2024-09-12 17:03:03 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !startmeeting F41 Beta Go/No-Go
2024-09-12 17:03:04 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2024-09-12 17:03:03 UTC
2024-09-12 17:03:04 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'F41 Beta Go/No-Go'
2024-09-12 17:03:23 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> morning everyone.
2024-09-12 17:03:39 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> evening :) o/
2024-09-12 17:03:52 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Hello hello v hodinu cellou.,
2024-09-12 17:04:25 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info We've done some early roll call, and present is nirik František Zatloukal Stephen Gallagher sircharles lruzicka 
2024-09-12 17:04:40 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Roll Call
2024-09-12 17:04:41 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> !hi
2024-09-12 17:04:43 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher (sgallagh) - he / him / his
2024-09-12 17:06:24 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I feel it would be rude to move on without his entrance :)
2024-09-12 17:06:43 <@amoloney:fedora.im> But...we will!
2024-09-12 17:06:47 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info Purpose of this meeting is to check whether or not F40 Beta is ready for shipment, according to the release criteria.
2024-09-12 17:07:01 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Uh, F40?
2024-09-12 17:07:02 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> !hi
2024-09-12 17:07:04 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Fábio Ribeiro (farribeiro) - he / him / his
2024-09-12 17:07:26 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> This meeting is already going at 88 miles per hour, it seems...
2024-09-12 17:07:28 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info correction - we are determining F41 Beta is ready for shipment
2024-09-12 17:08:00 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info The F41 Beta is determined release ready in a few ways
2024-09-12 17:08:02 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> backwards :D
2024-09-12 17:08:21 <@amoloney:fedora.im> hold on to your hats!#
2024-09-12 17:08:31 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info 1. Release candidate compose is available
2024-09-12 17:08:44 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info 2. No remaining blocker bugs
2024-09-12 17:08:59 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info 3. Test matrices are fully completed
2024-09-12 17:09:11 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info 4. Fedora CoreOS and IoT are ready
2024-09-12 17:09:49 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Now that we know the basic boiler plate criteria, lets get crackin' :)
2024-09-12 17:10:08 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Current Status - RC
2024-09-12 17:10:19 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Do we have a beta rc to discuss?
2024-09-12 17:10:28 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> we do!
2024-09-12 17:10:37 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> !releng 12321
2024-09-12 17:10:37 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Last Updated:** 16 seconds ago
2024-09-12 17:10:37 <@zodbot:fedora.im> 
2024-09-12 17:10:37 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
2024-09-12 17:10:37 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Closed: Fixed with Explanation** 17 seconds ago by kevin
2024-09-12 17:10:37 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **releng #12321** (https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12321):**Create Fedora 41 Beta candidates**
2024-09-12 17:10:37 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Opened:** 22 hours ago by adamwill
2024-09-12 17:10:47 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> we have a RC-1.2
2024-09-12 17:11:23 <@amoloney:fedora.im> excellent - many thanks to releng for your work :)
2024-09-12 17:11:37 <@amoloney:fedora.im> this'll bring us to our next topic
2024-09-12 17:11:50 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Current Status - Blockers
2024-09-12 17:12:09 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !link link https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/41/beta/buglist
2024-09-12 17:12:33 <@amoloney:fedora.im> QA, how we lookin?
2024-09-12 17:12:37 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Yeah, there are two proposed blockers at the moment
2024-09-12 17:13:36 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> and 2 accepted blockers, are we expected to run through the mini blocker review now? (with meeting formatting and so on)?
2024-09-12 17:13:58 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> yes
2024-09-12 17:13:59 <@amoloney:fedora.im> yes please, Ill turn it over to you folks to walk us through them if thats ok?
2024-09-12 17:14:15 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> sure, missing adam real bad at the moment, I'll take it
2024-09-12 17:14:37 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !info 2 Proposed Blockers
2024-09-12 17:14:41 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !info 2 Accepted Blockers
2024-09-12 17:14:46 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !info 0 Accepted 0-day Blockers
2024-09-12 17:14:50 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !info 1 Accepted Previous Release Blockers
2024-09-12 17:14:54 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !info 4 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
2024-09-12 17:14:57 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !info 7 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
2024-09-12 17:15:28 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !topic Proposed Beta blockers
2024-09-12 17:15:40 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !topic (2311964) Discover does not discover upgrades to Fedora 41.
2024-09-12 17:15:42 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2311964
2024-09-12 17:15:46 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1659
2024-09-12 17:15:50 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, plasma-discover, NEW
2024-09-12 17:16:19 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Hum. Does gnome-software work in this case? ie, do we know it's discover only issue?
2024-09-12 17:16:41 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Gnome Software works fine. DNF also works ok.
2024-09-12 17:16:51 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> This looks to be a KDE only issue.
2024-09-12 17:17:49 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> This might also be a previous release blocker? you are using discover in f40 right?
2024-09-12 17:17:56 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> I was not sure whether the criterion about System Upgrade applies to all methods, or whether this would be a malfunction in Discover and therefore a Basic Application Func for Final.
2024-09-12 17:18:08 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> yes
2024-09-12 17:18:28 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> yeah, seems like this would be previous release blocker (as the fix will need to happen in f40)
2024-09-12 17:18:46 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> !hi
2024-09-12 17:18:56 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Geraldo S. Simião Kutz (geraldosimiao) - he / him / his
2024-09-12 17:19:08 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Yeah, the critera seems to say " it must be possible to successfully complete a direct upgrade" but doesn't say all methods must work
2024-09-12 17:19:26 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_41_Beta_Release_Criteria#Upgrade_requirements
2024-09-12 17:20:05 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> oh, and discover isn't listed even?
2024-09-12 17:20:23 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> in the  recommended upgrade mechanisms
2024-09-12 17:20:48 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> hmm, this would seem like an oversight?
2024-09-12 17:20:58 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Proposal: PreviousReleaseBlocker for Final?
2024-09-12 17:21:01 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah, probibly because it only came in in f40?
2024-09-12 17:21:35 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Ok.
2024-09-12 17:21:37 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ahh, yeah, +1 PreviousReleaseBlocker (Final), we can adjust the criteria to apply for the beta if we want later on
2024-09-12 17:22:09 <@amoloney:fedora.im> is it possible to upgrade it at all? The bz mentions dnf as a potential workaround, so if that works would it be ok to ship with this mention?
2024-09-12 17:22:09 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> The Beta does say it has to work on anything listed at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/upgrading-fedora-new-release/ 
2024-09-12 17:22:12 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> definitely +1 for that. I guess if we can fix it for beta that would be great, but if not people could work around it by using one of the other methods
2024-09-12 17:22:14 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> But that doesn't include Discover
2024-09-12 17:22:43 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah, the docs likely need an update there.
2024-09-12 17:22:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hi, sorry
2024-09-12 17:22:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thought we had another day
2024-09-12 17:23:16 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> so few days. welcome to the beta nogo thunderdome. ;)
2024-09-12 17:23:30 <@amoloney:fedora.im> yeah sorry about the speed :)
2024-09-12 17:23:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> kde never said they wanted discover to be a recommended method, afaik
2024-09-12 17:24:34 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> in that case, we are good and we can move this to Final.
2024-09-12 17:24:35 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I just assumed they did... but yeah...
2024-09-12 17:24:36 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> but we have "	QA:Testcase_upgrade_plasma-discover_current_kde" for Beta though...
2024-09-12 17:24:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> sure
2024-09-12 17:24:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hmm
2024-09-12 17:25:13 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> well, if it's not a desired thing, we shouldn't even set it for final (at least until we know kde sig wants it)
2024-09-12 17:25:32 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> is there anybody from the sig?
2024-09-12 17:25:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the test case was created last august, maybe for a test day, can't find any context
2024-09-12 17:25:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: ahoy
2024-09-12 17:27:10 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Well, do we generally agree we don't need it for Beta? If so, we can just defer the GA discussion for the Blocker Review on Monday
2024-09-12 17:27:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, makes sense
2024-09-12 17:27:44 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> sounds reasonable to me if we don't require it for beta.
2024-09-12 17:27:51 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> okay, so -1 Beta Blocker sounds bout right for this meeting
2024-09-12 17:28:24 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Sure, -1 brigitte bardot
2024-09-12 17:28:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, -1
2024-09-12 17:28:48 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> -1
2024-09-12 17:29:03 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> -1 BetaBlocker
2024-09-12 17:29:20 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> -1
2024-09-12 17:29:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hum you know what
2024-09-12 17:29:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i wonder if this is as simple as 'the test case should say kwriteconfig6 now'
2024-09-12 17:30:39 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> can someone test that and we can circle back?
2024-09-12 17:30:43 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Let me check quickly
2024-09-12 17:30:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it doesn't matter to the discussion
2024-09-12 17:30:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> let's just get the proposal and move on
2024-09-12 17:31:03 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> alright
2024-09-12 17:31:32 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> I am checking anyway.
2024-09-12 17:32:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> František Zatloukal: i'm fine for you to keep on running things
2024-09-12 17:33:07 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ah, okay okay then, gimme a few seconds
2024-09-12 17:35:24 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2311964 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - we found out that the TestCase got into the matrices by mistake, KDE upgrade via Discover isn't listed as recommended on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/upgrading-fedora-new-release/
2024-09-12 17:35:59 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> +1
2024-09-12 17:36:13 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> (or rather ack I guess)
2024-09-12 17:36:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'd say maybe "this doesn't violate the beta criterion as Discover isn't listed as recommend on..."
2024-09-12 17:36:23 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-12 17:36:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we can just tweak the milestone for the test case without noting it
2024-09-12 17:37:11 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> okey dokey
2024-09-12 17:37:12 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2311964 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - this doesn't violate the beta criterion as Discover isn't listed as recommended on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/upgrading-fedora-new-release/
2024-09-12 17:37:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-12 17:37:37 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> sure
2024-09-12 17:37:41 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-12 17:37:43 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-12 17:38:05 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !agreed 2311964 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - this doesn't violate the beta criterion as Discover isn't listed as recommended on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/upgrading-fedora-new-release/
2024-09-12 17:38:27 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> And up the path, we move.
2024-09-12 17:38:30 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !topic (2311907) Anaconda crashes when an error occurs and should be reported.
2024-09-12 17:38:35 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2311907
2024-09-12 17:38:39 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1657
2024-09-12 17:38:44 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, python3.13, ASSIGNED
2024-09-12 17:39:05 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Is this related to that abrt FE?
2024-09-12 17:39:07 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> so, we both encountered this today with lruzicka on two different generations of Intel fw raids
2024-09-12 17:39:15 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> no no, afaik
2024-09-12 17:39:29 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> oh, scratch my sentences please
2024-09-12 17:39:31 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> No, this is not the problem. It is a different issue.
2024-09-12 17:39:38 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> I thought about different thingie...
2024-09-12 17:40:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> huh, i wonder if this is the cause of my https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2308279
2024-09-12 17:40:13 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> The thing is when I attempted a simulated crash on Anaconda, it crashed for real on text mode. 
2024-09-12 17:40:46 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> It crashed on graphics, too, but did not stop anaconda from finishing the installation.
2024-09-12 17:41:11 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> And later, when I discovered a RAID bug, Anaconda crashed for real and was able to report correctly.
2024-09-12 17:42:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> lruzicka: wait, i don't understand what happened in graphical mode exactly
2024-09-12 17:43:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but if crash reporting worked ok for a 'real' crash, that seems kinda -1...
2024-09-12 17:43:29 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> In graphical mode, the crash was shown in the Anaconda console, but the GUI proceeded with the installation which completed successfully.
2024-09-12 17:44:31 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah, if real crashes work, this doesn't seem as bad...
2024-09-12 17:44:46 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> yeah, I contacted Jirka Konecny about it, but I do not have the resolution so far, where the problem lies. Maybe it was caused by the simulated crash and it is not caused by a real crash.
2024-09-12 17:44:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i wonder if we need to change the instructions in the test case or something...that sounds like it killed the wrong process?
2024-09-12 17:44:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> or maybe this is due to all the dbusification
2024-09-12 17:46:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> or...hmm, looking at the traceback, it looks like this might depend on the details of the crash
2024-09-12 17:46:33 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> sounds like it would be good to know more, but... we need to decide what to do with it now...
2024-09-12 17:47:52 <@amoloney:fedora.im> perhaps a basic question, but maybe useful for a decision - what part of the release criteria does this potentially violate?
2024-09-12 17:48:46 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> it'd violate "The installer must be able to report failures to Bugzilla, with appropriate information included." , a basic criterion ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria#failure-reporting )
2024-09-12 17:48:58 <@amoloney:fedora.im> ack, thank you
2024-09-12 17:49:18 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> but, I am thinking, if we can do it like this on go/no-go, punt to gather more information?
2024-09-12 17:50:00 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I dont think we can in this one unfortunately
2024-09-12 17:50:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm trying to figure it out rn
2024-09-12 17:50:01 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> František Zatloukal: Could you rephrase? Do you mean "since we can't reproduce it using real crashes"?
2024-09-12 17:50:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i *think* this is quite likely tied to the fact that we're using a special codepath in anaconda for testing crash handling
2024-09-12 17:50:16 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> yeah yeah, that'd work even better for sure
2024-09-12 17:50:20 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> we could also reject it as a blocker but it could be re-proposed with more info?
2024-09-12 17:50:33 <@amoloney:fedora.im> with Stephen Gallagher wording that sounds like it'll work
2024-09-12 17:50:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> when we send it a USR1 it winds up in this `test_exception_handling` function in pyanaconda/exception.py and then in the block commented "XXX: this is a huge hack" where the problem happens
2024-09-12 17:51:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so it seems at least plausible to me this is specific to this kinda-special path and doesn't affect 'real' crashes
2024-09-12 17:51:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'd maybe have to reproduce it with some debug statements in the upstream python code to verify that which will take longer than we have
2024-09-12 17:52:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'd *guess* we might be able to avoid this by fiddling with the test exception, but it'll take a bit of time to figure it out. on the whole, i'd lean -1 on current info
2024-09-12 17:52:34 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Ok, I saw today that it did not crash on real crash, so I can be -1, too
2024-09-12 17:53:18 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> okey dokey, I kinda like rejecting it for beta more, -1 Beta Blocker (we can count those and those who prefer punt here)
2024-09-12 17:53:48 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> -1 BetaBlocker
2024-09-12 17:54:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> punt is effectively a no-go vote at this point, i think
2024-09-12 17:55:09 <@amoloney:fedora.im> it is, its either a blocker, which would mean we are a No-Go, or its not a blocker which means we can continue with this meeting
2024-09-12 17:55:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i will poke around at it a bit as the meeting continues
2024-09-12 17:56:05 <@amoloney:fedora.im> thanks Adam
2024-09-12 17:56:10 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> any more votes for -1 ? , or shall we move forward to one more proposed blocker?
2024-09-12 17:57:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we should stick on this until it's decided one way or another, we can't leave anything in ambiguous state at a go/no-go
2024-09-12 17:57:25 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I see 4 -1s and 0 +1s for it... so, shall we propose it as rejected?
2024-09-12 17:57:26 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> okey dokey
2024-09-12 17:57:44 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> (I can do the proposal now)
2024-09-12 17:57:45 <@amoloney:fedora.im> we could take a short break and I can set the status to waiting? 
2024-09-12 17:57:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, we have enough votes for rejected
2024-09-12 17:58:15 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> -1
2024-09-12 17:58:31 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2311907 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - we can't reproduce it using real crashes, and we have a great confidence that the issue would occur only in special code-path for testing the crash reporting feature in Anaconda
2024-09-12 17:58:47 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-12 17:58:52 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-12 17:58:56 <@amoloney:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-12 17:58:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> s/great/moderate/ :D
2024-09-12 17:58:58 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> patch
2024-09-12 17:59:00 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ack
2024-09-12 17:59:26 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Exactly what adamw said; reduce "great confidence" to "strong suspicion" please
2024-09-12 17:59:48 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2311907 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - we can't reproduce it using real crashes, and we have a strong suspicion that the issue would occur only in special code-path for testing the crash reporting feature in Anaconda
2024-09-12 18:00:05 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack again
2024-09-12 18:00:19 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> (I am really sorry for my lower expertise and non-native speaker skills here)
2024-09-12 18:00:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-12 18:00:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it's fine
2024-09-12 18:00:35 <@amoloney:fedora.im> youre doing a great job!
2024-09-12 18:00:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> gotta practice somehow :D
2024-09-12 18:00:54 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> It's all good :)
2024-09-12 18:01:02 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> axk
2024-09-12 18:01:07 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-12 18:01:07 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !agreed 2311907 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - we can't reproduce it using real crashes, and we have a strong suspicion that the issue would occur only in special code-path for testing the crash reporting feature in Anaconda
2024-09-12 18:01:30 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !topic (2311936) pyanaconda.modules.common.errors.storage.UnknownDeviceError: Volume0_0
2024-09-12 18:01:34 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2311936
2024-09-12 18:01:39 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1658
2024-09-12 18:01:43 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED
2024-09-12 18:02:06 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> so, this was proposed for final, but I do believe we should discuss/consider this for beta
2024-09-12 18:02:59 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> tldr would be that the simple partitioning doesn't work with FW RAID, one has to use custom/advanced which do work correctly
2024-09-12 18:03:20 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> I would personally incline to having it as a common bug right now though
2024-09-12 18:03:34 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> we did test this on two generations of intel fw raids
2024-09-12 18:03:37 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I thought we moved firmware raid specifically to final for some reasons...
2024-09-12 18:03:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> firmware raid is *specifically* in the final criteria
2024-09-12 18:03:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> that seems pretty intentional to me
2024-09-12 18:04:05 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> heh, so, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_41_Beta_1.2_Installation#Storage_devices fooled me once again
2024-09-12 18:04:08 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ah indeed: Firmware RAID requirement move from Beta to Final proposed 2018-09-14, implemented 2018-11-16
2024-09-12 18:04:09 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> I proposed for Final, originally.
2024-09-12 18:04:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh yes, we should change that
2024-09-12 18:04:58 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> no, we should not. It is better when we test earlier. The criterion says Final, so we'll know.
2024-09-12 18:05:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> fixed the matrix
2024-09-12 18:05:12 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> so I am -1 BetaBlocker, but sure, it could be a common bug...
2024-09-12 18:05:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> lruzicka: the column is meant to tell you what milestone it is blocking for
2024-09-12 18:05:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> not what column to test it at. we should run all non-optional tests at all milestones
2024-09-12 18:05:42 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !info the criterion doesn't apply to Beta release, on purpose, and the wiki test matrix was updated accordingly 
2024-09-12 18:06:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RYRDJ5EJOE3AJ6WQBOHDUW23QU4HL6PO/ was the proposal to make this final not beta, btw
2024-09-12 18:06:49 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> mhm, so, off to accepted beta blockers
2024-09-12 18:07:05 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !topic Accepted Beta blockers
2024-09-12 18:07:21 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !topic (2282171) gsk: vulkan renderer causes gtk4 apps to crash on resize operations on Raspberry Pi 4 and 400
2024-09-12 18:07:28 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2282171
2024-09-12 18:07:31 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1605
2024-09-12 18:07:35 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, bcm283x-firmware, ASSIGNED
2024-09-12 18:07:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Peter Robinson has been working on fixing this but i guess it's not done yet
2024-09-12 18:08:28 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah. So, I guess we are no go then? unless we can lawyer this away.
2024-09-12 18:09:04 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> to give a mall tldr here: it used to be far worse with graphical issues all around the Workstation env, we now have crashes on resizing and some modal(?) dialogs in gtk4 apps (eg. saving a document in text editor)
2024-09-12 18:09:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we could say that documenting the kernel parameter is sufficient to address it, i guess
2024-09-12 18:09:14 <@amoloney:fedora.im> creative release notes maybe? :)
2024-09-12 18:09:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> František Zatloukal: does the kernel param to fix the memory assignment resolve all issues?
2024-09-12 18:09:28 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> that'd seem just fine for my taste... for beta
2024-09-12 18:09:31 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> yes
2024-09-12 18:09:41 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> simply adding cma=256M resolves all
2024-09-12 18:10:33 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> CommonBugs with a workaround could be sufficient on a Beta release, I think.
2024-09-12 18:10:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i guess i'm having evil thoughts because i'm thinking 'maybe we can keep this as a blocker so we can do another rc with some good fe fixes'
2024-09-12 18:10:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but those are Wrong Thoughts
2024-09-12 18:10:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> bad me
2024-09-12 18:10:57 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> so this is pi4 with a gui? is that super common?
2024-09-12 18:11:01 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> heh, I personally wouldn't do that for Beta
2024-09-12 18:11:03 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> !fire adamw
2024-09-12 18:11:13 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> everybody is going to forget about it in a month or so
2024-09-12 18:11:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> nirik: it's probably the *most* common official aarch64 desktop config, if anything.
2024-09-12 18:11:34 <@amoloney:fedora.im> A gentle reminder we are technically already one week behind due to the request in August to accomodate Flock for branching
2024-09-12 18:11:42 <@amoloney:fedora.im> now, time is irrelevant
2024-09-12 18:11:42 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2024-09-12 18:11:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> on the face of it, i'm ok with saying that documenting the kernel param as a workaround is sufficient mitigation for beta
2024-09-12 18:11:44 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2024-09-12 18:11:55 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah, I guess I would be too.
2024-09-12 18:12:00 <@amoloney:fedora.im> so if we need to push to get a better beta, its worth the consideration
2024-09-12 18:12:03 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> we should of course fix it more better for final
2024-09-12 18:12:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> moar bettar fixing
2024-09-12 18:12:21 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I don't think this alone is worth a delay
2024-09-12 18:12:42 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> well... one would wish for this being alone, but we'll get there
2024-09-12 18:12:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, i don't think we have release fever here, this is clearly much less of a problem than it was a few weeks ago, objectively
2024-09-12 18:13:14 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Oh crap, it should be on there
2024-09-12 18:13:29 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I don't know why discover isn't there
2024-09-12 18:14:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i filed a ticket
2024-09-12 18:14:31 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> we can circle back to kde discover after accepted blockers?
2024-09-12 18:14:44 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> so, shall we revote this and -1 it as a blocker then?
2024-09-12 18:15:03 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> By the way, the `kwriteconfig6` did not fix it.
2024-09-12 18:15:05 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> -1 Beta Blocker, +1 Final Blocker
2024-09-12 18:15:15 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> -1 Beta Blocker, +1 Final
2024-09-12 18:15:19 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> -1 Beta Blocker, +1 Final Blocker
2024-09-12 18:16:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> lruzicka: aw
2024-09-12 18:16:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> -1 beta so long as we commonbugs it, +1 final
2024-09-12 18:17:44 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> This requires updates to fedora appstream metadata package, which I thought we had reached out to add to the SOP
2024-09-12 18:17:55 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2282171 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedCommonBug (Beta) AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this wasn't deemed worthy to block the beta release on, but we agreed that the final release has to have a fix for the issue. We also accept is as a common bug to have a documented trivial workaround.
2024-09-12 18:18:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> acceptedcommonbug isn't a thing
2024-09-12 18:19:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'd drop that bit and just mention in the text that we will mark it as CommonBugs
2024-09-12 18:19:19 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> might avoid calling the workaround trivial...
2024-09-12 18:19:33 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> what about
2024-09-12 18:19:33 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2282171 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this wasn't deemed worthy to block the beta release on, but we agreed that the final release has to have a fix for the issue. We also accept is as a common bug to have a documented workaround.
2024-09-12 18:19:43 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> is/it
2024-09-12 18:19:53 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2282171 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this wasn't deemed worthy to block the beta release on, but we agreed that the final release has to have a fix for the issue. We also accept it as a common bug to have a documented workaround.
2024-09-12 18:19:53 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I like it, fwiw
2024-09-12 18:20:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-12 18:20:22 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Ack
2024-09-12 18:20:24 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-12 18:20:24 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ack
2024-09-12 18:20:30 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !agreed 2282171 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this wasn't deemed worthy to block the beta release on, but we agreed that the final release has to have a fix for the issue. We also accept it as a common bug to have a documented workaround.
2024-09-12 18:20:52 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !topic (2283978) Raspberry Pi 4 automatically suspends when idle, claims to support suspend, but can't be woken up
2024-09-12 18:20:57 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2283978
2024-09-12 18:21:02 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1607
2024-09-12 18:21:06 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, kernel, ASSIGNED
2024-09-12 18:21:10 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> looks like peter would like this to just be common bugged for beta.
2024-09-12 18:21:24 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> good so
2024-09-12 18:21:29 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> the previous one with gsk, right?
2024-09-12 18:22:02 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ah no, this one :)
2024-09-12 18:22:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, i think we can waive this as not realistically fixable
2024-09-12 18:22:36 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> +1 waive this
2024-09-12 18:22:55 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I mean, the workaround is basically "don't do that" right?
2024-09-12 18:23:20 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> the bad thing about it is that both Workstation and KDE do it for you :/
2024-09-12 18:23:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, disable the auto-suspend setting
2024-09-12 18:23:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and then avoid suspending manually, yeah
2024-09-12 18:24:53 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2283978 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - This issue isn't realistically fixable in Fedora 41 timeline, we'll document it as a common bug with instructions on how to disable auto-suspend in both blocking environments (GNOME, and KDE).
2024-09-12 18:25:13 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-12 18:25:14 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-12 18:25:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> nack
2024-09-12 18:25:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> that's not how we waive
2024-09-12 18:25:36 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> well... this might be somewhat fixed before final right?
2024-09-12 18:25:58 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I guess unclear
2024-09-12 18:26:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i should update the meeting sop with guidance on handling waives i guess
2024-09-12 18:26:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but it should be something like:
2024-09-12 18:27:05 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> WaivedBlocker ? 😅
2024-09-12 18:27:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2283978 - waive to F41 Final - this is waived under "Difficult to fix blocker bugs" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process#Exceptional_cases , on the advice of the maintainers involved (see the bug for details)
2024-09-12 18:27:59 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-12 18:28:18 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> sure. ack
2024-09-12 18:28:34 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-12 18:28:35 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> but you should know that to word those reasonings is extremely difficult for non-native speakers as it is required basically in no time.
2024-09-12 18:28:36 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack :) , thanks!
2024-09-12 18:28:49 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !agreed 2283978 - waive to F41 Final - this is waived under "Difficult to fix blocker bugs" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process#Exceptional_cases , on the advice of the maintainers involved (see the bug for details)
2024-09-12 18:29:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> lruzicka: the important point is that we're waiving it, not rejecting it
2024-09-12 18:29:35 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !info those were all accepted blockers, circling back to the proposed one
2024-09-12 18:30:05 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> okee doke
2024-09-12 18:30:29 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !topic Proposed Beta Blockers
2024-09-12 18:30:42 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !topic (2311964) Discover does not discover upgrades to Fedora 41.
2024-09-12 18:30:46 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2311964
2024-09-12 18:30:50 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1659
2024-09-12 18:30:53 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, plasma-discover, NEW
2024-09-12 18:30:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: so where does the fix for this go?
2024-09-12 18:30:59 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: 
2024-09-12 18:32:26 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> fedora-appstream-metadata I guess?
2024-09-12 18:32:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but in f40 or f41?
2024-09-12 18:32:55 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> glad to see there's another place that keeps a hard coded list of releases.
2024-09-12 18:33:19 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> in f40 I would think.
2024-09-12 18:33:55 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> like: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-appstream-metadata/c/0f2f7e200345fcea15f1cbe0099e8ffd0c8532a2?branch=rawhide
2024-09-12 18:33:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> nirik: to be fair, *this* dumb hardcoded list is sourced from the *other* dumb hardcoded list. wait, is that better? :D
2024-09-12 18:35:19 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> see also: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267547
2024-09-12 18:36:33 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> hmm, it was BetaFreezeException
2024-09-12 18:36:40 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> good catch nirik 
2024-09-12 18:37:28 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> but I don't see why it has to be the beta version updated... I would think it would be the previous release
2024-09-12 18:38:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, on the face of it that seems logical
2024-09-12 18:38:31 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> anyhow, I'd feel like leaving it as voted in previously on a first take, it's not up on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/upgrading-fedora-new-release/ as of now, it was discovered late, wdyt?
2024-09-12 18:38:32 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Anyhow, I don't think we should have this as a beta blocker.
2024-09-12 18:39:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i mean, in theory we could argue that kde team *intended* it to be there, but ehhh
2024-09-12 18:40:18 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> so, shall we revote now? or just note that we aren't revoting?
2024-09-12 18:40:28 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> it should be fixable I think by a f40 update... which can happen anytime.
2024-09-12 18:42:19 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> so whats our best course of action here? revote and make it not a blocker? waive as discovered late?
2024-09-12 18:42:41 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> take up yak ranching?
2024-09-12 18:42:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i was waiting for conan
2024-09-12 18:43:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but as things stand i'm fine keeping this not a blocker
2024-09-12 18:43:39 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> I'm fine too, its beta anyway
2024-09-12 18:43:42 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> +1
2024-09-12 18:44:20 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !info we aren't revoting the 2311964
2024-09-12 18:44:44 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> so, this would be all of the blockers, are we going through FEs too now?
2024-09-12 18:45:07 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> the more time we have beta out, the more people test it and we can fix it...
2024-09-12 18:45:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> not for a go/no-go no
2024-09-12 18:45:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> there's no point to it
2024-09-12 18:45:40 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I dont think so, the blockers are the main ones
2024-09-12 18:45:49 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> oh, sorry...
2024-09-12 18:45:56 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> one more ugly thingie
2024-09-12 18:46:03 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !topic Accepted Previous Release Blockers
2024-09-12 18:46:16 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !topic (2242759) dnf system-upgrade fails on some RPi4 due to system boot date that pre-dates gpg key
2024-09-12 18:46:18 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242759
2024-09-12 18:46:22 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1601
2024-09-12 18:46:25 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !info Accepted Previous Release Blocker, distribution, NEW
2024-09-12 18:46:43 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> We've waived this for multiple releases now; when is it time to just admit this isn't going to get fixed?
2024-09-12 18:46:46 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> we've been rolling this one for quite some time
2024-09-12 18:46:48 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> yeah
2024-09-12 18:47:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i proposed that last cycle
2024-09-12 18:47:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but couldn't get people to bite
2024-09-12 18:47:23 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I guess it's time now..
2024-09-12 18:47:37 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Sorry I'm out right now, we can get it out in the next days and it will work for beta
2024-09-12 18:47:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i am fine with making it -1 we just can't fix this let's stop pretending.
2024-09-12 18:47:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: so it doesn't need to be updated in f41, right?
2024-09-12 18:47:50 <@mattdm:fedora.im> I am +1 to adam's -1
2024-09-12 18:47:59 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> uff, seen +1 first... :D
2024-09-12 18:48:10 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> anyhow, -1 Beta Blocker
2024-09-12 18:48:16 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> -1
2024-09-12 18:48:40 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I'm ok dropping this as a previous release blocker at this point... it doesn't seem like anyone is going to fix it.
2024-09-12 18:49:03 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Not really, no
2024-09-12 18:49:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: cool.
2024-09-12 18:49:16 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> let's just close it as CANTFIX
2024-09-12 18:49:18 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Unless you want to test updates to f42
2024-09-12 18:49:22 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> well, it should be updated in f41... so you can go to f42
2024-09-12 18:49:24 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah
2024-09-12 18:49:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, but i mean, we don't need to fix it *right now* in f41 to fix upgrades to f41.
2024-09-12 18:49:49 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> agreed
2024-09-12 18:49:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> +1 CANTFIX
2024-09-12 18:51:17 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2242759 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - this is dropped as hard to fix bug as we don't have proposals how to properly fix the issue, and there is no point in rolling this one from release to release.
2024-09-12 18:51:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> sure, ack
2024-09-12 18:51:57 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-12 18:51:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i support anything which means we don't have to talk about this bug any more
2024-09-12 18:52:02 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack
2024-09-12 18:52:05 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> well, it's a previousrelease blocker right?
2024-09-12 18:52:13 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> oh, right
2024-09-12 18:52:21 <@amoloney:fedora.im> and previousprevious
2024-09-12 18:52:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but RejectedBlocker is still appropriate
2024-09-12 18:52:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we have various Accepteds but only one Rejected. :D
2024-09-12 18:52:51 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ok, sure then, ack
2024-09-12 18:53:00 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !agreed 2242759 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - this is dropped as hard to fix bug as we don't have proposals how to properly fix the issue, and there is no point in rolling this one from release to release.
2024-09-12 18:53:44 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> uff, this was all for the blocker mini, back to you Aoife Moloney  I guess? we have 0 outstanding blockers if I am looking right
2024-09-12 18:53:53 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> amazingly
2024-09-12 18:54:15 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info All blockers have been addressed for RC 1.2 beta
2024-09-12 18:54:43 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info Current Status - Test Matrices
2024-09-12 18:54:55 <@amoloney:fedora.im> that should have been topic, apologies
2024-09-12 18:55:51 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Given that 1.2 landed just yesterday, coverage might be low...
2024-09-12 18:56:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we're supposed to have at least one real-media test on aarch64
2024-09-12 18:56:13 <@amoloney:fedora.im> yeah I just checked the test page link and there wasnt anything on it
2024-09-12 18:56:17 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Coverage is fine on x86_64
2024-09-12 18:56:32 <@amoloney:fedora.im> no i did not, I had a typo
2024-09-12 18:56:34 <@amoloney:fedora.im> ignore please
2024-09-12 18:57:02 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fedora_41_Test_Results
2024-09-12 18:57:15 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> sigh, we don't have any HW that could be used to test this in Brno (if it can't be hacked on rpis somehow)
2024-09-12 18:57:46 <@farchord:matrix.org> and the x1e laptops are not Linux-worthy yet. By 42, maaaaayyybe?
2024-09-12 18:57:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ah, that's an issue
2024-09-12 18:58:01 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> we have for minimal and workstation
2024-09-12 18:58:09 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> I can test aarch64, but it would take a bit
2024-09-12 18:58:12 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah, I could boot on my x1e, but... not sure how clear of a test that would be for this.
2024-09-12 18:58:26 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> downloading now
2024-09-12 18:58:30 <@farchord:matrix.org> Considering the sheer amount of "hacks" we have to go through....
2024-09-12 18:58:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the test is basically to ensure the image manages to boot and install on a real system
2024-09-12 18:58:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if that works, it's ok
2024-09-12 18:59:12 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> with mainline kernel I think it could work, but will not have internal keyboard/mouse working and will require blocklisting a few modules.
2024-09-12 18:59:40 <@farchord:matrix.org> Yup. Though it's a bit volatile (i.e. it worked on a  kernel, and no longer after a kernel update) lol
2024-09-12 18:59:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the KDE line for aarch64 disk images is also not filled in, but lbrabec filed some kde desktop test results, so that kinda implies he did that?
2024-09-12 18:59:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the KDE line for aarch64 disk images is also not filled in, but lbrabec filed some kde desktop test results, so that kinda implies he did a deployment somehow, so maybe that is covered?
2024-09-12 19:00:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we're missing a couple of storage tests, sas and hw raid
2024-09-12 19:00:35 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> he used a VM :/
2024-09-12 19:00:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> who has hw raid...is it me...i don't think so
2024-09-12 19:00:55 <@lbrabec:matrix.org> I also used Rpi4
2024-09-12 19:01:06 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ah, sorry then, forgot
2024-09-12 19:01:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> also missing ec2 cloud testing, let me check that quick
2024-09-12 19:01:57 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> Lili used to do HW RAIDS in the past, at least on some matrices
2024-09-12 19:02:27 <@amoloney:fedora.im> in past meetings I have seen status be set to 'waiting' while testing happens. Im happy to do that now if we have people available to run the necessary tests?
2024-09-12 19:02:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Lukas Brabec: ah i see you checked it off :D
2024-09-12 19:02:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Aoife Moloney: not sure we can do the sas / hw raid if nobody has hardware, but we can work on the arm uefi install and cloud tests
2024-09-12 19:03:20 <@amoloney:fedora.im> ack, we can note that as part of the testing coverage results
2024-09-12 19:03:30 <@amoloney:fedora.im> ack, we can note that as part of the testing coverage results in the meeting logs
2024-09-12 19:04:39 <@amoloney:fedora.im> so is the arm uefi install and cloud tests now being worked on? just confirming before I change the topic to 'waiting'
2024-09-12 19:05:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> huh, the amis are missing for cloud page...uff...let's see
2024-09-12 19:05:13 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> 35% on my download.
2024-09-12 19:05:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Aoife Moloney: i am yak shaving the cloud tests. :D
2024-09-12 19:05:32 <@amoloney:fedora.im> May your blades remain sharp
2024-09-12 19:05:44 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Status - Waiting 
2024-09-12 19:05:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> nirik: oh hey. did we switch to the new cloud uploader thingy?
2024-09-12 19:06:33 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info a number of tests are being run to confirm test coverage. The meeting will resume once test results are complete
2024-09-12 19:07:32 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> adamw: yes?
2024-09-12 19:07:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ah.
2024-09-12 19:07:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i forgot i need to change relvalamiconsumer for that.
2024-09-12 19:08:14 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ah... I guess the names changed slightly...
2024-09-12 19:09:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, it's a completely different message now
2024-09-12 19:09:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> relvalamiconsumer consumes org.fedoraproject.prod.fedimg.image.publish which hasn't been published for a month
2024-09-12 19:09:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it looks like the new thing is supposed to publish `org.fedoraproject.prod.fedora_image_uploader.published.v1.aws` but i can't find any such messages :9
2024-09-12 19:10:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it looks like the new thing is supposed to publish `org.fedoraproject.prod.fedora_image_uploader.published.v1.aws` but i can't find any such messages :(
2024-09-12 19:10:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> did we ever check if publishing is working for it?
2024-09-12 19:10:17 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I thought it was re-using the fedimg one.
2024-09-12 19:10:24 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> but let me look
2024-09-12 19:10:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> https://pagure.io/cloud-image-uploader/blob/main/f/fedora-image-uploader-messages/fedora_image_uploader_messages/publish.py doesn't look like that
2024-09-12 19:10:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (this is relevant because i have no idea where the damn AMIs are without this)
2024-09-12 19:13:20 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/datagrepper/raw?rows_per_page=1&delta=127800&category=fedora_image_uploader
2024-09-12 19:13:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ah, it gets more added to the topic.
2024-09-12 19:14:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay, now i know where the amis are
2024-09-12 19:15:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i can fix the consumer after the meeting
2024-09-12 19:15:54 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> my download finished. arm-image-installer running
2024-09-12 19:17:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> nirik: er, we don't want to use arm-image-installer?
2024-09-12 19:17:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we need to test booting like on x86_64, that's what this matrix square is for
2024-09-12 19:17:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 'normal' uefi boot
2024-09-12 19:17:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so it needs to be tested on arm hardware that can do that
2024-09-12 19:17:52 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> uh? what... I thought this was an arm thing?
2024-09-12 19:18:01 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> like on x86_64... ah.
2024-09-12 19:18:15 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> well, it is going to boot uefi in this case...
2024-09-12 19:19:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> right, but the idea with this matrix square is to test booting just like you would on x86_64, write the image to a USB stick, attach it, boot. some arm hardware can do that, or at least that's what peter keeps telling me. :P
2024-09-12 19:19:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if we can't do it, we can't do it.
2024-09-12 19:19:43 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yes, this is one of those. ;)
2024-09-12 19:19:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh good.
2024-09-12 19:20:10 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> except, it rebooted on boot... but that could be just some x1e problem with mainline kernel. ;(
2024-09-12 19:20:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> fun
2024-09-12 19:21:27 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> oh, I see. I need to pass dtb also...
2024-09-12 19:23:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> siiigh, ec2 instance doesn't want to let me in...
2024-09-12 19:26:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay, i'm in.
2024-09-12 19:28:49 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> 470/611 on my server install
2024-09-12 19:29:10 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ok, FWIW, if I pass devicetree to it, it does boot. I am not sure how much this matters for mainstream devices. ;)
2024-09-12 19:29:35 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> and as expected, no intternal keyboard/mouse.
2024-09-12 19:29:41 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> but firstboot comes up. ;)
2024-09-12 19:29:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> cloud tests are good, just finishing the last one
2024-09-12 19:31:19 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> but gnome-initial-setup comes up. ;)
2024-09-12 19:33:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, done for x64
2024-09-12 19:34:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so i think we're looking good
2024-09-12 19:34:18 <@amoloney:fedora.im> nice!
2024-09-12 19:35:38 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> so, ok with coverage in the end? amazing.
2024-09-12 19:36:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> nirik: since you managed to install and boot and pwhalen seems to be also, sure
2024-09-12 19:37:10 <@amoloney:fedora.im> just waiting on conf from @pwhalen afaiu
2024-09-12 19:37:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> only hwraid and sas missing at that point i think, and we don't have the hw for those here
2024-09-12 19:37:38 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> its at configuring now, taking a while to finish up 
2024-09-12 19:37:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'll run through the aarch64 cloud tests too then
2024-09-12 19:41:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> cloud tests done on both arches
2024-09-12 19:41:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> all good
2024-09-12 19:42:45 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> cool
2024-09-12 19:47:19 <@amoloney:fedora.im> pwhalen: roughly how long do you think you'd need to wrap up your tests? thank you for doing them, btw
2024-09-12 19:47:30 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> good news, SOAS liveinstall bug is fixed!!!!!
2024-09-12 19:47:50 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> should be finished anytime now, generating the initramfs. Just slow hw 
2024-09-12 19:48:08 <@amoloney:fedora.im> understood, and thank you
2024-09-12 19:48:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> lruzicka: go ahead and head out if you like, we don't need everyone any more
2024-09-12 19:48:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i will do the vote for qa
2024-09-12 19:48:41 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> added a line at matrix for the new spin MiracleWM live, tested id and is working (x86 on VM)
2024-09-12 19:49:11 <@amoloney:fedora.im> yeah at this point I just need someone from QA, FESCo & Releng to make the decision post test coverage part
2024-09-12 19:50:30 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> we're kinda wanting to see it to the finish line at this point 😎 , and enjoy some empty office space :D
2024-09-12 19:50:56 <@amoloney:fedora.im> oh wow! Im impressed you stayed in the office!
2024-09-12 19:51:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> pwhalen should livestream his install so we all have something to watch. :D
2024-09-12 19:51:25 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I was rushing home to be at least at_home for this marathon, I mean meeting
2024-09-12 19:51:29 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> in case anyone wants something to look at/discuss... missing images from 1.2:
2024-09-12 19:51:33 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Jam_KDE no x86_64
2024-09-12 19:51:33 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Workstation no aarch64/ppc64le
2024-09-12 19:51:33 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Design_suite no x86_64
2024-09-12 19:51:33 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> KDE no aarch64
2024-09-12 19:51:33 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Robotics no x86_64
2024-09-12 19:52:21 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> that doesn't seem that bad 
2024-09-12 19:52:35 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> Server usb install complete, no issues
2024-09-12 19:53:01 <@amoloney:fedora.im> are any of them likely to get pulled in before we ship on Tuesday if this is a go nirik ? Or would that need a new compose to be run?
2024-09-12 19:53:28 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> it would need a new compose, so no... but some of them are fixed in the nightly tree now, so people could get them from there post beta
2024-09-12 19:54:00 <@amoloney:fedora.im> ok thats good to hear. We will make sure that msg gets out there if we ship this rc :)
2024-09-12 19:54:25 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> we will need to let websites know they are not there for the beta...
2024-09-12 19:54:34 <@amoloney:fedora.im> ack
2024-09-12 19:55:22 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> Jam_KDE and Robotics failed due to python3-colcon-common-extensions being FTI
2024-09-12 19:55:41 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !action @amoloney to coordinate with websites so that the correct information is available on release day that some deliverables are missing from the proposed rc 1.2, but some will be available from the nightly tree and available post release from here
2024-09-12 19:56:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i already wrote up the issues at https://pagure.io/releng/failed-composes/issue/6956#comment-931510
2024-09-12 19:56:18 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yep.
2024-09-12 19:57:07 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ok, so where are we? are we waiting for anything further then?
2024-09-12 19:57:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> don't think so
2024-09-12 19:58:18 <@amoloney:fedora.im> oh! So I can go ahead and !info the test matrices?
2024-09-12 19:58:35 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yep
2024-09-12 19:59:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, coverage is sufficient (100% except hardware we don't have)
2024-09-12 20:00:02 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info Test matrices are complete for RC 1.2 beta and we have sufficient coverage. The only coverage we were unable to provide at this time is testing on sas / hw raid as there was no available hardware.
2024-09-12 20:00:15 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Righteo, I think its now the voting!!
2024-09-12 20:00:58 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> 🥁
2024-09-12 20:01:44 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info We also have a number of missing deliverables from RC 1.2, captured in the failed-compose issue https://pagure.io/releng/failed-composes/issue/6956#comment-931510 . Availability of some of these deliverables will be from the nightly tree and will be noted at beta release time
2024-09-12 20:02:15 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Go/No-Go Decision
2024-09-12 20:02:40 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I will now poll each team. Please reply GO or NO-GO
2024-09-12 20:02:56 <@amoloney:fedora.im> QA?
2024-09-12 20:03:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> GO
2024-09-12 20:03:05 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Releng?
2024-09-12 20:03:07 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> GO
2024-09-12 20:03:08 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> shockingly GO.
2024-09-12 20:03:11 <@amoloney:fedora.im> FESCo?
2024-09-12 20:03:13 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> GO
2024-09-12 20:03:45 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> GO
2024-09-12 20:03:45 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info Fedora Linux 41 Beta is GO and will be shipped on Tuesday 17th September 2024
2024-09-12 20:03:51 <@amoloney:fedora.im> thank you all for your hard work!!!
2024-09-12 20:04:05 <@amoloney:fedora.im> and most importantly, patience in these meetings :)
2024-09-12 20:04:10 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> thank you everybody, fyi, I'll secretalize the blockers in about 1-2 hours
2024-09-12 20:04:10 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> thanks everyone. :)
2024-09-12 20:04:16 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Great. Lets have a celebration by the sea.
2024-09-12 20:04:24 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Open Floor
2024-09-12 20:04:26 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> 🎉
2024-09-12 20:04:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yay, thanks everyone
2024-09-12 20:04:36 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> thank you, I am going now :D have a nice time
2024-09-12 20:04:48 <@amoloney:fedora.im> any other business, or can I release you from your meeting-bonds?
2024-09-12 20:05:28 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I am going to celebrate with lunch.
2024-09-12 20:06:01 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !endmeeting