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