15:00:52 <bcotton> #startmeeting Prioritized bugs and issues
15:00:52 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Sep 26 15:00:52 2018 UTC.
15:00:52 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
15:00:52 <zodbot> The chair is bcotton. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:52 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:00:52 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'prioritized_bugs_and_issues'
15:00:53 <bcotton> #meetingname Fedora Prioritized bugs and issues
15:00:53 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_prioritized_bugs_and_issues'
15:01:03 <bcotton> #topic Purpose of this meeting
15:01:05 <bcotton> #info The purpose of this process is to help with processing backlog of bugs and issues found during the development, verification and use of Fedora distribution.
15:01:06 <bcotton> #info The main goal is to raise visibility of bugs and issu
15:01:14 <bcotton> #undo
15:01:14 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by bcotton at 15:01:06 : The main goal is to raise visibility of bugs and issu
15:01:26 <bcotton> #info The main goal is to raise visibility of bugs and issues to help  contributors focus on the most important issues.
15:01:27 <bcotton> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/Prioritized_bugs_and_issues_-_the_process
15:01:34 <bcotton> #topic Roll Call
15:02:21 <mattdm> i'm here
15:02:31 <bcotton> hi, mattdm, i've missed you!
15:02:40 <mattdm> i know it's been so long
15:03:24 <bcotton> let's see if anyone else joins us today. the list is pretty short unless it's gotten longer since yesterday :-)
15:05:06 <bcotton> hokay
15:05:17 <bcotton> #topic Nominated bugs
15:05:18 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=POST&bug_status=MODIFIED&bug_status=ON_DEV&bug_status=ON_QA&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=RELEASE_PENDING&classification=Fedora&keywords=Triaged&keywords_type=nowords&list_id=9195844&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced&status_whiteboard=PrioritizedBug&status_whiteboard_type=allwords
15:05:20 <bcotton> just the one
15:05:30 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578494
15:05:31 <bcotton> #info 8 other open bugs with the same summary
15:05:39 <bcotton> #info deferred from previous meetings
15:05:41 <bcotton> #link https://retrace.fedoraproject.org/faf/problems/?component_names=PackageKit&associate=__None&type=core&daterange=2018-09-01%3A2018-09-30&bug_filter=None&function_names=&binary_names=&source_file_names=&since_version=&since_release=&to_version=&to_release=
15:06:13 <bcotton> so this one seems sort of related to 1631533, which was rejected as a blocker for F29 final. but everyone agrees it's ugly
15:08:00 <mattdm> we still need a good reproducer
15:08:24 <bcotton> agreed
15:08:53 <bcotton> we've already deferred it twice, so i'm inclined to say we reject it and it can be re-nominated if someone comes up with a good reproducer
15:09:00 <mattdm> maybe now that the beta is out the door we can ask qa to see if they can investigate?
15:09:14 <bcotton> adamw: are you awake yet?
15:09:19 <adamw> no
15:09:23 <bcotton> dang
15:09:36 <adamw> what's up?
15:09:53 <bcotton> talking about https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578494 and whether or not it gets the Prioritized stamp
15:10:21 <bcotton> it seems related to the other "i can't run multiple package transations at once" bugs, but we don't seem to have a good reproducer. is this something QA can dig into more?
15:10:38 <adamw> oh look a package manager crashed? that's unpossible
15:10:47 <bcotton> my inclination is to give this an approval or rejection in this meeting instead of punting on it a third time
15:12:24 <adamw> i'm having a look at it now
15:15:37 <mattdm> should we go on to other tickets while adam looks?
15:15:38 <adamw> welp. from a quick look i think this likely always happens outside of an actual package transaction, so it's "just" a crash...
15:15:46 <adamw> but might be good to get hughsie to confirm that
15:17:05 <bcotton> the other thing to note is that the person who requested PrioritizedBug status still hasn't said what it crashing actually means to him, apart from the fact that it crashes
15:17:24 <adamw> from the backtrace...huh. repo_internalize_trigger is passed one arg, 'repo', which in this case exists. then it does this:
15:17:29 <adamw> auto hrepo = static_cast<HyRepo>(repo->appdata);
15:17:38 <adamw> which in this case seems to wind up with hrepo being null.
15:18:11 <mattdm> I mean, core system infrastructure stuff like this should not be crashing as a matter of course
15:18:46 <adamw> yeah.
15:19:03 <adamw> there's the question of exactly what the consequences are for e.g. gnome-software and update notifications and things if packagekitd crashes liek this
15:19:14 <adamw> i don't know offhand the circumstances under which it'd get automatically restarted
15:19:29 <adamw> but...there are *other* crasher bugs in packagekitd. are we gonna prioritize 'em all?
15:19:39 <mattdm> yeah; if it doesn't get restarted, that's arguably a security bug
15:19:41 <adamw> my immediate inclination would be -1 or you're risking over-diluting the process.
15:19:49 <mattdm> beacuse people will miss "your system needs updating" notices
15:19:57 <adamw> i mean, arguably. it's a bit of a stretch.
15:20:49 <mattdm> yeah let's go with "rejected blocker, but we're working with the DNF team to prioritize robustness in general, which this falls under"
15:20:49 <bcotton> i'm also at -1 (without prejudice, as the lawyers would say)
15:20:50 <kalev> I'd love it if someone could get the libdnf team to debug it, because I've tried to look into this crash and just got lost in libdnf code
15:21:02 <kalev> there's 5 million dupes of this in bugzilla
15:22:00 <bcotton> proposed #agreed BZ 1578494 is rejected as a PrioritizedBug. It can be re-nominated with a reproducer or if the impact is more severe
15:22:01 <mattdm> kalev: dupes of that one, or things that look similar?
15:22:35 <kalev> mattdm: lots of bugs where packagekit crashes in repo_internalize_trigger
15:23:53 <adamw> kalev: i mean, the dumb trivial solution is "have repo_internalize_trigger check whether hrepo exists after the cast", no?
15:24:03 <adamw> you could send a pr that does that, and see if it triggers them into finding the real fix. :P
15:24:18 <adamw> or i could...heh
15:25:10 <kalev> sure :)
15:25:41 <bcotton> okay, well no one has complained about my wording, so i'mma stamp it
15:25:43 <adamw> mattdm: https://www.google.com/search?q=repo_internalize_trigger+site%3Abugzilla.redhat.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab
15:25:48 <adamw> it seems quite likely those are all the same
15:25:52 <adamw> or at least lots of them
15:26:27 * adamw will do a dupe run
15:26:33 <bcotton> #agreed BZ 1578494 is rejected as a PrioritizedBug. It can be re-nominated with a reproducer or if the impact is more severe
15:26:40 <bcotton> good news. that was the only new one
15:26:54 <bcotton> so we'll do a quick flyby of the existing prioritized bugs and maybe even finish ahead of schedule
15:27:13 <bcotton> #topic Accepted bugs
15:27:15 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=POST&bug_status=MODIFIED&bug_status=ON_DEV&bug_status=ON_QA&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=RELEASE_PENDING&classification=Fedora&keywords=Triaged&keywords_type=allwords&list_id=9195442&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced&status_whiteboard=PrioritizedBug&status_whiteboard_type=allwords
15:27:25 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336435
15:27:26 <bcotton> #info BZ 13364535 was accepted on 2017-08-02
15:27:32 <bcotton> #info assignee has made no comments since needinfo flag was set on 2017-09-27
15:27:33 <bcotton> #info Upstream bug has had no activity in the last year
15:27:37 <bcotton> #link https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-software/issues/116
15:27:50 <bcotton> mattdm, you were going to follow up with Richard to update this?
15:28:25 <mattdm> yes but i haven't.
15:28:38 <mattdm> can i have one more meeting, please? :)
15:28:42 <bcotton> #action mattdm to follow up with Richard Hughes to update this bug
15:28:47 <bcotton> only because i like you :-)
15:28:58 <bcotton> next!
15:29:01 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385432
15:29:02 <bcotton> #info BZ 1385432 was accepted on 2017-05-25
15:29:05 <bcotton> #info assignee has made no comments since needinfo flag was set on 2018-08-02
15:29:20 <bcotton> mattdm: you were going to escalate this one internally. i think i saw that email?
15:30:29 * mattdm waits for bug to load
15:30:57 <mattdm> yeah. i guess i need to follow up on that again because not sure anything happened
15:31:23 <bcotton> i read this one yesterday and if anything i'm more confused than ever. it doesn't seem like anyone agrees where the problem is
15:31:34 <bcotton> but i'll #action you to follow up on your escalation
15:31:43 <mattdm> yeah. doing that right now.
15:31:52 <bcotton> #action mattdm to follow up on his internal escalation of this issue
15:32:03 <mattdm> yeah, the problem is that every team seems to point to the other one, and no one will take ownership
15:32:06 <mattdm> yet the problem persists.
15:32:26 <bcotton> you'd think if the buck gets passed often enough, it would just disappear :-)
15:32:42 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306992
15:32:43 <bcotton> #info BZ 1306992 was accepted on 2018-08-29
15:33:27 <bcotton> no movement on this one, but i think we can give it one more meeting before we start pushing. it's at least partially solved at this point
15:34:19 <mattdm> yeah there was some discussion on solutions so let's give it a little time
15:35:12 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548586
15:35:13 <bcotton> #info BZ 1548586 was accepted on 2018-06-11
15:35:15 <bcotton> #info fixed version in dnf 3.0 COPR, but not available in Fedora yet
15:35:33 <bcotton> #info We want the fix backported to F28, which does not appear to have happened
15:36:02 <bcotton> i can follow up with daniel about fixing it in f28
15:36:46 <mattdm> yes please. thanks
15:37:13 <bcotton> #action bcotton to follow up with Daniel Mach on fixing BZ 154856 in F28
15:37:27 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558485
15:37:28 <bcotton> #info BZ 1558485 was accepted on 2018-08-02
15:37:29 <bcotton> #info Fedora overrides this with a config setting
15:37:48 <bcotton> since we override this with a config, i think we can call this resolved for the purposes of PrioritizedBug status
15:39:24 <mattdm> +1
15:40:40 <bcotton> #agreed BZ 1558485 is considered resolved for the purpoes of PrioritizedBug status, since Fedora ships with a config that overrides the upstream issue
15:40:54 <bcotton> and that, my friends, is the end of the list
15:41:39 <mattdm> thank you bcotton!
15:41:46 <bcotton> #topic Next meeting
15:41:47 <bcotton> #info The next meeting is 10 October at 1500 UTC in #fedora-meeting
15:41:55 <mattdm> see you then!
15:42:19 <bcotton> anything else before i bang the gavel?
15:43:04 <bcotton> too late!
15:43:06 <bcotton> #endmeeting