2025-03-13 17:02:25 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !startmeeting F42 Beta Go/No-Go meeting
2025-03-13 17:02:27 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2025-03-13 17:02:25 UTC
2025-03-13 17:02:27 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'F42 Beta Go/No-Go meeting'
2025-03-13 17:02:55 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> !hi
2025-03-13 17:02:56 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Roll Call
2025-03-13 17:03:00 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Fábio Ribeiro (farribeiro) - he / him / his
2025-03-13 17:03:00 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !hi
2025-03-13 17:03:03 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Aoife Moloney (amoloney)
2025-03-13 17:03:26 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Hi
2025-03-13 17:04:05 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> Go/No-Go meeting!
2025-03-13 17:04:38 <@amoloney:fedora.im> We will give it a few mins for folks to arrive
2025-03-13 17:05:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !hi
2025-03-13 17:05:03 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Adam Williamson (adamwill) - he / him / his
2025-03-13 17:05:04 <@amoloney:fedora.im> and by a few, I mean ... two
2025-03-13 17:05:05 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> morning
2025-03-13 17:05:16 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> !hi
2025-03-13 17:05:17 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Christopher Boni (boniboyblue)
2025-03-13 17:06:16 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !hi
2025-03-13 17:06:18 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) - he / him / his
2025-03-13 17:06:55 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> !hi
2025-03-13 17:06:57 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Kashyap Chamarthy (kashyapc)
2025-03-13 17:07:11 <@mattdm:fedora.im> !hi
2025-03-13 17:07:12 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Matthew Miller (mattdm) - he / him / his
2025-03-13 17:07:29 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Purpose of this meeting:
2025-03-13 17:07:42 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info Purpose of this meeting is to check whether or not F42 Beta is ready for shipment, according to the release criteria.
2025-03-13 17:07:53 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info This is determined in a few ways:
2025-03-13 17:08:06 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info 1. Release candidate compose is available
2025-03-13 17:08:21 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info 2. No remaining blocker bugs
2025-03-13 17:08:31 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info 3. Test matrices are fully completed
2025-03-13 17:08:39 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info 4. Fedora IoT and CoreOS are ready
2025-03-13 17:08:50 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Current status - RC
2025-03-13 17:09:06 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> !hi
2025-03-13 17:09:07 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Do we have a release candidate to discuss?
2025-03-13 17:09:11 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Geraldo S. Simião Kutz (geraldosimiao) - he / him / his
2025-03-13 17:09:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yes we do!
2025-03-13 17:09:21 <@amoloney:fedora.im> always a good start :)
2025-03-13 17:09:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we are on candidate 1.4
2025-03-13 17:09:54 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info The RC is 1.4
2025-03-13 17:10:06 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Current Status - Blockers
2025-03-13 17:10:27 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !link https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/42/beta/buglist
2025-03-13 17:10:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we have some of those too!
2025-03-13 17:10:42 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info Fedora QA will lead this section of the meeting
2025-03-13 17:10:51 <@amoloney:fedora.im> over to you and yours, @ada§
2025-03-13 17:10:56 <@amoloney:fedora.im> over to you and yours, @adamw
2025-03-13 17:11:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i've been renamed by elon musk!?
2025-03-13 17:11:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alllrighty
2025-03-13 17:11:20 <@amoloney:fedora.im> not yet, just my pudgy fingers :p
2025-03-13 17:11:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we have a couple of blocker proposals, so let's start with those
2025-03-13 17:11:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2351848) unable to perform an mdraid installation with Fedora-Workstation-Live-42_Beta-1.4.x86_64.iso
2025-03-13 17:11:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST
2025-03-13 17:11:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1792
2025-03-13 17:11:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351848
2025-03-13 17:12:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so this isn't so much 'absolutely cannot do a RAID install' - Kamil Páral and I have both managed to do it - but 'one perfectly plausible way of doing it doesn't work'
2025-03-13 17:12:08 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> !hi
2025-03-13 17:12:10 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his
2025-03-13 17:13:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i can't watch the video without risking my laptop hanging (sigh, amd) but from the comments, i think the trigger here is 'not setting the mount point in the storage editor, but trying to set it from 'assign mount points' after creating it in the storage editor'
2025-03-13 17:13:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> can anyone who can watch videos without potential doom confirm? :D
2025-03-13 17:13:21 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> adamw: Excuse my question: how many "perfectly plausible ways" are there to do it? :)
2025-03-13 17:13:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i can't watch the video without risking my laptop hanging (sigh, amd) but from the comments, i think the trigger here is 'not setting the mount point in the storage editor, but trying to set it from 'assign mount points' after creating the device in the storage editor'
2025-03-13 17:13:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> lots?
2025-03-13 17:14:05 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> i am watching the video..
2025-03-13 17:14:08 <@mattdm:fedora.im> too many, for $REASONS
2025-03-13 17:14:25 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Okay, I can watch the video and it works fine. It's 23 seconds.
2025-03-13 17:14:46 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah, it's not assigning a mount point at first then trying to assign it after
2025-03-13 17:15:02 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> Yes, the part is created w/o any info. it's just "Create Partition -> click Create button"
2025-03-13 17:15:20 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> Kevin beat me to it 🙂
2025-03-13 17:15:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> nirik so she came out of storage editor then went into the mount point assignment ui, right?
2025-03-13 17:15:37 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yes
2025-03-13 17:15:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay.
2025-03-13 17:15:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so yeah. if you do that, it blows up. if you set a mount point in the storage editor, it works.
2025-03-13 17:15:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> is that a beta blocker? hmmm!
2025-03-13 17:16:04 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> then they go back thru anaconda and the UI glitches out...
2025-03-13 17:16:50 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> initially showing / /boot and /boot/efi, then flickering for a bit and showing ONLY / and /boot/efi (no /boot)
2025-03-13 17:16:56 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> I would only use the way it works to set it up. When creating it, assign mount points right away.
2025-03-13 17:16:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the criteria say "the installer must be able to: ... Create mount points backed by ... software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions ... Assign mount points to existing storage volumes"
2025-03-13 17:17:19 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> which maybe seems like a separate bug?
2025-03-13 17:17:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> lruzicka unfortunately there isn't a neon sign in the installer saying THIS IS THE WAY THAT WORKS, DON'T USE THE OTHER WAY :D
2025-03-13 17:17:29 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> .. yet
2025-03-13 17:17:37 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Is it likely to be fixed by final?
2025-03-13 17:17:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, yeah
2025-03-13 17:17:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we have the fix already
2025-03-13 17:17:50 <@amoloney:fedora.im> if so, commonbugs (and a light one at that imho)
2025-03-13 17:17:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> practical question is, do we slip a week to fix it for beta
2025-03-13 17:18:00 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> so, I think this is a blocker by the critera. (But then I will propose we waive it on the 'too late' clause)
2025-03-13 17:18:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, i would say this is a conditional violation of the criteria
2025-03-13 17:18:18 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> The upstream fix (a one-liner): https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/6261/files
2025-03-13 17:18:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the installer *can* do the thing. but it can also fail to do the thing. it depends on the exact steps.
2025-03-13 17:19:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> given that this is a new UI and that's always gonna have teething troubles, i'm willing to set a slightly lower bar for it, and vote -1 on this, we can commonbugs it
2025-03-13 17:19:06 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> The only thing I am saying is that if can be done, we document it and fix for final. Katerina suggested to fix it for final.
2025-03-13 17:19:46 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> sure, I'm good with -1 and common bugs too... saying it's a corner case, etc?
2025-03-13 17:20:00 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack for that
2025-03-13 17:20:12 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> ack that, too
2025-03-13 17:20:16 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-13 17:20:19 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> fix for final, leave beta as is
2025-03-13 17:20:27 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Ack
2025-03-13 17:20:40 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Yeah, I think such kind of "RAID" installations are often done on "enterprise distros"
2025-03-13 17:20:42 <@amoloney:fedora.im> fwiw - ack
2025-03-13 17:22:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> sigh i walk away for one minute and people forget the protocol!
2025-03-13 17:22:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we do +1 / -1 first, then acks. :D
2025-03-13 17:22:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> counting acks as -1s...
2025-03-13 17:22:36 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> -1
2025-03-13 17:23:02 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> -1
2025-03-13 17:23:10 <@mattdm:fedora.im> -1
2025-03-13 17:23:14 <@amoloney:fedora.im> -1
2025-03-13 17:23:14 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> Adam, just be glad I didn't say "I +1 the -1 proposal"
2025-03-13 17:23:16 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> -1
2025-03-13 17:23:17 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> -1
2025-03-13 17:23:40 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> -1
2025-03-13 17:23:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2351848 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - we decided this is a conditional violation (the installer *can* do everything the criteria say if you hold it right, but it fails if you hold it wrong). Given webui is new and we have to accept some level of teething troubles for it in a Beta, we decided this is not severe enough to be a blocker, so it's rejected
2025-03-13 17:24:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !fire Neil Hanlon
2025-03-13 17:24:12 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> ack (both)
2025-03-13 17:24:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> dangit somebody needs to implement that command already
2025-03-13 17:24:22 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> *finds a bankers box*
2025-03-13 17:24:22 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-13 17:24:27 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ack
2025-03-13 17:24:32 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-13 17:24:42 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Ack
2025-03-13 17:24:56 <@amoloney:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-13 17:25:50 <@mattdm:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-13 17:26:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2351848 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - we decided this is a conditional violation (the installer can do everything the criteria say if you hold it right, but it fails if you hold it wrong). Given webui is new and we have to accept some level of teething troubles for it in a Beta, we decided this is not severe enough to be a blocker, so it's rejected
2025-03-13 17:26:24 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> Ack
2025-03-13 17:26:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1790
2025-03-13 17:26:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, mdadm, ASSIGNED
2025-03-13 17:26:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2325906) [WebUI] Can't reuse existing RAID partitioning
2025-03-13 17:26:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325906
2025-03-13 17:26:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this one seems rather worse to me
2025-03-13 17:26:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm somewhat inclined to +1 it
2025-03-13 17:29:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> anyone else?
2025-03-13 17:30:04 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> I did'nt understood how Inie reproduced this on beta 1.4
2025-03-13 17:30:12 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah, leaning +1
2025-03-13 17:30:30 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> because the original ticket is from november
2025-03-13 17:30:35 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> also leaning +1 on that. seems it could even have some sort of interaction with the last one we discussed..
2025-03-13 17:30:51 <@mattdm:fedora.im> reluctantly +1 
2025-03-13 17:31:14 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> +1
2025-03-13 17:31:26 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> I'm not enough of a RAID user to have a strong opinion.  But there seems to be an easy reproducer: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325906#c15
2025-03-13 17:31:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> geraldosimiao it just never got fixed, i think. i think i actually ran into it a couple of months ago too and mentioned it on some other bug/ticket
2025-03-13 17:31:54 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> +1
2025-03-13 17:32:07 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ok, sad ☹️
2025-03-13 17:32:14 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> +1 then
2025-03-13 17:32:40 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> hum. so does that mean we can't waive it as too late? :)
2025-03-13 17:32:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i would be curious to know if this reproduces on the KDE live, it sounds like it would
2025-03-13 17:33:25 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> anyway we're only at Early Target date BTW
2025-03-13 17:33:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hmm, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325906#c9 is kinda interesting - this is broken in f41 too, apparently?
2025-03-13 17:33:34 <@amoloney:fedora.im> no were at 1
2025-03-13 17:33:41 <@amoloney:fedora.im> we missed early target already
2025-03-13 17:33:46 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> tbh i'm a bit confused how we have mdadm 4.3 when there's no such tarball on kernel.org https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/raid/mdadm/
2025-03-13 17:34:04 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ohhh, so we already do release with this bug
2025-03-13 17:34:07 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> oh nvm, i'm just blind 🙂
2025-03-13 17:34:29 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> 0.4.x != 4.x
2025-03-13 17:34:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> geraldosimiao apparently, but it might be nice to confirm
2025-03-13 17:34:53 <@mattdm:fedora.im> I'm inclined to ask for a waiver if it exists in 41
2025-03-13 17:34:58 <@amoloney:fedora.im> what does another week mean for Final? Rn, we are in FF on April 1st (no joke!), which theoretically will only leave a week for beta to have been released
2025-03-13 17:35:08 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Well, i would also like to point out that this bug was never proposed a blocker until now, so it is sort of late blocker.
2025-03-13 17:35:18 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> good point
2025-03-13 17:35:24 <@amoloney:fedora.im> if we block on this bug and delay beta another week, we should see if we need to adjust final timeframes
2025-03-13 17:36:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so yeah, i can reproduce this trying to reinstall f42 over an f42-created raid
2025-03-13 17:36:10 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> it means one week less for people "in the wild" do tests
2025-03-13 17:36:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> now trying f41
2025-03-13 17:36:31 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> If it's realistically reproducible with F41, this counts more as a low-prio "regression", no?  Instead of a "blocker"?  I'm just going by intuition ere, and not any criteria docs.  :D
2025-03-13 17:36:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> kashyapc it isn't always that simple, but we factor it in
2025-03-13 17:37:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> there is no hard rule that it's not a blocker just because we didn't find it last cycle
2025-03-13 17:37:19 <@mattdm:fedora.im> If we have to slip here, we lose the early target for final. Still could be on schedule.
2025-03-13 17:37:35 <@amoloney:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-13 17:37:39 <@mattdm:fedora.im> I know, but I hate to block on such things unless they're widely catastrophic. 
2025-03-13 17:37:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm starting an f41 live install now
2025-03-13 17:37:49 <@mattdm:fedora.im> Aoife Moloney: we need to bring back Prioritized Bugs process
2025-03-13 17:38:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> one factor here is that we don't usually test complex storage cases on live
2025-03-13 17:38:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we usually test them on netinst/dvd
2025-03-13 17:38:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> that's changed for this cycle because webui is *only* on live
2025-03-13 17:38:23 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Yeah, fair point.  I just thought if it's serious enough, we'd hear loud-enough complaints.  But point taken.
2025-03-13 17:38:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> kashyapc storage is always the hardest thing
2025-03-13 17:38:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> because everyone does storage different
2025-03-13 17:38:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it's hard to know what to decide is Important Enough
2025-03-13 17:39:21 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Not a consolation, but even in virtualization world, many nasty bugs come from storage :D
2025-03-13 17:39:54 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Not a consolation, but even in the virtualization world, many nasty bugs come from storage :D
2025-03-13 17:40:11 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> the entire problem is files.. we just need no/less files... ;)
2025-03-13 17:40:21 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> yes.
2025-03-13 17:40:35 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> But isn't everything a file? ;-)
2025-03-13 17:40:54 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> everything's a file _descriptor_ ... 🙂
2025-03-13 17:41:44 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> I'm +1 on the blocker for this, fwiw. I think installing atop an existing raid is probably a fairly normal situation especially for the Server WG folks, e.g.
2025-03-13 17:41:51 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> I'm (still) +1 on the blocker for this, fwiw. I think installing atop an existing raid is probably a fairly normal situation especially for the Server WG folks, e.g.
2025-03-13 17:42:37 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> well, note that this is just workstation no? or is this gtk anaconda?
2025-03-13 17:42:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> huh, running an f41 install over an f42 existing raid hits this bug *even if i wipe the existing raid as part of the install*
2025-03-13 17:42:58 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah, this is webui. so workstation only
2025-03-13 17:42:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Neil Hanlon i'm not sure this fails on Server
2025-03-13 17:43:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> no, this isn't webui
2025-03-13 17:43:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it affects gtkui too
2025-03-13 17:43:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but i think it may be *live* only
2025-03-13 17:43:18 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> the subject on the bug is wrong then
2025-03-13 17:43:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> live is very different for existing storage
2025-03-13 17:43:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, we should update that, but it's discussed in the comments
2025-03-13 17:43:44 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> Ah, i see. Sorta forgot theres that split with webui now too
2025-03-13 17:44:00 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> well, f41 live (using gtk anaconda) reproduces...
2025-03-13 17:44:00 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> context switching failed successfully
2025-03-13 17:44:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, it's an annoying conflation of things
2025-03-13 17:45:32 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> so where do we want to go here?
2025-03-13 17:45:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm still testing scenarios
2025-03-13 17:45:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> wanna confirm whether f41 server is affected
2025-03-13 17:46:41 <@zodbot:fedora.im> neil has already given cookies to kevin during the F41 timeframe
2025-03-13 17:46:55 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> proposal: waive it as late
2025-03-13 17:47:00 <@zodbot:fedora.im> farribeiro gave a cookie to kevin. They now have 720 cookies, 28 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
2025-03-13 17:47:04 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> as mattdm said
2025-03-13 17:47:12 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> well, we have to either accept or reject it first.
2025-03-13 17:47:25 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> yeah
2025-03-13 17:47:28 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> your right
2025-03-13 17:47:32 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> yeah
2025-03-13 17:47:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, so it looks like the case here is 'broken on live f41 and f42; works on server f41 (and probably f42 but didn't test yet)'
2025-03-13 17:47:54 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Accept, waive, fix
2025-03-13 17:47:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, based on that: votes?
2025-03-13 17:48:07 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> +1 blocker; wave, fix.
2025-03-13 17:48:11 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> waive, even
2025-03-13 17:48:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think i'm +1 on the whole. though at some point we may need some kind of 'complex storage might not always work on live' get-out clause
2025-03-13 17:48:15 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> -1 blocker
2025-03-13 17:49:58 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> +1 I guess... (but I will vote to waive on too late later ;)
2025-03-13 17:50:03 <@mattdm:fedora.im> +1 blocker but waive
2025-03-13 17:50:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok
2025-03-13 17:52:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2325906 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of "the installer must be able to: ... Correctly interpret, and modify as described below any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table containing ... software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions ... Remove existing storage volumes ... Assign mount points to existing storage volumes", on live images (non-live seem unaffected)
2025-03-13 17:52:55 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> a feature that is neede on server, works fine on server install, but don't at a workstation media. seems fine :|
2025-03-13 17:53:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> who said you can't use raid on a workstation?
2025-03-13 17:53:12 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> aack
2025-03-13 17:53:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i did for years
2025-03-13 17:53:24 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-13 17:53:24 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-13 17:53:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> RAID-5 set of 3 SSDs, for some redundancy
2025-03-13 17:53:29 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Ack
2025-03-13 17:53:33 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> its possible
2025-03-13 17:53:34 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-13 17:53:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2325906 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of "the installer must be able to: ... Correctly interpret, and modify as described below any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table containing ... software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions ... Remove existing storage volumes ... Assign mount points to existing storage volumes", on live images (non-live seem unaffected)
2025-03-13 17:53:52 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> RAID5 🤮
2025-03-13 17:54:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> eh, i had three SSDs. :P
2025-03-13 17:54:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> anyhoo
2025-03-13 17:54:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> with that, we have two accepted blockers
2025-03-13 17:54:17 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> no one, I was just thinking.
2025-03-13 17:54:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> uhh. Aoife Moloney do you remember when we do the waiving thing?
2025-03-13 17:54:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> is it now or later?
2025-03-13 17:54:31 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> hot swap?
2025-03-13 17:54:35 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> alright, next step
2025-03-13 17:54:46 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I...do not :(
2025-03-13 17:54:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> looking at the script, i guess now makes the most sense
2025-03-13 17:55:03 <@amoloney:fedora.im> maybe after accepted blockers, or as part of this section?
2025-03-13 17:55:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> because if we don't waive them, we should just skip to no-go
2025-03-13 17:55:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so yeah
2025-03-13 17:55:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> let's go to considering accepted blockers
2025-03-13 17:55:23 <@amoloney:fedora.im> yeah, this is true
2025-03-13 17:55:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> since we still have the topic on this one...
2025-03-13 17:55:39 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Ill add that as a note in the SOP
2025-03-13 17:55:43 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah, now is good.
2025-03-13 17:55:49 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> yeah
2025-03-13 17:55:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info the idea of waiving this blocker has come up, so let's discuss that
2025-03-13 17:56:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so for anyone who needs a refresher: the process here is https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process#Exceptional_cases
2025-03-13 17:57:19 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I'd propose this for the last minute exception.
2025-03-13 17:57:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> there are two justifications under which we can waive blockers: "Last minute blocker bugs" ("there are some circumstances in which we believe it is not sensible to delay an otherwise-impending release to fix a bug which would usually be accepted as a blocker if discovered earlier") and "Difficult to fix blocker bugs" ("bugs which it may not be practical to fix within a reasonable time frame for the release to be made")
2025-03-13 17:57:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i would actually say this fits both
2025-03-13 17:58:06 <@mattdm:fedora.im> Please waive this blocker. It's not _great_, but it's relatively uncommon and has existed for a while, and also _let's ship this thing_. :)
2025-03-13 17:58:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it was certainly proposed last minute, and it looks hard to fix, since it's been sitting around for months and we've had zero input from any mdadm dev
2025-03-13 17:58:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (although that might mean it's *easy* to fix but they just haven't been bothered, i guess...)
2025-03-13 17:58:47 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> Yeah, reading up that criteria, it definitely fits it.  As it's a "latent blocker" (if that's a phrase)
2025-03-13 17:58:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm in favour of waiving it, given all the circumstances (especially that it's already broken in f41)
2025-03-13 17:59:05 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah, unknown how easy to fix, but it's definitely last minute. ;)
2025-03-13 17:59:18 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> +1 waive it
2025-03-13 17:59:27 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> last minute, +1 waive this blocker
2025-03-13 17:59:35 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> +1 for waivig, FWIW
2025-03-13 17:59:39 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> Waive +1
2025-03-13 17:59:42 <@kashyapc:fedora.im> +1 for waiving, FWIW
2025-03-13 17:59:48 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> +1
2025-03-13 18:00:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2325906 - waived to Fedora 42 Final under both the "Last minute" and "Difficult to fix" justifications
2025-03-13 18:00:16 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ack
2025-03-13 18:00:23 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-13 18:00:29 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-13 18:00:36 <@amoloney:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-13 18:00:36 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-13 18:00:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2325906 - waived to Fedora 42 Final under both the "Last minute" and "Difficult to fix" justifications
2025-03-13 18:00:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay
2025-03-13 18:00:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so let's consider the other accepted blocker
2025-03-13 18:01:00 <@mattdm:fedora.im> yay!
2025-03-13 18:01:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2351459) F42 Beta release blocking images are oversize
2025-03-13 18:01:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351459
2025-03-13 18:01:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1788
2025-03-13 18:01:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Accepted Blocker, distribution, NEW
2025-03-13 18:01:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info let's also consider waiving this one
2025-03-13 18:01:26 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah, unfortunate, but I think we should waive this one too...
2025-03-13 18:01:47 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> +1 to waive
2025-03-13 18:01:54 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> +1 waive
2025-03-13 18:01:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, a few factors here: there is supposed to be a robot filing bugs automatically when images are oversize, and because of that, i don't eyeball the matrices for it any more. unfortunately, the robot's API key expired, so it didn't file any bugs
2025-03-13 18:01:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so we came across this quite late
2025-03-13 18:02:06 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> +1 waive
2025-03-13 18:02:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> another factor: the size limit in question isn't a very significant one
2025-03-13 18:02:34 <@mattdm:fedora.im> +1 waive now, fix robot, drop blocker critierion
2025-03-13 18:02:35 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> pesky robots.
2025-03-13 18:02:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we do still have a couple of limits tied to physical media - anything that's at 4.7GB is DVD size - but the one we're exceeding here is 1 power-of-ten GB, which is fairly notional
2025-03-13 18:03:17 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> in 2025, blocking a relase based on 1999 cd size media
2025-03-13 18:03:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay, there used to be 1G USB sticks. are we super worried about whether anyone can write the aarch64 server boot ISO to one? nah.
2025-03-13 18:03:21 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> Waive +1 under last minute blocker
2025-03-13 18:03:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm not in favor of dropping the criterion, we have perfectly fine ways to handle this when the frickin' robot works
2025-03-13 18:03:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (fix the size or bump the limit)
2025-03-13 18:03:54 <@mattdm:fedora.im> yeah a lot of the branded-swag USB sticks were 1GB
2025-03-13 18:04:05 <@mattdm:fedora.im> I have a whole pile of 2GB ones in the nostalgia bin
2025-03-13 18:04:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah think the smallest i still have is 2G
2025-03-13 18:04:28 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> 2GB is a fine limit
2025-03-13 18:04:39 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> anyway, thats for another meeting
2025-03-13 18:05:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2351459 - waived to Fedora 42 Final under the 'last minute' justification. this was discovered late due to robot malfunctions. in the usual course of events we would have discovered this weeks ago and either squished the image a bit or just bumped the size limit. since this is not a very significant size limit - nobody in the meeting has seen a 1GB USB stick lately - we're comfortable waiving it
2025-03-13 18:05:33 <@x3mboy:fedora.im> In 2GB you can put the netinstaller, no?
2025-03-13 18:05:43 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> can
2025-03-13 18:05:51 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-13 18:05:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, it's just barely over 1G, it'd fit 2G easy.
2025-03-13 18:05:52 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> ack
2025-03-13 18:05:53 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I am +1 to this proposal and also, ack
2025-03-13 18:06:01 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2025-03-13 18:06:08 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ack
2025-03-13 18:06:12 <@amoloney:fedora.im> (I have forgotten what you want first adamw already)
2025-03-13 18:06:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2351459 - waived to Fedora 42 Final under the 'last minute' justification. this was discovered late due to robot malfunctions. in the usual course of events we would have discovered this weeks ago and either squished the image a bit or just bumped the size limit. since this is not a very significant size limit - nobody in the meeting has seen a 1GB USB stick lately - we're comfortable waiving it
2025-03-13 18:06:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> +1s first, acks after the proposal
2025-03-13 18:06:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, so with that:
2025-03-13 18:06:50 <@amoloney:fedora.im> ack :p
2025-03-13 18:06:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Blocker status
2025-03-13 18:07:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info we have two unaddressed blockers in the current candidate, but both are waived
2025-03-13 18:07:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> aaand we can move on i believe
2025-03-13 18:07:48 <@amoloney:fedora.im> exellent, tests next 
2025-03-13 18:08:09 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info Current status - test matrices
2025-03-13 18:08:28 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fedora_42_Test_Results
2025-03-13 18:09:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/testcase_stats/42/
2025-03-13 18:10:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> everyone go 'oooo' at the shiny new testcase_stats layout by lruzicka
2025-03-13 18:10:21 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I actually did hahaha
2025-03-13 18:10:29 <@amoloney:fedora.im> lruzicka: ++
2025-03-13 18:10:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> also everybody please tell me if any of the results seem wildly wrong because i just fixed a bug in them an hour ago and i'm hoping i did it right
2025-03-13 18:10:31 <@zodbot:fedora.im> amoloney gave a cookie to lruzicka. They now have 31 cookies, 1 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
2025-03-13 18:10:38 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> oooooo
2025-03-13 18:10:43 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> @lruzicka ++
2025-03-13 18:10:45 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Thanks
2025-03-13 18:10:46 <@zodbot:fedora.im> neil gave a cookie to lruzicka. They now have 32 cookies, 2 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
2025-03-13 18:10:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but on the whole, we're looking out for red boxes. red is bad
2025-03-13 18:10:59 <@mattdm:fedora.im> seriously, oooooh
2025-03-13 18:11:04 <@mattdm:fedora.im> lrzuicka++
2025-03-13 18:11:05 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> *pokes his openqa people to upgrade*
2025-03-13 18:11:05 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Sorry, but Fedora Accounts user 'lrzuicka' does not exist
2025-03-13 18:11:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> as usual, the cloud ec2 tests aren't done yet. i was gonna do them before the meeting but got stuck fixing the bug in testcase_stats. :P
2025-03-13 18:11:16 <@zodbot:fedora.im> aggraxis gave a cookie to lruzicka. They now have 33 cookies, 3 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
2025-03-13 18:11:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Neil Hanlon this is not actually part of openqa at all. i just host it on that box cos it's a box with an http server on it that i can put stuff on. :P
2025-03-13 18:11:40 <@mattdm:fedora.im> looks like Cloud is not really getting tested?
2025-03-13 18:11:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Neil Hanlon it's part of https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/relval
2025-03-13 18:12:04 <@zodbot:fedora.im> geraldosimiao gave a cookie to lruzicka. They now have 34 cookies, 4 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
2025-03-13 18:12:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> mattdm this is how it goes every cycle, it never gets done, i do it in a hurry during the meeting
2025-03-13 18:12:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and we keep saying we're going to automate it and never get round to it
2025-03-13 18:12:17 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> ooh, thanks 🙂
2025-03-13 18:12:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, let me just fire up my aws console...
2025-03-13 18:12:25 <@zodbot:fedora.im> farribeiro gave a cookie to lruzicka. They now have 35 cookies, 5 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
2025-03-13 18:12:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Neil Hanlon it is *highly* tied to our crazy wiki test case management system...thing
2025-03-13 18:13:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> outside of cloud we're looking mostly good
2025-03-13 18:13:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it appears nobody's tried aarch64 ISOs on real hardware though
2025-03-13 18:13:40 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> ack, still.. cool 🙂
2025-03-13 18:13:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> can anyone do that? you need an aarch64 test box that can boot generic UEFI ISOs
2025-03-13 18:14:29 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> i can do that on an Ampere box... for a few months more at least
2025-03-13 18:14:52 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> let me find my ipxe config
2025-03-13 18:14:56 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> I don't have aarch64 hardware... 😢
2025-03-13 18:15:06 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> huh, is the line for desktop app basic others swapped between workstation and kde? ie, I think it's passed on workstation, no one tested on kde?
2025-03-13 18:15:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it's supposed to be tested from a usb key but hey, if ipxe boot works it's probably fine
2025-03-13 18:15:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> nirik oh god that sounds a lot like what i was trying to fix / might have broken in other cases
2025-03-13 18:15:46 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah, I think they are swapped in other cases too...
2025-03-13 18:15:50 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> I've recently installed via pxe on an aarch64 box. I can do the usb test as well 
2025-03-13 18:16:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> nirik no, actually, it looks right
2025-03-13 18:16:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_42_Beta_1.2_Desktop#Release-blocking_desktops:_x86_/_x86_64
2025-03-13 18:16:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> geraldo filled that out for KDE, there's no result for Workstation there
2025-03-13 18:17:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> pwhalen thanks, if you can do that while i AWS...
2025-03-13 18:17:45 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Ill set the info for the meeting
2025-03-13 18:17:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> agh god the amis are missing, why are the amis missing
2025-03-13 18:18:08 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> huh... I was looking at the QA:Testcase_workstation_core_applications line...
2025-03-13 18:18:09 <@amoloney:fedora.im> are there any other tests to be/could be done too? 
2025-03-13 18:19:04 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> side note: not sure how much sense it makes to test workstation core applications, they're mostly stuck at gnome 47 versions while gnome 48 update is fresh and only in "testing" repos 
2025-03-13 18:19:06 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> yeah, didn't tested this on work indeed.
2025-03-13 18:19:07 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> was it the Cloud aarch64 ISO we need to test on HW, @adamw ?
2025-03-13 18:19:24 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> err, wait, those don't have ISOs. ignoreme 😃
2025-03-13 18:19:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Neil Hanlon https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_42_Beta_1.4_Installation#Default_boot_and_install_(aarch64) - Server
2025-03-13 18:19:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> DVD or netinst, either one would be fine
2025-03-13 18:19:53 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> *still learning this qa stuff*
2025-03-13 18:20:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> there are multiple of those lines for different apps
2025-03-13 18:20:10 <@Zlopez:matrix.org> I tested just the Kinoite installation, could that be counted as KDE Workstation?
2025-03-13 18:20:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we are testing them because we're shipping an OS, and they should work. doesn't matter whether they're new versions or not
2025-03-13 18:20:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Zlopez no. Workstation means...Workstation. the actual, non-atomic, GNOME-based, Workstation.
2025-03-13 18:21:19 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I mean because testing something that will not be shipped *ever* except for on the beta image ...
2025-03-13 18:21:32 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info We are waiting for additional tests to be run before proceeding with the meeting
2025-03-13 18:21:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> anyhow
2025-03-13 18:21:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> what is going on with these frickin' AMIs
2025-03-13 18:22:25 <@Zlopez:matrix.org> Worth the shot :-D
2025-03-13 18:24:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> agh crap something changed in datagrepper again
2025-03-13 18:26:30 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> I've got an ampere box booting on equinix 🤞
2025-03-13 18:29:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i am desperately trying to find the correct message topic. agh
2025-03-13 18:29:43 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> humf, nothing should have changed there... ;(
2025-03-13 18:30:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, something's off
2025-03-13 18:30:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> nirik do you happen to know what *category* the messages from cloud-image-uploader are in?
2025-03-13 18:31:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i can't query by topic when i'm trying to find the damn topic
2025-03-13 18:31:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, maybe if wildcards work
2025-03-13 18:31:22 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I'm looking...
2025-03-13 18:33:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh hmm
2025-03-13 18:33:44 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> org.fedoraproject.prod.fedora_image_uploader.published.v1.container.branched.fedora
2025-03-13 18:33:46 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> and such
2025-03-13 18:34:12 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/datagrepper/v2/id?id=56493828-2185-413f-ad5c-26dc56f221ac&is_raw=true&size=extra-large
2025-03-13 18:34:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah it seems like the topic is rightish but it's filtering out the messages...ugh...
2025-03-13 18:35:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> wait. did the image uploader not actually work?
2025-03-13 18:35:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/datagrepper/raw?topic=org.fedoraproject.prod.fedora_image_uploader.published.v1.aws.branched.Cloud_Base.x86_64&topic=org.fedoraproject.prod.fedora_image_uploader.published.v1.aws.branched.Cloud_Base.aarch64&topic=org.fedoraproject.prod.fedora_image_uploader.published.v1.aws.rawhide.Cloud_Base.x86_64&topic=org.fedoraproject.prod.fedora_image_uploader.published.v1.aws.rawhide.Cloud_Base.aarch64&start=1741737600.0&end=1741910400.0
2025-03-13 18:35:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> doesn't have anything for the candidate compose
2025-03-13 18:35:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> only for nightlies
2025-03-13 18:35:41 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> so...
2025-03-13 18:36:00 <@Zlopez:matrix.org> It should process messages with topic `org.fedoraproject.*.pungi.compose.status.change`
2025-03-13 18:36:04 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> can we just test some other way and sort the ami issue seperately?
2025-03-13 18:36:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, i don't know how to get an arbitrary image into aws and test it :)
2025-03-13 18:36:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we need to test in a 'real' cloud, doesn't have to be aws
2025-03-13 18:36:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if anyone knows how to do it in aws or any other cloud, please goa head
2025-03-13 18:37:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> nirik  heh i see you are also in openshift...
2025-03-13 18:37:22 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I'm looking in it's logs
2025-03-13 18:37:34 <@Zlopez:matrix.org> I see this `[2025-03-13 17:07:38,199 fedora_image_uploader.utils INFO] Published ContainerPublishedV1 message to fedora_image_uploader.published.v1.container.nightly.fedora-bootc`
2025-03-13 18:37:45 <@Zlopez:matrix.org> That is the last one
2025-03-13 18:38:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ahhh crap
2025-03-13 18:39:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/datagrepper/raw?topic=org.fedoraproject.prod.fedora_image_uploader.published.v1.aws.branched.Cloud_Base.x86_64&topic=org.fedoraproject.prod.fedora_image_uploader.published.v1.aws.branched.Cloud_Base.aarch64&topic=org.fedoraproject.prod.fedora_image_uploader.published.v1.aws.rawhide.Cloud_Base.x86_64&topic=org.fedoraproject.prod.fedora_image_uploader.published.v1.aws.beta.Cloud_Base.aarch64&start=1741737600.0&end=1741910400.0
2025-03-13 18:39:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the topic has 'beta' in it
2025-03-13 18:39:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think relval looks for 'branched'
2025-03-13 18:39:28 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah, so it looks like it did upload
2025-03-13 18:39:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay, got it
2025-03-13 18:40:30 <@Zlopez:matrix.org> Was looking too close to the end :/
2025-03-13 18:40:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay. we have amis
2025-03-13 18:40:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> resuming testing
2025-03-13 18:41:06 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> BTW, as a side note... things that reflow pages when you are trying to click on them are really irritating (looking at you aws console)
2025-03-13 18:41:53 <@Zlopez:matrix.org> Dynamic pages are evil made by evil programmers
2025-03-13 18:44:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh god i hate that
2025-03-13 18:44:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> sorry for the delay folks
2025-03-13 18:44:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm just going to do a quick sanity check on both arches and call it good
2025-03-13 18:45:13 <@amoloney:fedora.im> its fine, i added an info that were waiting for some tests a while back
2025-03-13 18:46:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> x86_64 looks fine
2025-03-13 18:49:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> aaaand aarch64 looks fine
2025-03-13 18:49:15 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> side note: there's a report on the qa list about Xfce not running initial setup... I've had 0 time to look into it. ;(
2025-03-13 18:49:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> did we get the aarch64 ISO testing done?
2025-03-13 18:49:23 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Neil Hanlon: how goes server?
2025-03-13 18:49:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> nirik yeah i had that on the list to look at today too
2025-03-13 18:50:00 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> should be done shortly 
2025-03-13 18:50:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> heh
2025-03-13 18:50:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Cloud smoke test on ec2 aarch64 and x86_64 looks good, will fill the matrix later
2025-03-13 18:50:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info SAS and FCoE installs not tested due to hardware availability
2025-03-13 18:52:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> other than that i think we look fine
2025-03-13 18:52:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> anyone see anything else important missing?
2025-03-13 18:53:12 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Hey Adam Troy said the aarch64 ISO would not boot
2025-03-13 18:53:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> troy...dawson? doesn't boot on what?
2025-03-13 18:53:33 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Haven't had a chance to look myself yet
2025-03-13 18:53:42 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Yes
2025-03-13 18:53:43 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> Yeah i'm having the same issue here, but I've been trying to netboot, so.
2025-03-13 18:54:09 <@derekenz:fedora.im> Pi4
2025-03-13 18:54:16 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> http://download-ib01.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/42/Server/aarch64/os/EFI/BOOT/grubaa64.efi... ok
2025-03-13 18:54:16 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> ```
2025-03-13 18:54:16 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> iPXE> chain ${grubefi}
2025-03-13 18:54:16 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> http://download-ib01.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/42/Server/aarch64/os/EFI/BOOT/BOOTAA64.EFI... ok
2025-03-13 18:54:16 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> Could not boot: Error 0x7f048183 (https://ipxe.org/7f048183)
2025-03-13 18:54:16 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> iPXE> chain ${grubefi}
2025-03-13 18:54:16 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> Could not boot: Error 0x7f048183 (https://ipxe.org/7f048183)
2025-03-13 18:54:16 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> ```
2025-03-13 18:54:33 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> ☝️ could be firmware, need to test another boxen.
2025-03-13 18:54:40 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> why are computers?
2025-03-13 18:55:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, oh dear.
2025-03-13 18:55:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> clearly it booted for pwhalen , though, if he's halfway through an install?
2025-03-13 18:55:41 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> booted and installing on a Mustang 
2025-03-13 18:56:08 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> hum... Neil Hanlon: you don't have secure boot enabled do you?
2025-03-13 18:56:35 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> https://github.com/ipxe/ipxe/discussions/714 (fedora 35 aarch64 not booting with same error)
2025-03-13 18:57:02 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> let me get into the bios and check..
2025-03-13 18:57:54 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> oh wow, I really need to wake up more. Ignore me for now. I accidentally launched an x86 machine instead of an arm one 🙃
2025-03-13 18:58:00 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> that explains the "exec format error" i just saw
2025-03-13 18:58:05 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ha. oops. ;)
2025-03-13 18:58:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well yeah, that'll make it harder ;)
2025-03-13 18:58:53 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> maybe we should add a negative test case to ensure the architectures don't boot one another's images...
2025-03-13 18:59:02 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> cause i'd have aced that one
2025-03-13 19:00:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think i'd be willing to waive that 'bug'
2025-03-13 19:01:52 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> Install worked on the mustang, seeing if it also works on the Nvidia Jetson NX, seems ok, iso boots 
2025-03-13 19:03:00 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> NOTICE: any folks looking for the ELN meeting, it's starting in #meeting-2:fedoraproject.org
2025-03-13 19:03:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> let's call that good
2025-03-13 19:03:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info we have an aarch64 ISO boot test passing on real hardware, pwhalen will check the wiki box shortly
2025-03-13 19:03:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> last call for any remaining missing tests?
2025-03-13 19:04:35 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> 🦗s
2025-03-13 19:06:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info test matrix coverage is functionally complete
2025-03-13 19:06:44 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Getting closer to the finish line....
2025-03-13 19:07:27 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info CoreOS and IoT check in
2025-03-13 19:07:45 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> IoT is good to go
2025-03-13 19:08:00 <@amoloney:fedora.im> You read my ... script :p
2025-03-13 19:08:05 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Thank you!
2025-03-13 19:08:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> who's around for coreos
2025-03-13 19:08:21 <@amoloney:fedora.im> dustymabe: is CoreOS ready for release?
2025-03-13 19:08:37 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Or anyone from the Fedora CoreOS camp around to confirm?
2025-03-13 19:08:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> travier ^^
2025-03-13 19:08:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> pwhalen what IoT compose are we shipping?
2025-03-13 19:09:54 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> Todays is fine - Fedora-IoT-42-20250313.0
2025-03-13 19:11:18 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I'm not sure who we can get from FCOS... ;( should we just figure that out out of meeting? or do we need to confirm now?
2025-03-13 19:11:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it does look like we have passes on the IoT tests...except for some hw
2025-03-13 19:11:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> let's say we have no reason to believe coreos is *not* ready? :D
2025-03-13 19:12:29 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I can ping the fcos room and yeah we can continue with the assumption that they are..
2025-03-13 19:12:43 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> +1
2025-03-13 19:13:09 <@marmijo:fedora.im> !hi
2025-03-13 19:13:11 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Michael Armijo (marmijo)
2025-03-13 19:13:20 <@marmijo:fedora.im> I'm here from coreos. We're ready
2025-03-13 19:14:39 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info Both Fedora CoreOS and Fedora IoT are ready for release 
2025-03-13 19:15:04 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Go/No-Go Decision
2025-03-13 19:15:50 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I will now poll each team. Please reply 'go' or 'no-go'
2025-03-13 19:16:03 <@amoloney:fedora.im> FESCo
2025-03-13 19:16:06 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> go
2025-03-13 19:16:19 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Releng
2025-03-13 19:16:36 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> also go (switching hats)
2025-03-13 19:16:50 <@amoloney:fedora.im> QA
2025-03-13 19:17:00 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Go
2025-03-13 19:17:01 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Go
2025-03-13 19:17:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> go
2025-03-13 19:17:46 <@boniboyblue:fedora.im> Go. 
2025-03-13 19:17:58 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !agreed Fedora Linux 42 Beta is GO
2025-03-13 19:18:05 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> 🏎️varoom
2025-03-13 19:18:07 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> 🥳
2025-03-13 19:18:10 <@amoloney:fedora.im>  
2025-03-13 19:18:10 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info Fedora Linux 42 Beta will release on the current target date (2025-18-03)
2025-03-13 19:18:10 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> 🚀🎆
2025-03-13 19:18:11 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> lets' goooooooo
2025-03-13 19:18:17 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> 🎉
2025-03-13 19:18:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alrighty
2025-03-13 19:18:33 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !action @amoloney to announce decision 
2025-03-13 19:18:47 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic open floor
2025-03-13 19:18:56 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Anything else before we close up shop?
2025-03-13 19:19:09 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> nothing here. Thanks for the hard work everyone.
2025-03-13 19:19:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks everyone
2025-03-13 19:19:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> sorry for the long meeting
2025-03-13 19:19:48 <@Zlopez:matrix.org> \o/
2025-03-13 19:19:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hey, lruzicka solved the 'what can fedora use AI for?' problem
2025-03-13 19:21:01 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> adamw: you have a moment in a "chambre séparée" for a short chat?
2025-03-13 19:21:04 <@amoloney:fedora.im> And with the silliness approaching, I'll end the meeting :) echoing nirik - thank you everyone for all your hard work!
2025-03-13 19:21:21 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !endmeeting