 Beta Go/No-Go meeting
17:01:05 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f21_beta_go/no-go_meeting'
17:01:19 <jreznik> hi again!
17:01:22 <jreznik> #topic Roll Call
17:01:27 <roshi> .hello roshi
17:01:28 <zodbot> roshi: roshi 'Mike Ruckman' <mruckman@redhat.com>
17:01:47 * kparal lurks
17:02:02 <sgallagh> .hello sgallagh
17:02:04 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
17:02:25 * satellit listening
17:03:06 <jreznik> waiting for a moment...
17:03:09 * pwhalen lurks
17:03:10 <adamw> ahoy
17:03:15 <jreznik> #chair roshi kparal sgallagh adamw
17:03:15 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw jreznik kparal roshi sgallagh
17:04:18 <jreznik> #topic Purpose of this meeting
17:04:20 <jreznik> #info Purpose of this meeting is to see whether or not F21 Beta is ready for shipment, according to the release criteria.
17:04:21 <jreznik> #info This is determined in a few ways:
17:04:23 <jreznik> #info No remaining blocker bugs
17:04:24 <jreznik> #info Release candidate compose is available
17:04:26 <jreznik> #info Test matrices for Beta are fully completed
17:04:27 <jreznik> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/21/beta/buglist
17:04:29 <jreznik> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_21_Beta_RC1_Install
17:04:31 <jreznik> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_21_Beta_RC1_Base
17:04:32 <jreznik> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_21_Beta_RC1_Desktop
17:04:33 <jreznik> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_21_Beta_RC1_Server
17:04:56 <jreznik> #topic Current status
17:05:29 <adamw> so we can use some of QA's Highly Professional Tools to check status (har)
17:05:38 <jreznik> today, we have RC1 but there's a list of proposed blocker bugs we have to go through
17:05:53 <jreznik> adamw: any hint how to use that hi-tech tool?
17:06:02 <adamw> jreznik: well, first ze blockers
17:06:02 <adamw> https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/21/beta/buglist
17:06:19 <jreznik> it's already above :)
17:06:36 * kalev cringes at the list of blockers.
17:07:40 * Corey84 does too
17:08:02 <jreznik> 6 bugs in the queue of proposed blocker bugs
17:08:10 <Corey84> willing to help with the multipath as i use lvm
17:08:11 <sgallagh> #info 6 bugs in the queue of proposed blocker bugs
17:08:46 <jreznik> #info RC1 is available for release validation
17:08:52 <Corey84> 1154743 that is
17:09:16 <jreznik> let's move on to the mini blocker review before we can say go/no-go
17:09:36 <jreznik> roshi: may I ask you to lead it? to fulfil all process needs :)
17:09:36 <adamw> ayup
17:09:39 <sgallagh> For certain definitions of "mini"
17:09:44 <roshi> sure thing
17:10:05 <jreznik> thanks!
17:10:07 <roshi> first off
17:10:13 <roshi> #info http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria
17:10:27 <roshi> #topic (1155026) Missing addon results in a traceback when %addon header options are specified
17:10:30 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155026
17:10:32 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, MODIFIED
17:11:47 <adamw> so this one we determined should be fixable with updates
17:12:09 <kalev> I'll note that this is an accepted freeze exception and marked as fixed in the upcoming anaconda build, whenever that comes
17:12:10 <roshi> but you used *that* word
17:12:22 <adamw> the important thing isn't the version of anaconda in the *installation environment* but the version installed to the system, because that's what initial-setup uses when it runs. so long as the user gets a fixed anaconda from updates while installing it'll be fine
17:12:38 <roshi> -1
17:12:44 <jreznik> -1
17:12:52 <kalev> -1
17:12:59 <adamw> as the bug doesn't affect live images and we don't ship a DVD with KDE on it any more, I  couldn't think of a scenario where it matters what version of the anaconda package is on the media
17:13:21 * danofsatx has arrived
17:13:36 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1155026 - RejectedBlocker - As this bug can be fixed with updates there's no reason to block for it.
17:13:36 <kalev> and Workstation uses gnome-initial-setup which is unaffected
17:14:13 <adamw> right
17:14:13 <adamw> ack
17:14:17 <kalev> ack
17:14:31 <roshi> #agreed - 1155026 - RejectedBlocker - As this bug can be fixed with updates there's no reason to block for it.
17:14:42 * jreznik would really prefer force it in anaconda and no initial setups involved at all, we are not oem :)
17:14:47 <roshi> #topic (1155576) TypeError: must be string, not None
17:14:47 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155576
17:14:47 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST
17:14:52 <adamw> jreznik: i tried to sell that once, it didn't fly. there was some kind of good reason...
17:16:57 <Corey84> that one seems like user error to me
17:17:10 <roshi> this one could lead to some confused users
17:17:17 * jreznik is not sure he understands this bug
17:17:28 <adamw> it's not a user *error*
17:17:28 <Corey84> indeed but doesnt it still force at least one
17:17:36 <adamw> jreznik: aiui, go into the root pw spoke then leave without entering a password
17:17:43 <roshi> entering the root password spoke and not setting a password makes a crash
17:17:44 <adamw> that's not really an error, you maybe just changed your mind
17:17:54 <roshi> yeah
17:18:11 <adamw> it's kinda borderline for me, but i think if this was the last blocker we'd probably fudge it, so to be consistent i'll say -1 blocker, +1 FE, +1 Final blocker
17:18:13 <roshi> and a reasonable expectation is to be able to poke at things without setting anything
17:18:48 <jreznik> it's not nice behaviour but I don't see that need for Beta
17:18:53 <roshi> do we have a volunteer to secretarialize?
17:18:54 <adamw> it's a conditional violation so we have to make a subjective call on how 'significant' it is, i can probably be OK with this kind of bug being acceptable in beta but definitely should be fixed for final
17:18:57 <adamw> roshi: i'm doing it already
17:19:03 <roshi> sweet, thanks
17:19:06 <Corey84> but at least user should be forced even without root id think   I'm with adamw
17:19:09 <jreznik> -1 blocker/+1 FE
17:19:19 <kalev> -1 blocker / +1 FE
17:19:23 <jreznik> but definitely +1 final
17:19:59 <kalev> yes, installer tracebacks leave a really bad impression, so I wouldn't mind if we mark it as a final blocker now
17:20:35 <adamw> Corey84: you're required to create either a root pw or admin user, this is simply a crash, not a logic error
17:20:52 <CoreIT84> dc'd there   (formerly Corey84)
17:21:24 <roshi> proposed #agreed - AcceptedFreezeException AcceptedBlocker(Final) - While this bug is annoying, it's not quite enough to block for Beta. However, it is accepted as a blocker for Final. If a fix lands before Beat release, please pull it in.
17:21:55 <jreznik> ack
17:22:06 <adamw> ack
17:22:08 <kalev> ack
17:22:14 <roshi> #agreed - AcceptedFreezeException AcceptedBlocker(Final) - While this bug is annoying, it's not quite enough to block for Beta. However, it is accepted as a blocker for Final. If a fix lands before Beat release, please pull it in.
17:22:24 <roshi> #topic (1156354) ValueError: cannot modify protected device
17:22:24 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156354
17:22:24 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
17:23:37 <roshi> adamw and I already voted in the bug
17:23:47 <kalev> seems like a pretty clear blocker to me too, sadly
17:23:57 <jreznik> indeed
17:24:08 <CoreIT84> +1
17:24:12 <adamw> this is pretty +1, yeah. seems to be a complete showstopper for at least intel fwraid
17:24:39 <jreznik> +1
17:24:40 <kalev> +1
17:25:04 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1156354 - AcceptedBlocker - This is a clear violation of the Beta firmware raid criteria: "The installer must be able to detect and install to hardware or firmware RAID storage devices."
17:25:33 <jreznik> ack
17:25:38 <kalev> ack
17:25:57 <adamw> ack
17:25:58 <roshi> #agreed - 1156354 - AcceptedBlocker - This is a clear violation of the Beta firmware raid criteria: "The installer must be able to detect and install to hardware or firmware RAID storage devices."
17:26:02 <roshi> #topic (1154347) Anaconda fails to recognize local standard SATA disks after secure-erase
17:26:05 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154347
17:26:08 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, device-mapper-multipath, NEW
17:26:40 <roshi> probably can't pitch this as just a "Really Secure Erase - Makes even your drive disappear!" can we?
17:27:17 <adamw> it's all in the marketing, baby
17:27:37 <roshi> I think randomuser could work some magic with it
17:27:46 <CoreIT84> lol
17:27:51 <roshi> pass it off to the magazine, put some FPL sauce on it and we'd be good to go
17:27:58 <CoreIT84> secure erase == nwipe yes?
17:28:37 <kalev> puh, this is probably related to his hardware
17:28:45 <CoreIT84> ^ +1
17:28:58 <CoreIT84> sounds like a dying h/w case to me
17:29:13 <kalev> I'd say -1 blocker due to the fact that we haven't heard of this issue from other people, likely specific to his hardware
17:29:26 <adamw> i dunno how many people would do a secure erase like this
17:29:30 <adamw> it would be nice for someone else to test, though
17:29:49 <roshi> yeah, some testing would be good I think
17:30:06 <CoreIT84> I will attempt in vm tonight /tommorrow
17:30:25 <CoreIT84> i use nwipe and lvm / luksLVM regularly
17:30:26 <roshi> well, I guess the F20 anaconda could see those drives...
17:31:20 <kalev> "The disks are no longer secure-erased.  A complete linux system is installed on the drives, and even though the system has a complete/functional linux system installed, the Anaconda installer on the F21A DVD *STILL* will not recognize the drives."
17:31:42 <adamw> hum, hadn't seen that
17:31:48 <kalev> so it sounds like some other hardware specific issue, not related to secure erase at all
17:31:54 <CoreIT84> ^
17:32:03 <CoreIT84> or anaconda even
17:32:03 <adamw> still, maybe we should punt this for some input from anaconda folks
17:32:22 <roshi> +1 punt
17:32:25 <CoreIT84> +1 final -1 Blocker
17:32:29 <CoreIT84> +1 punt
17:32:36 <kalev> +1 punt
17:32:41 <roshi> though I feel like if anaconda was missing a bunch of drives all the time we'd have heard about it...
17:32:52 <adamw> (that's given that we're now slipping, with the previous bug - we have time to punt :>)
17:33:08 <kalev> or maybe +1 FE so that if the anaconda folks can pull this fix in for the next build if they want, but punt blocker status?
17:33:29 <CoreIT84> ^ im cool with that
17:33:30 <adamw> i can be +1 FE, sure, anaconda crashers are always bad
17:33:30 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1154347 - Punt - We're going to wait for some feedback from the anaconda team before determining blocker status.
17:33:39 * roshi amends
17:33:41 <kalev> +1 FE, +1 punt
17:33:50 <CoreIT84> ^
17:34:01 * jreznik is not very happy to grant +1 FE now like a blank FE without knowing what's the fix and how intrusive it will be
17:34:13 <jreznik> punt, -1 FE
17:34:56 <adamw> the bug's clearly that they're being misidentified as multipath for some reason
17:35:14 * kalev goes to get some more blueberry soup.
17:35:16 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1154347 - AcceptedFreezeException Punt - We're going to wait for some feedback from the anaconda team before determining blocker status. However, if a fix can be found beforehand pull it in to the next compose.
17:35:32 <roshi> wait, blueberry *soup*?
17:35:37 <roshi> o.O
17:35:43 * roshi has never heard of such a thing
17:36:08 <kalev> nom nom :)
17:36:25 <kalev> ack
17:36:33 <jreznik> ack
17:36:48 <sgallagh> kalev: Is that like blueberry pie without the crust? Is that a thing? That should totally be a thing.
17:36:56 <roshi> http://www.myrecipes.com/recipe/chilled-blueberry-soup
17:36:57 <kalev> sgallagh: almost, yes!
17:37:05 <adamw> ack
17:37:15 <roshi> #agreed - 1154347 - AcceptedFreezeException Punt - We're going to wait for some feedback from the anaconda team before determining blocker status. However, if a fix can be found beforehand pull it in to the next compose.
17:37:26 <roshi> #topic (1156380) 21 Beta RC1 live images cannot be written with 'livecd-iso-to-disk --format --reset-mbr --efi'
17:37:29 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156380
17:37:31 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, livecd-tools, NEW
17:37:42 <sgallagh> Obvious +1 blocker
17:37:46 <roshi> yeah
17:37:57 <roshi> I think we all ran into this at the same time this morning
17:38:10 <roshi> +1
17:38:26 <jreznik> +1
17:38:37 <CoreIT84> +1
17:38:48 <adamw> just to be clear, this isn't a  bug in livecd-iso-to-disk, it doesn't look like
17:38:55 <kalev> does it work with dd ?
17:39:03 <adamw> it seems to be a bug in image generation - the image generation bits are also in livecd-tools package
17:39:12 <adamw> yeah, i believe so
17:39:28 <kalev> if it was the only thing left, I'd be inclined to fudge this by saying to use dd instead
17:39:38 <kalev> but meh, we have the raid thing as well :(
17:40:04 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1156380 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the Beta boot criteria: "All release-blocking images must boot in their supported configurations."
17:40:40 <adamw> kalev: the criteria explicitly say that's not acceptable, we've been over it before and specifically decided we want all supported usb writing methods to work at beta
17:40:49 <adamw> ack
17:40:50 <kalev> fair enough
17:40:51 <kalev> ack
17:41:49 <roshi> #agreed - 1156380 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the Beta boot criteria: "All release-blocking images must boot in their supported configurations."
17:41:51 <roshi> #topic (1156378) SELinux denies package install for rolekit
17:41:54 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156378
17:41:57 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy, MODIFIED
17:42:47 <roshi> +1 blocker
17:43:06 <roshi> nice that there's already a fix too
17:43:11 * roshi likes those blockers
17:43:12 <jreznik> +1
17:43:15 <kalev> +1 blocker
17:44:10 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1156378 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the server roles beta criteria: "Release-blocking roles and the supported role configuration interfaces must meet the core functional Role Definition Requirements to the extent that supported roles can be successfully started, stopped, brought to a working configuration, and queried."
17:44:26 <jreznik> ack
17:44:41 <kalev> ack
17:44:45 <sgallagh> ack
17:44:47 <roshi> #agreed - 1156378 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of the server roles beta criteria: "Release-blocking roles and the supported role configuration interfaces must meet the core functional Role Definition Requirements to the extent that supported roles can be successfully started, stopped, brought to a working configuration, and queried."
17:44:54 <roshi> that's it for the proposed blockers
17:45:13 <roshi> there's 2 proposed FEs if we want to look at those as well
17:45:28 <adamw> ack
17:45:32 <jreznik> we are on it, why not
17:45:35 <adamw> not necessary for go/no-go purpsoes
17:45:41 <adamw> but if there's only 2
17:45:45 <jreznik> it's not neccesary but 2
17:45:46 <roshi> that's what I was thinking...
17:46:09 <kalev> sure, let's -- it's always nice to get some extra polish by pulling in FE fixes
17:46:17 <roshi> #topic (1155026) Missing addon results in a traceback when %addon header options are specified
17:46:20 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155026
17:46:22 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, MODIFIED
17:46:30 <roshi> we already looked at this one
17:46:37 <jreznik> yep
17:47:15 <roshi> no need for FE since updates fix it
17:48:29 <adamw> well, we could wave the FE wand at it to cover them fixing it along with the blocker bugs, so the fix is in updates
17:48:33 <roshi> unless I misunderstand something, I guess
17:48:34 <kalev> well, we _could_ +1 FE it, just to make sure the update is available
17:48:37 <adamw> right
17:48:56 <adamw> just say +1, i'll write something plausible. :P
17:49:02 <kalev> +1 FE
17:49:05 <roshi> works for me
17:49:06 <jreznik> +1 FE
17:49:39 <CoreIT84> agree there
17:49:58 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1155026 - AcceptedFreezeException - It would be good to get the fixed package into the repo for release.
17:50:25 <kalev> ack
17:50:46 <jreznik> ack
17:51:54 <roshi> #agreed - 1155026 - AcceptedFreezeException - It would be good to get the fixed package into the repo for release.
17:51:57 <roshi> #topic (1155756) NoSuchGroup: None
17:51:59 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155756
17:52:02 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, POST
17:52:50 <roshi> how common is not putting the packages you want in your kickstart?
17:53:07 <roshi> doesn't that kinda violate what a kickstart is for?
17:53:25 <adamw> no, it's just using a partial kickstart
17:53:28 <kalev> it's anaconda folks proposing it as FE, they know what they are doing -- I'd be +1 FE
17:53:55 <adamw> say you want to specify some other attribute of install like  the passwords and keyboard layout and storage config, but leave package selection up to the person running the install
17:54:20 <adamw> +1 FE, not a blocker but would be good to fix
17:54:22 <roshi> ah, that makes sense then
17:54:28 <sgallagh> Still kind of an edge case...
17:54:41 <jreznik> +1 FE
17:54:49 <sgallagh> I'm -1 FE. It's not a common enough behavior to break freeze on, IMGO
17:54:51 <sgallagh> *IMHO
17:54:55 <CoreIT84> +1 FE
17:55:12 <roshi> sorry sgallagh the +1s have it
17:55:21 <CoreIT84> -1 FE + 1 final rather
17:55:22 * roshi is +/- 0 on it
17:55:33 <sgallagh> You will rue the day! or something
17:55:39 <roshi> haha
17:55:50 <adamw> hm, i could be argued into it by sgallagh
17:55:58 * adamw wonders what the fix looks like
17:55:59 <roshi> well, we're 3+/2-
17:56:11 <roshi> not exactly consensus
17:56:29 <CoreIT84> but still majority
17:56:40 <roshi> or, behind door three: just leave this alone til Wednesday and get back to the Go/No-go meeting :)
17:56:54 <jreznik> so do we want to wait for fix?
17:57:00 <sgallagh> The point of Freeze Exception as I understand it is to fix issues that are either serious but not blockers or else things that cannot easily be resolved by an update. While this is *kind of* the latter, we still have Final to fix it.
17:57:01 <jreznik> roshi: yep
17:57:10 <adamw> it's adding a single if: line
17:57:23 <adamw> sgallagh: well, it's considered in the context of the milestone in question
17:57:36 <adamw> sgallagh: if we considered Final an 'update' to Beta we'd never accept anything as a freeze exception for Beta, would we?
17:57:51 <sgallagh> I didn't phrase that well
17:58:08 <CoreIT84> lol
17:58:22 <adamw> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/anaconda-patches/2014-October/014297.html is the fix, I believe.
17:58:31 <sgallagh> I basically mean that to me, this is a case of "Stick it in (un)Common Bugs" and don't break freeze.
17:58:44 <sgallagh> But as I've been outvoted already... *shrug*
17:58:50 <adamw> i don't see how anythting could Possibly Go Wrong
17:58:55 <kalev> well, having the fix in for Beta means that the fix gets better testing
17:59:00 <adamw> sgallagh: we usually aim for broad consensus here, not just a straight majority vote
17:59:08 <sgallagh> ok
17:59:08 <kalev> and even if there's a fallout, we'll be in a better position for Final
17:59:19 <adamw> and yeah, kalev's point is why i kinda want this one, because this is the kind of use case we want to catch further bugs in
17:59:25 <sgallagh> kalev: Unless the fallout causes Beta to slip further...
17:59:38 <kalev> well, in that case it's trivial to revert -- just a single if()
17:59:44 <roshi> yeah, sgallagh usually our votes aren't split :) if they are we go for more discussion/bribes/andstuff
18:00:04 <sgallagh> Bribes, did you say? ;-)
18:00:14 * jreznik accepts any bribe to vote with sgallagh
18:00:17 <kalev> this also enables further testing on the custom path that adamw described earlier: setting keyboard layout in the installer, but leaving package selection empty
18:00:19 * roshi said nothing :)
18:00:27 <kalev> err, setting keyboard layout in the ks
18:00:28 <sgallagh> jreznik: Have a single M&M
18:00:40 <roshi> I can lean +1 for this for the more testing
18:00:55 <roshi> though it feels kinda edge-casey to me in and of itself
18:01:21 <kalev> anyway, I don't feel particularly strongly either way
18:01:24 <adamw> i'm swayed by the fix looking *really* safe
18:01:26 <kalev> just playing the devil's advocate here :)
18:01:32 <adamw> it literally just checks if something exists before doing stuff to it
18:01:38 <roshi> yeah
18:01:48 <sgallagh> True enough
18:01:56 <CoreIT84> more a edge case indeed but big enough to cause ripples im sure
18:02:12 <roshi> you coming to the light side over here sgallagh ?
18:02:14 <sgallagh> Though I don't really have a sense of what the side-effect is of not having groups selected there.
18:02:54 <adamw> well, logically speaking, the change can only result in the groups being unselected *less* often. regardless of all other considerations.
18:03:02 <roshi> for clarity, votes again? then we can be done with this one
18:03:05 <adamw> so if you're worreid about that, the patch is making things better. ;)
18:03:17 <roshi> +1
18:03:30 <CoreIT84> +1
18:03:40 <sgallagh> Ok, I'm convinced that it's sufficiently unlikely to cause harm. +1
18:03:41 <adamw> +1
18:03:45 <kalev> +1
18:03:45 <jreznik> +1
18:03:51 <kalev> wohoo, consensus!
18:04:13 <sgallagh> And the steak dinner I was just promised in a PM had *nothing to do with it*
18:04:15 <sgallagh> <.<
18:04:17 <sgallagh> >.>
18:04:31 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1155756 - AcceptedFreezeException - As the fix is really simple and this helps facilitate more testing, please pull this in the next compose.
18:04:36 <jreznik> sgallagh: don't talk about dinner, /me is really getting hungry
18:04:38 <sgallagh> Ack
18:04:41 <kalev> ack
18:04:46 <jreznik> ack
18:04:48 <CoreIT84> ack
18:04:57 <roshi> #agreed - 1155756 - AcceptedFreezeException - As the fix is really simple and this helps facilitate more testing, please pull this in the next compose.
18:05:11 * roshi hands the meeting back to jreznik
18:05:23 * jreznik thanks roshi for great job
18:05:31 <jreznik> #topic Go/No-Go decision
18:05:46 <sgallagh> Obviously, blockers remain. No-Go.
18:05:50 <jreznik> as we have accepted unresolved blockers, let's go straight to go/no-go decision
18:06:03 <roshi> and empty cloud images to boot :)
18:06:32 <CoreIT84> lol
18:06:33 <CoreIT84> ng
18:07:17 <jreznik> roshi: how do we track this empty cloud images?
18:07:23 <CoreIT84> not much on the cloud images personally but still an issue indeed
18:07:41 <jreznik> proposal #agreed Fedora 21 Beta RC1 is no-go due to unresolved accepted blocker bugs
18:07:43 <adamw> did anyone hear from dgilmore yet?
18:07:44 <adamw> ack
18:07:46 <kalev> ack
18:07:57 <adamw> qa votes no-go due to outstanding blockers, as per our policy on votes in this meeting
18:08:00 <roshi> ack
18:08:19 <jreznik> #info qa votes no-go due to outstanding blockers, as per policy on votes in this meeting
18:08:24 <roshi> jreznik: dgilmore was going to look into it - there's talk going on about it in cloud now
18:08:35 <jreznik> #agreed Fedora 21 Beta RC1 is no-go due to unresolved accepted blocker bugs
18:08:37 <roshi> something with oz got borked or something
18:08:40 <adamw> maybe we should have a blocker bug to track the cloud issues
18:08:48 <roshi> I'll make one
18:08:58 <roshi> and just put it there as a blocker
18:09:03 <jreznik> adamw: yeah, I don't like this virtual blocker nobody really can see
18:09:12 <jreznik> roshi: thanks
18:09:26 <roshi> I won't let anyone forget the cloudy bits
18:09:36 <CoreIT84> -1 virtual blocker lets get tracker indeeed
18:09:50 <adamw> what if you get eaten by a raptor driving a bus in the CLOUD?
18:10:31 <roshi> if I get eaten by a cloud raptor, I'll make sure to give him the worst indigestion he's ever felt
18:11:18 <adamw> roshi: you can also juice your blocker stats this way! file the bug and mark all the cloud tests as failing
18:11:24 <adamw> instant multiplier
18:11:27 <jreznik> :D
18:11:35 <jreznik> ok, thank you guys for coming today
18:11:46 <adamw> so, we reset with a full week slip, right?
18:11:47 <roshi> I like being multiplier-ed
18:11:56 <roshi> sounds about right
18:11:59 <jreznik> and thanks for all the effort you put into RC1 testing
18:12:02 <sgallagh> adamw: Right, go/no-go for next Thursday
18:12:03 <jreznik> I'd say so
18:12:30 <sgallagh> Yes, thanks very much to the QA folks who worked entirely too late last night.
18:12:31 <jreznik> #action jreznik to announce slip
18:12:50 <CoreIT84> +1 slip
18:13:18 <sgallagh> CoreIT84: That's not really a vote. It's general policy if we vote no-go
18:13:25 <jreznik> #topic Open floor
18:13:39 <jreznik> anything else? otherwise I'll close this meeting
18:14:04 <adamw> please folks follow up on blockers, verify fixes, file karma etc
18:14:10 <jreznik> as now I'd eat raptor, any raptor I could catch from my couch
18:14:14 <adamw> it'd be good if we can get as many fixes as possible in today
18:14:27 <adamw> jreznik: you don't have Raptor Hut in czech?
18:14:37 <adamw> your raptor's delivered hot and fresh in 30 minutes or your money back
18:14:51 <kalev> ah, one thing I wanted to mention
18:15:07 <jreznik> 30 minuts, great delivery time!
18:15:14 <kalev> phoronix already posted a new that we had another slip
18:15:20 <adamw> who's the spy
18:15:26 <adamw> damnit larabel, i know you're in here
18:15:31 <kalev> might have been better to not send out an email yesterday about slipping
18:15:45 <jreznik> kalev: my fault, I wrote it in comments
18:15:47 <kalev> because we weren't really slipping yet at that point; only postponing Go/No-Go decision
18:16:02 <adamw> i mean, i really wanted to get on record how *AWESOME WE THINK PHORONIX IS*
18:16:10 <adamw> right folks? we all love phoronix! phoronix is great.
18:16:35 <kalev> the best!
18:16:57 <jreznik> heh, yesterday I read some PR about clouds - comparison of vps and they said "we used world-respected Phoronix Test Suite"
18:17:44 <jreznik> 3...
18:18:19 <jreznik> 2...
18:19:28 <roshi> cloud tracking bug: 1156603
18:19:29 <jreznik> 1...
18:19:35 <jreznik> thanks roshi
18:19:46 <jreznik> and thanks everyone again!
18:19:50 <jreznik> #endmeeting