17:49:32 <adamw> #startmeeting f18beta-blocker-review-6.5 17:49:32 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Nov 1 17:49:32 2012 UTC. The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:49:32 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:49:37 <adamw> #meetingname f18beta-blocker-review-6.5 17:49:37 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f18beta-blocker-review-6.5' 17:49:43 <adamw> #topic Roll Call 17:49:53 <adamw> who's around to finish up blocker review from yesterday? 17:49:55 * nirik is lurking, ping if I can help with anything. 17:51:23 * jreznik is here, but dinner and go/no-go action item... 17:51:40 <adamw> Viking-Ice: ping 17:52:07 <adamw> bit short on numbers :/ 17:53:01 <Viking-Ice> yeah we at least need the minimum for like usual ;) 17:53:08 <Viking-Ice> for ==four 17:53:26 <adamw> well we've got you, me, nirik and jreznik i guess 17:53:35 <Viking-Ice> there must be more people active here on this channel 17:53:44 <adamw> you'd think 17:53:50 <adamw> well let's give it a shot anyway 17:54:08 <nonamedotc> some are staring ;) 17:54:24 <adamw> i don't have tflink's script handy so let's just dive into the proposed blockers - we have 4 new ones since yesterday to look at 17:54:57 <adamw> #topic (872044) Fedup build does not exist in F17 17:55:04 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872044 17:55:21 <Viking-Ice> +1 nth as we did with systemd yesterday 17:55:34 <adamw> well, this one's clearer 17:55:44 <adamw> we _need_ fedup packages to do the testing 17:56:01 <adamw> i'd say +1 'special' blocker - 'special' because it's one of those cases where the bug is in the previous release 17:56:06 <adamw> so it just needs to be pushed stable by release date 17:56:44 <adamw> nth for the previous release doesn't make any sense because there's no freeze on f17 :) 17:56:50 <Viking-Ice> true 17:57:28 <adamw> so i think the options here are 'special blocker' or nothing 17:57:32 <Viking-Ice> actually I think it would be safe to push it to stable since it wont "harm" the release it's an new package 17:57:47 <Viking-Ice> nothing is kinda the thing to go here 17:58:02 * nirik votes nothing. 17:58:02 <adamw> sure, it's just the question of do we say f18 beta release requires that it be pushed stable before beta release. 17:58:15 <jreznik> well, it's out of the process to put f17 package 17:58:24 <jreznik> adamw: for Beta, sure 17:58:30 <Viking-Ice> we should just vote nothing and karma up that thing 17:58:33 * nirik isn't sure we should require that. 17:58:53 <nirik> anyone testing upgrades would be able to get it from testing if it's still in there, no? 17:59:24 <Viking-Ice> that to yes but the other thing would ensure it was in stable 17:59:49 <Viking-Ice> but given that this is beta arguably it belongs in updates-testing 17:59:54 <nirik> yeah. 18:00:06 <Viking-Ice> in anycase this is not a blocker for beta 18:00:09 <nirik> I mean if it goes stable thats fine... 18:00:14 <adamw> jreznik: we have a process for handling these, which is why i referred to 'special' blockers 18:00:22 <adamw> jreznik: it comes up in other contexts - it's usually with livecd-tools 18:00:24 <jreznik> adamw: sorry, I did not know 18:00:27 <tflink> I mostly proposed it for tracking 18:00:35 <adamw> say we need to fix livecd-iso-to-disk in f17 for writing f18 images 18:00:56 <adamw> i don't mind going with -1 on the basis that grabbing a package from updates-testing to test upgrades is really no hassle, though. 18:01:07 <Viking-Ice> I'm -q 18:01:07 <adamw> #chair tflink 18:01:07 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw tflink 18:01:13 <adamw> tflink: do you want to take over? 18:01:14 <Viking-Ice> I'm -1 I mean 18:01:19 <adamw> you probably have all your scripty things 18:01:42 * nirik is also -1 18:01:55 <tflink> adamw: that script is mostly generated by the tracking app now 18:03:12 <adamw> propose #agreed 872044 - rejectedblocker - we don't really need to block the f18 beta release on this going to stable, even if it stays in updates-testing it's okay 18:03:18 <Viking-Ice> ack 18:03:22 <nirik> ack 18:03:52 <tflink> ack 18:04:04 <adamw> #agreed 872044 - rejectedblocker - we don't really need to block the f18 beta release on this going to stable, even if it stays in updates-testing it's okay 18:04:29 <tflink> #topic (872047) fedup-dracut builds do not exist in F18 18:04:29 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872047 18:04:29 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, fedup-dracut, NEW 18:04:29 <adamw> tflink: how do i get it out of the webapp? 18:04:35 <adamw> tflink: oh, pm is fine 18:04:54 <tflink> adamw: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/18/beta/irc 18:05:38 <adamw> ah, sekrit link! 18:06:08 <Viking-Ice> +1 blocker we just need releng to pull it in 18:06:22 <adamw> yeah, this looks like the one that ought to be a blocker 18:07:00 <adamw> +1 18:07:30 <tflink> +1 18:09:00 * tflink was waiting for more votes, missed Viking-Ice's 18:09:16 <Viking-Ice> tflink, btw while you where away adamw and I kinda agreed to start saving final proposed blockers as soon as we are done with the beta once ;) 18:09:24 <Viking-Ice> I was the first one to vote? 18:09:27 <adamw> since we all love blocker meetings so much 18:09:41 <jreznik> +1 18:10:00 <tflink> proposed #agreed 872047 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 beta release criterion: "For each one of the release-blocking package sets ('minimal', and the package sets for each one of the release-blocking desktops), it must be possible to successfully complete an upgrade from a fully updated installation of the previous stable Fedora release with that package set installed, using any officially recommended upgrade mechanisms. The upgraded system 18:10:10 <tflink> damnation, that's too long again, isn't it? 18:10:12 <jreznik> loong 18:10:19 <jreznik> vehicle 18:10:55 <tflink> proposed #agreed 872047 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 beta release criterion: "...it must be possible to successfully complete an upgrade from a fully updated installation of the previous stable Fedora release with that package set installed, using any officially recommended upgrade mechanisms. The upgraded system must meet all release criteria." 18:11:02 <tflink> is that short enough? 18:11:06 <adamw> ack 18:11:14 <jreznik> ack 18:11:14 <adamw> yes 18:12:22 <tflink> any more ack? 18:12:40 <tflink> #agreed 872047 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 beta release criterion: "...it must be possible to successfully complete an upgrade from a fully updated installation of the previous stable Fedora release with that package set installed, using any officially recommended upgrade mechanisms. The upgraded system must meet all release criteria." 18:13:07 <tflink> #topic (872272) Shim is not currently signed. 18:13:07 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872272 18:13:07 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, shim, NEW 18:13:12 <Viking-Ice> ack 18:13:29 <Viking-Ice> -1 blocker -1 nth 18:14:17 <tflink> well, that's nice and descriptive 18:14:19 <Viking-Ice> the amount of hw wildly in the open that has sb not so much at the moment 18:14:39 <adamw> Viking-Ice: um. win8 was released this week. there's machines in every store in every land with SB now 18:15:25 <adamw> so this is a conditional violation of "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media when written to an optical disc and when written to a USB stick with at least one of the officially supported methods", the condition being 'SB-enabled machine if you don't disable SB' 18:15:46 <tflink> I'm not so sure about that being blocker 18:15:51 <Viking-Ice> adamw, you reject my graphic bug on not being common enough 18:15:54 <tflink> NTH, maybe but not blocker 18:16:03 <adamw> of course, it's also part of a feature, so FESCo can say they're pushing the release for the feature if they like 18:16:10 <adamw> Viking-Ice: not saying I'm +1, just a correction 18:16:21 <adamw> i'm probably -1 blocker +1 nth 18:16:56 <tflink> so it sounds like we're -1 blocker, +2/-1 NTH 18:16:59 <adamw> i guess we should give pjones a platform 18:17:05 <Viking-Ice> we can consider this as an final blocker certainly not beta ( which would not be deployed on users shiny new windows 8 hw anyway 18:17:06 <Viking-Ice> ) 18:17:34 <tflink> from a practical point of view, it's harder to get testing if it isn't in beta 18:17:39 <adamw> Viking-Ice: i think the idea is so we can *test* it in the beta. 18:18:00 <Viking-Ice> we should test it in final 18:18:01 <adamw> but that shouldn't really be a huge showstopper 18:18:06 <jreznik> -1 blocker, +1 nth 18:18:16 <tflink> +3/-1 NTH 18:18:21 <Viking-Ice> blocking the release because we want it to be tested is not the right thing to do 18:18:26 <jreznik> can we actually test in beta? 18:18:37 <jreznik> do we already have a real hw? at least fedora qa? 18:18:43 <adamw> Viking-Ice: the idea is to have a beta release that is all SB-enabled 18:18:53 <Viking-Ice> who's idea is that really 18:18:54 <adamw> so we can just say 'hey, you can grab f18 beta and test it on an SB machine' 18:18:59 <adamw> the folks working on SB 18:19:06 <adamw> pjones, mjg59 etc 18:19:28 <adamw> so i'm +1 nth because that'd be nice. but if it doesn't make beta, we can probably spin up a post-beta image for SB testing or whatever. 18:19:47 <tflink> proposed #agreed 872272 - RejectedBlocker, AcceptedNTH - This violates the following F18 release criterion for SB enabled machines: "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media when written to an optical disc and when written to a USB stick with at least one of the officially supported methods" 18:20:06 <Viking-Ice> nack propose total reject ;) 18:20:07 <adamw> that doesn't really explain the decision 18:20:16 <adamw> patch 18:20:23 <tflink> for testing, then? 18:20:48 <adamw> propose #agreed 872272 - RejectedBlocker, AcceptedNTH - we don't think SB is yet prevalent enough to be worth blocking a beta release for, but if possible it would be great for Beta to be testable OOTB on SB machines 18:20:50 <tflink> I suppose NTH don't needcriteria 18:20:51 <jreznik> adamw: I like the post-beta testing image, we really can't afford another hard blocker, even this one on legal 18:21:14 <adamw> Viking-Ice: it's worth noting there's zero danger to the change 18:21:16 <Viking-Ice> seriously spesific spins should just be created for a spesific testday for this 18:21:20 <adamw> Viking-Ice: it can't _possibly_ affect anything but SB setups 18:21:30 <tflink> adamw: ack 18:21:43 <Viking-Ice> it's nonsense accepting this as an beta blocker or nth 18:21:53 <Viking-Ice> from my pov 18:21:54 <adamw> Viking-Ice: we already have a vote for nth. +3, -1. 18:22:07 <adamw> it's a bit annoying when you nack the agreement just to rehash the vote. 18:23:18 <adamw> we know you disagree with the vote. that's on the record. 18:24:06 <adamw> jreznik: ack/nack? 18:24:48 <jreznik> patch, add the possibility of testing image to be clear 18:25:11 <adamw> not sure if we can get that in the char limit... 18:25:21 <jreznik> ok, fair enough 18:25:23 <jreznik> so, ack 18:25:34 <adamw> propose #agreed 872272 - RejectedBlocker, AcceptedNTH - we don't think SB is yet prevalent enough to be worth blocking a beta release for. NTH as it would be great for Beta to be testable OOTB on SB machines, but if not, we can build a post-Beta test image 18:25:48 <jreznik> ah, better in a few more chars :) 18:25:53 <jreznik> so now, ack 18:25:54 <tflink> ack 18:26:13 <adamw> #agreed 872272 - RejectedBlocker, AcceptedNTH - we don't think SB is yet prevalent enough to be worth blocking a beta release for. NTH as it would be great for Beta to be testable OOTB on SB machines, but if not, we can build a post-Beta test image 18:26:16 <adamw> next bug! 18:26:30 <tflink> I do believe that is all of the proposed blockers 18:26:40 <tflink> that we didn't cover yesterday 18:27:03 <tflink> anything I missed before moving on to the accepted blockers from yesterday? 18:27:05 <Viking-Ice> the libvirt selinux one we kinda need input from dwalsh on that one 18:28:03 <Viking-Ice> should we work on the proposed nth first 18:28:36 <adamw> tflink: hm just a sec 18:28:40 <Viking-Ice> is that not our general workflow proposed then accepted (blocker/nth) ? 18:28:47 <adamw> oh yeah, that's all of them 18:29:09 <adamw> Viking-Ice: i think we vary it sometimes...but i'd agree we should get proposed nth done 18:29:11 <tflink> Viking-Ice: I didn't realize that there was an enforced order but yeah, that's usually how we've been doing it (at least recently) 18:29:25 <tflink> #topic (868468) anaconda displays previously installed Fedora systems as Unknown in Manual Partitioning 18:29:28 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868468 18:29:30 <tflink> #info Proposed NTH, anaconda, MODIFIED 18:29:35 <adamw> so, dlehman appears to have given us a fait accompli here... 18:29:53 <adamw> he asked for to be re-proposed then went ahead and put the fix in 18.22. *rolleyes* 18:30:22 <adamw> so the impact of this we didn't know about yesterday is that it's not just a case of the partitions appearing in Unknown 18:30:32 <adamw> apparently btrfs subvol setups actually can't be deleted by anaconda 18:30:55 <adamw> i guess that does bump it to +1 nth for me, but it was a bit rude to just pull the fix without waiting. ah, well. 18:30:56 <zodbot> Ticket notification - f18betanicetohave: [Bug 872272] Shim is not currently signed. <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872272> 18:31:25 <tflink> yeah, I'm pretty much in the same boat of annoyance and agreed that it's probably +1 nth 18:31:42 <tflink> especially when he left not 5 minutes before discussing this bug yesterday 18:32:26 <adamw> yeah. 18:32:58 <adamw> jreznik, viking? 18:33:23 <tflink> proposed #agree 868468 - AcceptedNTH - This affects the removal of btrfs subvols and is more severe than we originally thought - enough to justify NTH which is good since it's already been committed to the most recent anaconda without NTH status. 18:33:40 <Viking-Ice> ack 18:33:42 <tflink> eh, I should probalby leave that last bit out 18:33:43 <jreznik> ack 18:33:50 <tflink> proposed #agree 868468 - AcceptedNTH - This affects the removal of btrfs subvols and is more severe than we originally thought - enough to justify NTH. 18:34:04 <adamw> yeah, let's not be too bitter on the permanent record =) 18:34:05 <adamw> ack 18:34:33 <tflink> #agree 868468 - AcceptedNTH - This affects the removal of btrfs subvols and is more severe than we originally thought - enough to justify NTH. 18:34:41 <tflink> #agreed 868468 - AcceptedNTH - This affects the removal of btrfs subvols and is more severe than we originally thought - enough to justify NTH. 18:34:49 <tflink> looks like someone can't spell today 18:35:11 <adamw> heh 18:35:16 <tflink> #topic (871294) hawkey-0.3.0-1.gitafa7717.fc18 missed the freeze and is a missing dep breaking DNF 18:35:19 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871294 18:35:22 <tflink> #info Proposed NTH, hawkey, NEW 18:35:39 <tflink> is DNF on the dvd? 18:35:58 <adamw> lemme look 18:36:04 <tflink> I doubt it 18:36:35 <tflink> putting a fork of yum on the DVD seems like a bad idea to me 18:36:39 <jreznik> and it shouldn't be 18:36:44 <jreznik> (if it's there) 18:36:48 <adamw> doesn't look like it 18:37:01 * adamw checked smoke13, no dnf 18:37:03 <tflink> -1 NTH from me - it can be fixed with an update 18:37:08 <adamw> yup 18:37:09 <adamw> -1 18:37:42 <jreznik> -1 18:37:48 <tflink> proposed #agreed 871294 - RejectedNTH - Neither hawkey nor DNF are on the DVD and thus could be fixed with an update post-release. 18:38:36 <adamw> ack 18:38:59 <jreznik> ack 18:39:19 <tflink> #agreed 871294 - RejectedNTH - Neither hawkey nor DNF are on the DVD and thus could be fixed with an update post-release. 18:39:35 <tflink> I do believe that is it for the proposed NTH 18:39:55 <tflink> unless we want to rehash the 2 from yesterday that haven't had movement 18:40:30 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868558 has had movement. 18:40:54 <adamw> it was discussed as a proposed blocker 18:40:59 <adamw> i've split it into two bugs and proposed one as NTH 18:41:48 <tflink> #topic (868558) anaconda needs to tell yum what's a URL and what's a mirrorlist 18:41:51 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868558 18:41:53 <tflink> #info Proposed NTH, anaconda, ASSIGNED 18:42:01 <tflink> it didn't look like enough to justify discussing again at first glance 18:42:51 <adamw> well, mirrorlist support is supposed to be in anaconda 18:42:55 <adamw> it's a regression from previous releases 18:42:57 <tflink> yep 18:43:05 <adamw> not enough to block, but seems nth-y 18:43:22 <tflink> eh, barely 18:43:37 <tflink> I'm not -1 on it, though 18:44:01 <tflink> I can't imagine that we have many users manually putting in mirror list urls to the sources dialog 18:44:08 <Viking-Ice> +1 nth 18:45:03 <adamw> so +2 -0 18:45:05 <adamw> jreznik, wdyt? 18:45:56 <tflink> proposed #agreed 868558 - AcceptedNTH - This is a regression from previous versions of anaconda and while not a blocker, a tested fix would be considered past freeze. 18:46:23 <Viking-Ice> ack 18:46:29 <jreznik> ack 18:46:32 <adamw> ack 18:46:45 <tflink> #agreed 868558 - AcceptedNTH - This is a regression from previous versions of anaconda and while not a blocker, a tested fix would be considered past freeze. 18:47:07 <tflink> OK, the other one hasn't had any movement since yesterday :) 18:47:14 <tflink> on to the accepted blockers? 18:47:24 <Viking-Ice> yup 18:47:44 <tflink> oh, the exciting times we live in .... 18:47:48 <tflink> #topic (866519) BIOS RAID is not shown on harddrive screen 18:47:48 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866519 18:47:48 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED 18:48:02 <adamw> i need to check back in with dlehman on what's going on here 18:48:09 <adamw> we reached a point where we need fixes to parted, aiui 18:49:05 <tflink> #info it appears as if fixes are needed in parted at this point 18:49:39 <tflink> #info there has been recent progress but it's not 100% clear what the next step is 18:49:54 <tflink> anything else? 18:50:32 * tflink assumes not 18:50:54 <Viking-Ice> ok lets move to the next one 18:50:59 <adamw> yeah 18:51:04 <tflink> #topic (868834) can't use package section in kickstart 18:51:04 <adamw> dlehman went home i think 18:51:04 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868834 18:51:04 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, anaconda, MODIFIED 18:51:19 <adamw> Looks like this should be testable in smoke13 18:51:32 <adamw> we can ask reporter to re-test 18:51:36 <tflink> #info there is an available fix for this that needs testing 18:51:53 <tflink> #info ask reporter to retest with either smoke13 or TC7 (when it's built) 18:52:38 <tflink> anything else? 18:52:47 <tflink> eh, that's what #undo is for! 18:52:50 <tflink> #topic (864765) mkfs.btrfs SIGABRT at OS install time 18:52:51 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864765 18:52:51 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, btrfs-progs, VERIFIED 18:53:49 <tflink> ok, someone needs to stop tacking builds on to this bug 18:54:55 <tflink> we also need to get it pushed to stable so that it's done 18:55:11 <tflink> I don't think I used that latest build in smoke 13 18:55:29 <adamw> yeah, we just need to push something stable. 18:55:35 <Viking-Ice> is not that bug fixed 18:55:37 <adamw> ut;s definitely fixed. 18:55:46 <adamw> Viking-Ice: it's fixed, but the build that fixes it still isn't stable 18:55:53 <Viking-Ice> let's karma up it 18:56:42 <tflink> #info the fix for this needs karma so that it can be pushed to stable 18:57:20 <adamw> yeah, i sent out a karma request last night i think. 18:57:35 <tflink> and a new build has been made since then 18:57:42 <adamw> we don't really need the newer one 18:57:48 <tflink> nope 18:57:49 <adamw> it just fixes the test kparal did - formatting a zero-filled file 18:57:58 <adamw> probably best to just pull the previous one 18:58:07 * nirik wonders if he should mention his stable push thing now... or save it for later. 18:58:09 <adamw> except he obsoleted it...sifg 18:58:18 <adamw> anyway, we need one more karma on https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-16387/btrfs-progs-0.20.rc1.20121017git91d9eec-1.fc18 18:58:22 <Viking-Ice> let's just give it karma 18:58:28 <adamw> then i'll ask releng to do whatever they have to do to push that one stable instead of the newer one 18:58:28 <Viking-Ice> and have nirik pull it in 18:58:55 <adamw> yeah 18:58:57 <tflink> #info the newest btrfs-build is not needed 18:59:02 <nirik> we would have to unpush the newer one and push the old one again 18:59:10 <adamw> nirik: we can do that, right? 18:59:16 <nirik> in theory. ;) 18:59:16 <Viking-Ice> worst case we can revert it back if it causes unforeseen behavior ( which I seriously doubt that it will ) 18:59:25 <nirik> might ask the submitter to do it if they are around today? 19:00:17 <adamw> anyway...move on? 19:00:36 <Viking-Ice> yeah 19:01:00 * adamw will brb has to run downstairs for a second 19:01:04 <tflink> #topic (866486) Cannot update system via PackageKit-based apps in KDE with update checking enabled 19:01:07 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866486 19:01:09 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, PackageKit, ON_QA 19:01:48 <tflink> sounds like this could be VERIFIED 19:01:52 <jreznik> readiness meeting 19:01:55 <jreznik> tflink: yes, it is 19:02:16 <Viking-Ice> this one is closed right and has been submitted to stable ? 19:03:03 <tflink> not closed yet, no 19:03:12 * nirik notes bodhi isn't closing things on stable due to a python-bugzilla bug 19:03:31 <tflink> but yes, this should be closed 19:03:37 <tflink> #info this bug should be closed 19:04:05 <tflink> #info the fix has been pushed to stable, there is an issue w/ bodhi right now that is keeping it from changing bugs when updates go to stable 19:05:28 * adamw closes 19:05:32 <adamw> aww, you beat me 19:05:37 * adamw whacks tflink with the resolution stick 19:05:37 <tflink> for once 19:05:40 <adamw> ERRATA. not CURRENTRELEASE. 19:05:48 <tflink> oops 19:06:04 * adamw wonders if CURRENTRELEASE has some kind of magnetic attractor field 19:06:30 <tflink> anyhow, I do believe that we are done now 19:06:57 <tflink> anything I missed? 19:07:14 <Viking-Ice> nope not that I'm aware of 19:07:23 <tflink> #topic Open Floor 19:08:02 * satellit- note that ntp is not an error until enter the spoke have to turn off /on to connect.... 19:08:13 <satellit-> smoke13 just now 19:08:57 <tflink> #info if F18 beta does slip again, the next blocker review meeting will be on 2012-11-07 @ 16:00 UTC 19:09:13 <tflink> if there is nothing else ... 19:09:16 * tflink sets the fuse for something short 19:09:31 <Southern_Gentlem> if? 19:09:45 * tflink will send out minutes shortly 19:09:49 <tflink> #endmeeting