<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:01:27
!startmeeting Fedora Linux 43 Beta Go/No-Go
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:01:29
Meeting started at 2025-09-11 17:01:27 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:01:29
The Meeting name is 'Fedora Linux 43 Beta Go/No-Go'
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:01:59
good morning everyone. I need to go grab a cup of ☕but I am here.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:02:46
take your time nirik , were ust going to do roll call and Ive a few boiler plate thingys to post in then as well :)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:02:50
!topic Roll Call
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:02:52
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:02:53
Aoife Moloney (amoloney)
<@zlopez:fedora.im>
17:03:23
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:03:25
Michal Konecny (zlopez)
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:03:29
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:03:31
Peter Boy (pboy)
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
17:03:33
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:03:35
Lukáš Růžička (lruzicka)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:04:17
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:04:18
Adam Williamson (adamwill) - he / him / his
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:05:36
☕aquired.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:06:10
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:06:11
Simon de Vlieger (supakeen) - he / him / his
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:06:13
nirik: is GO (for this meeting)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:06:25
ha
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:06:45
!topic Purpose of this meeting
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:06:57
!info info Purpose of this meeting is to check whether or not 43 Beta is ready for shipment, according to the release criteria.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:07:15
!info This is determined in a few ways
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:07:40
!info There is a release candidate compose available
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:07:46
!info 2. No remaining blocker bugs
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:07:57
!info 3. Test matrices are fully completed
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:08:23
!info 4. Fedora CoreOS and IoT are ready
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:08:41
!topic Current Status - RC
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:08:57
Might we have an RC this fine Thursday?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:09:02
we do indeed!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:09:06
we have three of them, in fact
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:09:17
but you probably just want the newest one...
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:09:18
spoiled for choice!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:09:30
are all three for discussion?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:09:41
nope, just beta-1.3, i think.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:10:04
Roger, Roger. Lets proceed with beta-1.3 then for this meeting
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:10:28
!info The current RC for this meeting to discuss and determine release readiness is beta-1.3
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:10:46
and now the fun bit :)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:11:07
!topic Current Status - Blockers
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:11:20
!info https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/43/beta/buglist
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:11:38
!info QA will lead this part of the festivities
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:46
oh fun
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:47
ok
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:00
let's go through the accepted blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:07
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1878
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:07
!topic (2389105) blivet-gui only show one disk from a mdraid device which was created on two disks
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:07
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2389105
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:07
!info Accepted Blocker, blivet-gui, ASSIGNED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:29
i would like to suggest we re-consider the blocker status here. see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2389105#c26
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:44
notably this isn't new. f41 behaves the same (i assume f42 does too, i just checked 41).
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:13:05
i agree the installer *should* be able to do this, but i'm not sure it flies as a beta blocker.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:13:33
it does seem not great, but seems more like a final thing than beta to me (if it's a blocker at all)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:15:14
in the bad old days creating a raid with the base disk was bad because it could overwrite mbr/stuff at the very start of the disk... but I'm sure thats long since been fixed. right?
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:15:19
If it made it into previous releases inadvertently then it's indeed not a strict enough blocker for at least beta.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:15:36
s/strict/impactful
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:16:40
I think it is a very special case for installation. So it would be fine not to block Beta (from Sever POV, which might be the biggest consumer here).
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
17:17:29
-1 Beta Blocker, I agree
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:18:21
yeah, proposal?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:19:18
sorry, had a quick phone call
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:19:19
Ir's a bit bad to overposer the Release Blocker group.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:19:24
-1 Beta Blocker from me as well
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:19:26
um. let me count votes
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:19:33
Ir's a bit bad to overpower the Release Blocker group.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:19:38
-1 bb
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:19:39
(I am -1 BetaBlocker FWIW)
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:19:59
-1 b b
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:20:38
-1 betablocker
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:21:29
proposed !agreed 2389105 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - this is rejected on the basis that anaconda team says the current behavior is as intended, and previous releases had the same behavior as initially reported. the criteria don't *clearly* require that it must be possible to delete RAID sets created directly on disks
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
17:21:48
ack
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:21:52
ack
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:22:07
ack
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:22:13
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:22:50
!agreed 2389105 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - this is rejected on the basis that anaconda team says the current behavior is as intended, and previous releases had the same behavior as initially reported. the criteria don't clearly require that it must be possible to delete RAID sets created directly on disks
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:22:57
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2388785
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:22:57
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1873
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:22:57
!info Accepted Blocker, cockpit, VERIFIED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:22:57
!topic (2388785) [webui] cockpit storage getting hidden on small screens behing non scrollable content
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:23:35
so this is marked as VERIFIED but it's not actually fixed in beta-1.3
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:24:32
Which resolution does this present itself at?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:24:33
i think we should, again, re-discuss the blocker status here. it's a fairly specific bug. it depends on the amount of partitions you have and the screen resolution; only certain combinations trigger it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:24:40
it's a ratio thing
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:24:52
at any given resolution, some specific number of devices will likely trigger it. more or less don't
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:25:02
hum, also, if this is the same bug i noticed yesterday while testing the RAID thing, there's a workaround
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:25:16
Zooming the interface out? :)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:25:29
no, you can click on the device to get to a details screen, and delete it from there
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:25:30
control-shit-- ?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:25:38
control-shift-- ?
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:26:13
I feel it can lose blocker status if this workaround is in release notes?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:26:14
but hey, that might work too, indeed
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:26:22
(either one)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:27:17
a workaround would be good. Kinda bad looking, but also... doesn't sound like it's super widespread? perhaps we waive it as being somewhat out of the main path?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:27:55
it's not *hard* to hit, to be fair
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:27:57
I'm just a bit worried that in the attachment there it happens on someone having only 2 mountpoints.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:28:10
i take it commonbugs is not an option bcoz its not common, but rather just known about?
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
17:28:16
I would say not very much. New comers with fresh installations will probably never hit it.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:28:49
right, you have to want to be deleting partitions? or are any other options hidden?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:29:02
I wonder why that view is not scrollable in the first place? that sounds like it shouldn't be too hard to fix
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:29:21
we have the fix now
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:29:23
it's just not in the candidate
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:29:26
nirik: In the example 'shrin' and 'grow' are also hidden.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:29:32
if we want to fix it, we need a new build, which means a slip
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:29:48
aiui, anything that's off the 'bottom' of the *pane the menu is shown in* is hidden
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:30:14
like, the white box with Storage at the top left of it, in the screencast
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:30:17
I'm fine with a beta where this is a documented issue provided the workaround Adam mentioned works (e.g. go to detail view to perform the action).
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:30:20
if it'll be fixed for final, i think its fine to ship in beta as something known
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:30:30
the menu is getting cut off at the bottom of that box (not overlapping it) and it's not scrollable within it
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:30:33
I wonder, another possible workaround: update anaconda (presuming we get it into updates/base repo after beta)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:30:51
the workaround is: click vda4 (or vda2 or vda3 or whatever) and you get a details screen where you should be able to delete
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:30:56
though not sure if you can do all the other actions
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:31:24
oh, yeah, i see 'shrink' and 'grow' on the details screen
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:31:26
anyhow, yeah, I guess I'd say this could be not a blocker... it doesn't look great, but I don't think it's widespread enough and there's workarounds
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
17:31:32
we can document this as a known issue for Beta and have the fix for Final
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
17:31:39
this makes a good sense to me
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:32:19
Yeah, I agree. Document it in commonbugs and we can live with it in Beta
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:32:28
i'll attach a screencast of the workaround
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:34:35
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2106378
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:34:41
so with the workaround, i'm -1
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:35:00
Same, -1.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:35:02
counting simon, aoife, nirik, lukas, stephen and me...that's -6
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:35:49
proposed !agreed 2388785 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - this is changed to rejected blocker on the basis that a workaround is available and can be documented, so all operations are *possible* even in cases affected by this bug
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:35:57
ack
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:35:58
ack
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
17:36:04
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:36:12
!agreed 2388785 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - this is changed to rejected blocker on the basis that a workaround is available and can be documented, so all operations are possible even in cases affected by this bug
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
17:36:30
Will we propose thos bugs for Final Blocker now?
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
17:36:39
Will we propose those bugs for Final Blocker now?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:36:41
we can do that at the next regular review meeting i guess
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:36:57
well, we can propose them, yeah, vote on them later. though this one we already have the fix for, it just missed beta-1.3
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:37:05
Most of these bugs have pending stable updates.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:37:08
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2392391
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:37:08
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1898
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:37:08
!topic (2392391) gnome-initial-setup start in F43 gets delayed by 90 seconds
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:37:08
!info Accepted Blocker, gnome-initial-setup, VERIFIED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:37:14
!info the fix for this is verified in beta-1.3
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:37:19
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354865
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:37:19
!info Accepted Blocker, libdnf, VERIFIED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:37:19
!topic (2354865) libdnf (DNF4) should read DNF5 repo overrides
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:37:19
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1854
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:37:25
!info the fix for this is verified in beta-1.3
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:37:31
!info Accepted Blocker, mutter, VERIFIED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:37:31
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2390900
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:37:31
!topic (2390900) Some blivet-gui installer dialogs unusable due to placement/sizing bug in Mutter 49 alpha
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:37:31
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1881
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:37:36
!info the fix for this is verified in beta-1.3
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:38:19
and that's all the blockers. we have no new proposals unless anyone wants to add one right now
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:38:40
there was some discussion of systemd 258 vs. dracut 107, but i'm not aware of anyone pointing out an actual *bug*
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:39:20
also matthew says he can't get an aarch64 image to boot on an sbc. i am shocked, shocked i tell you
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:39:20
There was just a message in QA about failure to boot on a pi zero2w, I don't know if we have things for that and I don't have the hardware here to confirm.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:39:46
As for systemd-258 + dracut-107, I responsed in the other channel about it; I don't think any of the spins/editions ship with affected configs.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:40:00
As for systemd-258 + dracut-107, I responsed in the other channel about it; I don't think any of the spins/editions ship with affected configs thought CoreOS *might*.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:40:38
Peter Robinson pwhalen anyone done any hw aarch64 testing? so far we have matthew with a buggy pi and jlinton with a buggy orion6 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2394228
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:40:54
Jeremy Linton any thoughts here? did you want to propose that bug as a beta blocker?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:41:25
(this is the part of the meeting where we find out what it looks like when qa team doesn't have enough time for arm testing any more)
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:41:48
I only had time to test a pi4 today which worked with Beta 1.3's ARM Minimal image; but the zero2w is a pi3 which I don't have since I'm not at home.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:42:44
I meant to try and see if my old mustang works to use for testing, but I didn't get the time to do so yet.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:43:18
Minimal doesn't work on RockChip devices, but I guess that's unimportant after our latest QA changes.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:43:33
fyi im goin to have to step away for 10/15 mins, be back asap
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:43:49
Peter Boy (ServerWG, Docs) well, not necessarily. it's now a subjective decision, like for x86_64. you can propose it if you like
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:44:25
(of course ideally these things need to be found and proposed *earlier*, so we can do some thinking/research/ask peter to tell us what to do)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:44:31
(of course ideally these things need to be found and proposed *earlier*, so we can do some thinking/research/ask peter robinson to tell us what to do)
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:44:50
Yea but people often test when the beta composes are out and they've only been here for a day :)
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:45:16
Yea but people often test when the beta composes are out and they've only been here for a day, at least that's what I've noticed for community testing :)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:45:35
we need folks to be testing the nightlies. especially when it's close to beta and there's no candidate.
<@jlinton:fedora.im>
17:45:41
I think that bug is isolated to so HW env, and not a general v8.0 problem
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:45:47
adamw: I don't have a mandate from the WG for that. One consideration is to remove SBCs for Server
<@jlinton:fedora.im>
17:45:50
so, i'm not to concerned about it for beta
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:45:54
the existence of a candidate is just a function of when the blockers get resolved; testing needs to be happening regardless
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:46:27
Yea, anyhow; back on track. With the new QA things we could proceed even if the pi3/zero2w don't boot (which is unconfirmed)?
<@jlinton:fedora.im>
17:46:34
I may change my mind when I figure out what it is.. :)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:47:04
Peter Boy (ServerWG, Docs) you don't need a mandate to propose a blocker. anyone can propose anything as a blocker. the blocker review stakeholders - technically quality, devel, releng, I think, practically speaking "whoever shows up and votes" - get to decide whether it *is* one or not
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:47:17
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:47:17
Simon de Vlieger:
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:47:17
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:47:17
> As for systemd-258 + dracut-107, I responsed in the other channel about it; I don't think any of the spins/editions ship with affected configs thought CoreOS might.
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:47:17
CoreOS should be good on this front
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:47:40
Simon de Vlieger we *could*, but if this process was working well, we'd have bugs for each of these issues that were proposed as blockers, and this would've happened at least a few days ago so we have time to make a sensible decision about them
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:48:22
Correct yes; well in that case does someone have a zero2w or pi3 laying around that can confirm this now?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:48:22
as far as the process goes, since none of these bugs is currently proposed as a blocker, we can move on. but this is me flagging up that there is a problem
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:48:30
i don't have any pis
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:49:38
I will say that if we are "on the fence" or "luke warm" about GO it would definitely CoreOS out if we had another week
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:50:41
It pains me but I don't think we can proceed if there's no certainty on those working; we can go another week and I can confirm if they work but I can't do it now :(
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:50:44
Nothing release blocking in there, but in order to switch to F43 (i.e. build via container payload) we have to do a signature migration (i.e. switch our existing systems over to checking container signatures versus OSTree commit signatures) and we have to do that in our last release of F42.
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:51:08
Nothing release blocking in there, but in order to switch CoreOS `next` stream to F43 (i.e. build via container payload) we have to do a signature migration (i.e. switch our existing systems over to checking container signatures versus OSTree commit signatures) and we have to do that in our last release of F42.
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:51:29
I will say that if we are "on the fence" or "luke warm" about GO it would definitely help CoreOS out if we had another week
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:51:44
well, we don't block on 'there could be a blocker' usually... I mean we could decide the test coverage is not sufficent... or keep the meeting open for such testing (which we have done before)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:52:23
i'm minded to just go ahead, honestly
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:53:06
!info all outstanding blockers, after the re-reviews, are addressed in the candidate
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:53:21
#topic Current status - test matrices
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:53:39
dang, i'm not a chair, i guess? we'll have to wait for aoife
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:53:57
*hold muzak*
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:54:01
Ack, if we don't block on there could be then we can continue. I'll have to run but thank you for organising!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:54:15
well, next topic is matrix completeness
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:54:25
and we can argue about whether we have sufficient aarch64 coverage in that topic
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:54:52
There's no chair
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:54:58
you need ! not # :)
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:55:03
`!topic` ?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:55:51
d'oh
<@jlinton:fedora.im>
17:55:55
I will tweak the rest of the beta tests today/tomorrow for the 1.3 image from the 10th.
<@jlinton:fedora.im>
17:56:02
but for the most part in a VM it looks fine
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:56:10
!topic Current status - test matrices
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:56:17
the meeting template needs updating...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:56:35
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fedora_43_Test_Results
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:59:35
back
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:59:53
so we're missing some exotic storage hw as usual
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:00:23
sas, hw raid, fcoe, multipath
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
18:01:32
FWIW we do autotest multipath in CoreOS
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:01:48
we're missing audio, automount and core applications tests on workstation aarch64 in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_43_Beta_1.3_Desktop
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:01:52
dustymabe fancy.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:01:59
can you do it in virt?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:02:03
if so i could maybe do it in openqa too...
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
18:02:12
yeah
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:02:18
oh, neat. can you send me details somewhere?
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
18:03:09
can do.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:03:12
thanks
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:03:25
not sure why openqa doesn't report core_applications on aarch64, it *probably* should. i'll have to look into that
<@jlinton:fedora.im>
18:03:57
I just reran the automount, core
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:04:27
just reading back on the meeting. Now that were in the test coverage section, is there outstanding tests that *can* be run now?
<@jlinton:fedora.im>
18:04:52
My remote vm doesn't have audio
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:05:10
and will this be enough coverage to continue with the meeting?
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
18:05:26
https://github.com/coreos/coreos-assembler/blob/main/mantle/kola/tests/misc/multipath.go
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
18:05:26
obviously that uses some code from other files in mantle, but you should be able to ctags your way around
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
18:05:26
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
18:05:26
here's the source file for it for coreos (mantle) tests:
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
18:05:26
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:05:40
base, server and cloud look pretty good
<@jlinton:fedora.im>
18:06:37
The nano kvm seems to be playing audio, but that machine is at my house and i'm not, and its not wired to remote sound either.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:07:31
i'd say we probably have sufficient matrix coverage, if we handwave the storage like we often do, and assume audio is ok on aarch64 with above info
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:07:34
For Server on x86 everthing is pretty good. =n aarch64 we have no test at all because we can't even install it.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:07:48
all server tests passed in virt on aarch64, at least.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:07:57
ack
<@jlinton:fedora.im>
18:08:11
Although, maybe I should put boxes my boxes bug on the list.
<@jlinton:fedora.im>
18:08:24
Its only two or three years old, so we can kick the maintainer to merge it.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:08:31
adamw: yeah, virt, but not HW
<@jlinton:fedora.im>
18:09:26
(aka boxes is in the fedora apps list as the default gnome virtualization tool, and it doesn't work on aarch64 because the changes to replace hardcoded x86's with aarch64's is still open)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:09:39
ah, yeah.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:10:37
Aoife Moloney do you want to take back the driving seat?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:11:20
sure, but just to confirm, it sounds like we are good on test coverage
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:11:36
i'm willing to claim that. :P anyone disagree?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:11:45
nows the time!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:12:57
alrighty...were good on testing (info statement inbound)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:13:14
!info Test coverage is sufficient for F43 Beta
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:13:30
!topic Current Status - Fedora CoreOS and IoT check in
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:13:51
dustymabe: pwhalen are CoreOS and IoT prepared for release?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:14:17
i will note the IoT matrix is missing all hw coverage
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:14:29
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora-IoT_43_RC_20250902.0_General
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:14:42
and several other test cases
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
18:15:40
Aoife Moloney: CoreOS doesn't have anything release blocking per-se, but we probably will delay moving our `next` stream over to beta content until the following week (22nd or 23rd) because we have to do the signature migration thing I mentioned earlier. We can still point people at our [branched](https://builds.coreos.fedoraproject.org/browser?stream=branched&arch=x86_64) stream which already has f43 content, though. So it's not a big deal
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:16:21
ok, good to know. thanks dustymabe !
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:16:36
the IoT one is a bit trickier :-/
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:17:05
I dont love the idea of shipping anything with no testing at all
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:17:24
We're not Google, amirite? :-P
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:17:30
tests have been run in openqa and are reported, but openqa tests on virt and doesn't cover the *entire* matrix
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:17:32
not yet :D
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:19:33
thank you. Id feel better hearing from IoT directly that theyre fine to ship
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:19:35
or not
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:20:22
i mean, clearly there's an issue here. folks argued passionately to keep iot as an edition, yet they're not here and the testing isn't done
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
18:22:04
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:22:05
Christopher Boni (boniboyblue)
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
18:22:16
Apologies, I have been otherwise distracted, those tests missing are failing in OpenQA, but working on manual testing. IoT has no isssues and I will update the test results.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:22:26
oh, podman is probably ok, that was fixed since this event was created
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:22:44
they're not all failing in openqa. podman was an openqa failure, the others aren't covered
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:22:55
if you have manual results that it's working, that's great
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:23:01
we can probably give some grace for beta, but not for Final
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:23:19
presumably we don't want to ship the 0902 compose?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:23:30
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:23:44
did i ever tell you how to manually create a compose event, btw?
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
18:23:49
Yes, I was referring to Podman test. The others are working in manual tests and I will update a new matrix. Note this is a first I have missed this meeting. I do apologize.
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
18:23:57
yes, I know how to manually create them.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:24:01
ok, great
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:24:26
i'll do a stable push request later today for the builds in beta-1.3 so we should get an iot compose with that stuff (if any of it appears on iot) next time
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
18:25:17
Thanks adamw
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:25:53
Its been a weird time the last few weeks, no apology needed but appreciated nonetheless
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
18:26:15
Thanks Aoife Moloney
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:26:57
Well I think with CoreOS and IoT confirming theyre ok to ship, I can info this section and get to the finale?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:27:03
yup, sorry to sound tough, i'm just trying to make sure this 'qa scope reduction' thing works as intended
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:27:09
+1
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:28:02
!info Fedora CoreOS and IoT have confirmed they are beta release ready
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:28:20
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:28:22
Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:28:26
hey neal
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:28:39
Just in time for the good part :p
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:28:57
!topic Go/No-Go Decision
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:29:37
!info I will now poll each team for their decision - Releng, FESCo and QA. Please reply 'Go' or 'No-Go' when called
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:29:44
Releng?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:29:48
➕1️⃣ for go
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:29:53
FESco?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:30:00
FESCo?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:30:01
can also go here... :)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:30:14
GO
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:30:35
GO
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:30:53
QA?
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
18:31:06
GO
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:31:21
i guess go
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:31:22
Someone tell Meatloaf 3 out of 3 is best :P
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:31:40
<<spew tea through nose>>
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:31:41
i'm a little worried about the missing aarch64 testing, but i think we should go in the interests of establishing that this is how it's gonna be now
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:31:47
!agreed Fedora Linux 43 Beta is GO
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:32:20
!info Fedora Linux 43 Beta will release on the early target date of 2025-09-16
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
18:32:21
adamwwhats missing for aarch64? I can try to assist with some coverage there too
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:32:21
yeah sorry I don't have anything except my Mac with me right now, otherwise I'd be doing more AArch64 KDE testing
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:32:37
I can at least test in a VM
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:32:43
but my RPi hardware is not with me
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:32:58
!info F39 Final shifts to target date #1: Tuesday 2026-10-21
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:33:06
eh?!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:33:11
!info Aoife copy-pasted the last line wrong
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:33:13
we timetraveled?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:33:26
!info F43 Beta shifts to target date #1: Tuesday 2025-10-21
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:33:31
dear people back in the f39 days: I am so sorry about whats to come. ;)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:33:45
I think F39 was the 'bad time'
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:33:50
yes...
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:33:54
that was an unpleasant release
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:33:56
pwhalen there seems to be a bunch of uncertainty around hw, basically. peter boy says rockchips don't work - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2391231 . jeremy linton says orion6 is causing some kinda python blowups - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2394228 . matthew miller said he tried some kinda pi zero thingy and it didn't boot.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:33:59
well, I meant the world, not fedora. ;)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:34:08
i don't know if anyone's tried a pi4 yet.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:34:12
!action @amoloney to announce decision
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
18:34:15
So we ship Fedora in 10 days? not next tuesday?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:34:33
Ok Ill open floor it now for maybe talking about those tests?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:34:35
wait, yeah we release next tuesday for beta
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:34:37
!topic Open Floor
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:34:44
wait, you got that info wrong i think?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:34:46
we didn't shift anything
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:34:51
yes, tuesday since we are go.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:35:06
so F43 info about beta release is wrong
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:35:11
I think that's about final
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
18:35:13
Aoife Moloney: wrote 2025-10-21 for Beta
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:35:16
that was about final. yeah
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
18:35:22
adamwOk, I'll take a look. thanks
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:35:30
oh fudge sake
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:35:32
sorry about that
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:35:36
nw
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:36:10
no I had the beta annoucement right, but I messed up the final target date
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:36:30
the first !info has the correct Beta ships 2025-09-16
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:36:43
the next !info is complete nonsense
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:36:59
then the final !info is fine
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:37:11
not quite
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:37:16
the final info says f43 beta
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:37:17
its not
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:37:24
good grief Im having a 'mare
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:37:41
haha, it's ok :D
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:38:01
!info F43 Final shifts to target the early release date of 2025-10-21. F43 Beta will ship on 2025-09-16
<@lruzicka:fedora.im>
18:38:10
ack
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:38:22
sorry for the confusion :/
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:38:22
there we go
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:39:00
Ok any other topics ppl want to talk about while were in Open Floor?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:39:47
"Will we ever get #undo back?"
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:40:08
someday maybe
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:40:15
magic 8 ball says: future unclear
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:40:28
I could probably be half of the justification for it for this meeting alone :D
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:41:30
I think were all meeting-ed out for today, so I will close us out and thank you all for your hard work so far for F43 and getting Beta out the door!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:41:33
!endmeeting