14:00:35 #startmeeting Prioritized bugs and issues 14:00:36 Meeting started Wed Aug 29 14:00:35 2018 UTC. 14:00:36 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 14:00:36 The chair is bcotton. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:00:36 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 14:00:36 The meeting name has been set to 'prioritized_bugs_and_issues' 14:00:45 #meetingname Fedora Prioritized bugs and issues 14:00:46 The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_prioritized_bugs_and_issues' 14:00:54 #topic Purpose of this meeting 14:01:05 #info The purpose of this process is to help with processing backlog of bugs and issues found during the development, verification and use of Fedora distribution. 14:01:07 #info The main goal is to raise visibility of bugs and issues to help contributors focus on the most important issues. 14:01:13 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/Prioritized_bugs_and_issues_-_the_process 14:01:20 #topic Roll Call 14:01:36 * jsmith is here, but lurking (due to work meetings) 14:02:57 hello, jsmith 14:03:45 * zbyszek is here just in case 14:03:52 we'll give folks another moment to wander in 14:03:59 hello, zbyszek 14:04:04 hi 14:04:07 hello! 14:04:19 sorry, i dunno what's up with this -2 business :) 14:04:36 don't worry, it'll move for subsequent meetings (spoiler alert) 14:05:30 heh 14:05:33 okay, let's get started 14:05:39 #topic Nominated bugs 14:05:48 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=POST&bug_status=MODIFIED&bug_status=ON_DEV&bug_status=ON_QA&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=RELEASE_PENDING&classification=Fedora&keywords=Triaged&keywords_type=nowords&list_id=9195844&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced&status_whiteboard=PrioritizedBug&status_whiteboard_type=allwords 14:05:59 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026119 14:06:00 #info deferred from previous meeting 14:06:01 #info reporter says behavior has gone away on some F28 systems and persists on others. 14:06:41 zbyszek: thanks for the update here 14:06:56 zbyszek++ 14:06:56 bcotton: Karma for zbyszek changed to 12 (for the current release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 14:07:03 zbyszek++ 14:07:03 mattdm: Karma for zbyszek changed to 13 (for the current release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 14:07:17 zbyszek is raking in the karma today :-) 14:07:30 That's what I'm here for ;) 14:07:40 i'm inclined to vote reject on this one 14:07:41 zbyszek: soooo, is there an upstream fix for this, or something someone in Fedora can work on? 14:08:17 No, no fix. It's something that could be written, but would require working on the core of pid1, to make the dependency scheme a bit different. 14:08:25 So an interesting project, but non-trivial. 14:08:37 At least that's my understanding of the issue. 14:09:34 Okay so, proposal coming give me a sec :) 14:10:27 #proposal The effects of this are just cosmetic, but it's still a real bug. Unfortunately, the fix is non-trivial. We recommend closing this as upstream (and making sure an upstream bug is filed so the issue can eventually be addressed). 14:12:05 +1 14:12:24 +1 from me 14:12:31 (I'm +1 to my own proposal fwiw) 14:12:35 zbyszek? 14:12:49 works for me 14:13:02 The followup question is: *is* there an existing upstream bug report? 14:13:34 #agreed The effects of BZ 1026119 are just cosmetic, but it's still a real bug. Unfortunately, the fix is non-trivial. We recommend closing this as upstream (and making sure an upstream bug is filed so the issue can eventually be addressed). 14:13:51 I don't think so. So probably this Fedora bug shouuldn't be closed, unless somebody wants to spend time copying the comments and all info. 14:14:15 or just link to the RHBZ from upstream? 14:14:49 There isn't a big split between upstream and Fedora, so it's better to just keep the Fedora bug open. 14:14:55 ok 14:15:14 but we all agree that it's not a PrioritizedBug 14:15:39 yah, and I guess we should revise the proposal if zbyszek doesn't want it closed 14:15:47 #undo 14:15:47 Removing item from minutes: AGREED by bcotton at 14:13:34 : The effects of BZ 1026119 are just cosmetic, but it's still a real bug. Unfortunately, the fix is non-trivial. We recommend closing this as upstream (and making sure an upstream bug is filed so the issue can eventually be addressed). 14:16:47 #propsal The effects of BZ 1026119 are just cosmetic, but it's still a real bug. Unfortunately, the fix is non-trivial. We reject it as a PrioritizedBug and suggest the reporter file an issue upstream 14:16:47 last sentence to "systemd developers recommend leaving bug open so it can be tracked and eventually addressed, but we're removing this from the prioritized bug list."? 14:16:49 ? 14:17:19 If upstream isn't really making a strong distinction and is following fedora bugs in the rh bugzilla, no point in making them refile 14:17:45 #undo 14:17:45 Removing item from minutes: INFO by bcotton at 14:06:01 : reporter says behavior has gone away on some F28 systems and persists on others. 14:17:52 okay, let's give this one last try 14:18:14 #proposal The effects of BZ 1026119 are just cosmetic, but it's still a real bug. Unfortunately, the fix is non-trivial. systemd developers recommend leaving bug open so it can be tracked and eventually addressed, but we're removing this from the prioritized bug list. 14:18:25 (this time with "proposal" spelled correctly) 14:18:55 +1 14:19:26 looks good 14:20:11 #agreed The effects of BZ 1026119 are just cosmetic, but it's still a real bug. Unfortunately, the fix is non-trivial. systemd developers recommend leaving bug open so it can be tracked and eventually addressed, but we're removing this from the prioritized bug list. 14:20:23 okay, next! 14:20:27 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1575281 14:20:29 #info deferred from previous meeting to get input from Workstation WG 14:20:30 #info Workstation WG is weakly in favor of accepting 14:20:47 What does "weakly" mean? 14:21:29 I mean, prioritized bugs can't _really_ be weakly accepted. Either someone is gonna be committed to working on it, or not 14:21:42 #link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UUW6P4BYFZABAK5ZBFQD3MUNMHB7ZGYC/ 14:22:18 summary: they (read: michael) made an argument for including it, but didn't sound enthusiastic about it 14:23:44 I'm not experiencing this. 14:24:00 (although I am on xorg for $reasons) 14:24:28 FWIW, I *am* experiencing something similar, but just a second or two, which is noticable, but not unpleasant enough to really matter 14:25:12 i use KDE so i can't speak to it 14:25:26 I feel like this belongs on a "desktop polish" list rather than the prioritized bugs list 14:25:40 and I feel like the desktop team should keep that list, not us :) 14:25:53 excellent delegation :-) 14:26:32 We tend to have a lot of desktop issues on the prioritized lists, and I'd like to reserve that for things where I feel good about pulling strings and asking for shifted priorities 14:26:52 #proposal BZ 1575281 is rejected as a PrioritizedBug 14:26:57 and while I don't dispute that polish like this is important, I have a hard time asking to have people pulled from other work for it 14:27:30 I'll ask the Workstation WG about keeping a "desktop polish" list 14:29:34 mattdm, zbyszek, jsmith: any objection to rejecting BZ 1575281? 14:30:14 I don't have an opinion, I don't know what resources are available 14:30:22 oh sorry I'm +1 to that 14:30:30 +1 to rejecting :) 14:30:57 sounds good enough to me 14:31:01 #agreed BZ 1575281 is rejected as a PrioritizedBug 14:31:17 #action mattdm to ask the Workstation WG about keeping a "desktop polish" list 14:31:37 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306992 14:31:38 #info re-opened bug previously marked fixed 14:33:07 FWIW, I think a tmpfiles.d path should *always* be included for caches 14:33:27 Essentially, even if the program in question cleans up properly, it can only do cleanup if is is running. 14:33:49 zbyszek: that's a good idea 14:34:07 So for the case where the user uninstalls or disables a program, and also for the case where the cleanup malfunctions for whatever reason, there should be delayed tmpfiles.d cleanup scheduled. 14:34:15 Belt and suspenders. 14:34:25 The same thing came up with dnf in the past. 14:34:31 And with yum before that. 14:35:36 so would that be a change to the packaging guidelines? 14:35:41 Ah, from bodhi: 14:35:43 " 14:35:45 PackageKit 1.1.9 adds basic cache cleanup, removing old cache directories for previous release versions (24, 25, 26 etc) when running on Fedora 27 -- something that people have been asking for a while. (There's more cache cleanup fixes to follow in the future, this is just a first step.) 14:35:47 " 14:36:50 bcotton: I wouldn't put this in the guidelines, because what needs to be done is different for every daemon, and there's just a few of them. 14:37:00 zbyszek: okay makes sense 14:37:58 so if i understand the current state of this bug, it's not relevant anymore if old releases were what's filling up the cache, but it's still possible to hit it with the cache from the current release 14:38:10 yeah, that's my understanding too 14:38:43 zbyszek: in thinking about it more, I'm worried about a too-aggressive tmpfiles.d approach causing a lot of duplicate downloads 14:38:46 having PackageKit executing a slow-burn DoS against users hard drives seems bad 14:39:40 mattdm: I'd put it at 1 month or so. If nothing accesses the file within one month, delete it. 14:41:15 so how do we want to proceed with this particular bug? 14:41:40 bcotton I left a note in the bug. I'll also bring the tmpwatch suggestion to hughsie 14:41:46 i mean tmpfiles.d 14:41:58 It sounds like the fix currently in packagekit is enough to reject it as prioritized 14:42:27 zbyszek: I don't think so. the concern I have is machines that get rebooted for updates on, say, a monthly schedule 14:42:38 these will accumulate a lot of cruft 14:42:49 maybe the current fix *plus* tmpfiles.d 14:44:11 #proposal BZ 1306992 is rejected as a PrioritzedBug but can be re-nominated in the future if subsequent PackageKit releases do not address the "current-release fills the filesystem" scenario 14:44:49 I'm -0.5 ... I'd like to keep it on the radar 14:45:52 does that mean accepting or deferring for 2 weeks? 14:46:16 did it get unaccepted? If so it means putting it back to accepted 14:46:34 it's currently neither accepted nor rejected 14:46:56 okay, so, I guess I'm for putting it to accepted 14:47:08 okay 14:47:27 #proposal BZ 1306992 is accepted as a PrioritizedBug 14:47:32 +1 14:47:32 i am +1 to accepting 14:47:39 zbyszek, jsmith? 14:47:53 +1 14:47:55 +1 to the proposal 14:48:05 #agreed BZ 1306992 is accepted as a PrioritizedBug 14:48:20 okay, that's all the candidate bugs 14:48:31 but we have a few bugs that have been on the list for a while with no movement 14:48:35 (Sorry for the latency, juggling two things and work plus IRC meetings) 14:49:16 #topic Accepted bugs 14:49:17 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=POST&bug_status=MODIFIED&bug_status=ON_DEV&bug_status=ON_QA&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=RELEASE_PENDING&classification=Fedora&keywords=Triaged&keywords_type=allwords&list_id=9195442&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced&status_whiteboard=PrioritizedBug&status_whiteboard_type=allwords 14:49:25 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556790 14:49:27 #info BZ 1556790 was accepted on 2018-04-25 14:49:28 #info assignee has made no comments and needinfo flag remains set from 2018-08-02 14:49:35 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336435 14:49:37 #info BZ 13364535 was accepted on 2017-08-02 14:49:38 #info assignee has made no comments since needinfo flag was set on 2017-09-27 14:49:43 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385432 14:49:44 #info BZ 1385432 was accepted on 2017-05-25 14:49:46 #info assignee has made no comments since needinfo flag was set on 2018-08-02 14:49:54 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563674 14:49:56 #info BZ 1563674 was accepted on 2018-08-01 14:49:57 #info assignee has made no comments since needinfo flag was set on 2018-06-06 14:50:22 so here's where our process is weak: what do we do with PrioritizedBugs that don't get actual priority? 14:51:09 bcotton: you and I, or relevant WG members, are supposed to round up help. 14:52:01 FWIW I think #1556790 should be removed because the WG removed the auto-suspend behavior 14:52:50 mattdm: have a reference link handy for the auto-suspend removal? 14:53:45 bcotton: not handy no :( 14:54:05 mclasen: do you have a reference to the plans for auto-suspend at hand? 14:54:11 topic is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556790 14:54:26 * mclasen should stop idling in meeting channels 14:54:27 which I recommend removing from prioritized list if we're not auto-suspending by default 14:54:42 mclasen: I thought you were doing it on purpose to be helpful 14:55:09 It's incredibly useful to have someone from desktop team available for this meeting 14:55:15 even if usually the whole thing isn't of interest 14:55:24 this is an f28 bug... 14:55:27 is there someone else who would be better? 14:55:45 mclasen: yes, f28 is the current release 14:55:58 I don't even know what this meeting is, and what prioritized bugs are, so my usefulness is offset by my cluelessness 14:56:37 in any case, there's no active plans around automatic suspend that I am aware of 14:56:51 This is a process for getting attention to important *non blocker* bugs 14:56:56 we tried it for f28, and were forced to revert. I don't think it has been revisited 14:57:06 mclasen: do you have a link to the revert decision? 14:57:14 so i see this https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/42#comment-504425 14:57:18 getting attention ... of people idling in this channel ? 14:57:46 mclasen: getting attention of people who can address the problems we identify as high impact 14:58:53 #proposal Remove BZ 1556790 from PrioritzedBugs since auto-suspend was removed by Workstation WG per https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/42#comment-504425 14:58:58 +1 14:59:03 +1 14:59:06 I have another meeting I need to run to 14:59:14 bcotton: we can talk more about process here later 14:59:26 It looks like https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/mutter/merge_requests/54 would solve the bug properly 14:59:38 mattdm: sounds good. in the meantime, i'll start pestering non-responsive assignees out-of-band to see if that gets a reaction 14:59:47 It was merged 5 months ago, not sure in what release it ended up. 14:59:47 #action bcotton to followup with non-responsive assignees 14:59:59 +1 to the proposal 15:00:34 #agreed Remove BZ 1556790 from PrioritzedBugs since auto-suspend was removed by Workstation WG per https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/42#comment-504425 15:00:42 #topic Next meeting 15:00:43 #info Meeting time has been changed to 1500 UTC in #fedora-meeting 15:00:58 okay, that's all the time we have. thanks everyone! 15:01:03 #endmeeting