16:01:30 <tflink> #startmeeting f19beta-blocker-review-2
16:01:30 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed May  1 16:01:30 2013 UTC.  The chair is tflink. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:01:30 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:01:31 <tflink> #meetingname f19beta-blocker-review-2
16:01:31 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f19beta-blocker-review-2'
16:01:31 <tflink> #topic Roll Call
16:01:40 <tflink> Who's ready for some blocker review fun time?
16:01:44 <tflink> #chair adamw
16:01:45 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw tflink
16:01:57 <adamw> FUN!!!!!
16:02:00 * satellit listening
16:02:02 <tflink> assuming we have enough people today with the holiday in the czech republic
16:02:36 * jreznik couldn't miss blocker fun just because of holidays... even he will be more "semi-present" ;-)
16:05:02 * nirik is lurking around.
16:06:24 * tflink waits a few more minutes in the hopes that more people will materialize
16:08:39 <adamw> i think our transporter is down
16:10:11 <chnofra> increase power to the pattern buffers?
16:10:17 <jreznik> waiting a few more minutes and probably more people de-materialize - let's start :D
16:10:47 <tflink> I canna' do it capn'. I just don't have the power!
16:10:57 * tflink attempts to channel scotty
16:11:15 <tflink> hopefully we have enough to reach quorum, we'll see
16:11:44 <tflink> #topic Introduction
16:11:50 <tflink> Why are we here?
16:11:51 <tflink> #info Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs.
16:12:07 <tflink> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:12:07 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:12:25 <tflink> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:12:25 <tflink> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/19/beta/buglist
16:12:34 <tflink> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:12:34 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_19_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:12:37 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_19_Alpha_Release_Criteria
16:12:39 <tflink> #info Up for review today, we have:
16:12:46 <tflink> #info 3 Proposed Blockers
16:12:46 <tflink> #info 4 Accepted Blockers
16:12:46 <tflink> #info 8 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:12:46 <tflink> #info 2 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
16:13:03 <tflink> if there are no objections, I'll start with the proposed blockers
16:13:07 <jreznik> let's call this meeting "blocker bug theory" meeting !
16:13:21 <tflink> jreznik: theory?
16:14:06 <tflink> #topic (954371) F19 Alpha fedup hangs after booting 'System Upgrade'
16:14:09 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=954371
16:14:12 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, fedup, ON_QA
16:14:42 <tflink> oh, any volunteers for secretary duty?
16:14:48 <adamw> sure
16:14:55 <tflink> adamw: thanks
16:16:07 <tflink> sounds like a blocker to me, but it also sounds fixed
16:16:39 <adamw> i think we'll have to decide on a policy for handling 'blocker' bugs in fedup that affect the code from the previous release
16:17:08 <adamw> we have a precedent from a few other bugs but it's probably going to crop up more often with fedup
16:17:14 <adamw> but with that caveat, yeah, obviously a blocker
16:17:16 <tflink> oh yeah, that's right
16:17:48 <tflink> I thought that we took them as blockers but they don't block spins
16:18:09 <adamw> yeah, that's the precedent. we should probably write it down somewhere, make it a bit more organized etc.
16:18:16 <tflink> true
16:18:40 <tflink> especially since it gets confusing which parts of fedup are in Fn and which parts are in Fn-1
16:19:01 <jreznik> yep, it could be confusing (and in reality, it is)
16:19:21 <tflink> proposed #agreed 954371 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 beta release criterion: "For each one of the release-blocking package sets, it must be possible to successfully complete an upgrade from a fully updated installation of the previous stable Fedora release with that package set installed."
16:19:58 <jreznik> ack
16:20:03 <adamw> ack
16:20:36 <tflink> any more ack/nak-patch?
16:21:12 * adamw kicks nirik
16:21:35 <tflink> #agreed 954371 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 beta release criterion: "For each one of the release-blocking package sets, it must be possible to successfully complete an upgrade from a fully updated installation of the previous stable Fedora release with that package set installed."
16:21:48 <tflink> #topic (946906) Gnome fails QA:Testcase_Desktop_Updates
16:21:49 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946906
16:21:49 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, PackageKit, NEW
16:22:00 <tflink> if it's a clear blocker, I'm ok with only 2 acks
16:23:38 <tflink> hrm, this sounds like a bit of a technicality
16:23:41 <adamw> robatino's gonna come and join us
16:23:57 <tflink> the notification is shown but no icon remains in the tray
16:24:04 <robatino> i'm here already, but not watching constantly
16:24:12 <adamw> that's not a blocker, that's just how GNOME wants it to be
16:24:22 <adamw> the initial report was the blocker, but bob says he's not seeing that any more
16:24:23 <tflink> oh, ok
16:24:24 <jreznik> yep, I think it's by design
16:24:39 <jreznik> comment #4
16:24:41 <adamw> well, kinda by design. i mean, this whole thing isn't really well designed at present
16:24:57 <adamw> but there's no point picking this particular fail out from the larger pile of fail that is gnome's current update experience for special treatment :)
16:25:11 <adamw> i'm -1/-1
16:25:25 <tflink> proposed #agreed 946906 - RejectedBlocker - It was confirmed that the notification is displayed on more recent releases - the issue about persistent tray icons is by design and thus, outside the scope of the blocker process
16:25:40 <jreznik> adamw: the design is no tray icons anymore - so by design :)
16:26:25 * tflink wonders what is supposed to replace tray icons now, but that can wait for another time/place
16:26:26 <adamw> jreznik: no, it's not talking abouit a tray icon
16:26:46 <adamw> jreznik: it's talking about the icons at bottom right of the overview
16:27:01 <tflink> am I using the wrong terminology?
16:27:03 <adamw> usually when you get a notification and don't do anything about it, it goes and sits at bottom right until you do something about it
16:27:21 <adamw> the 'you have updates' notification doesn't do that, for whatever reason. but i don't think that's really worth caring a lot about
16:27:40 <adamw> hence -1/-1
16:27:51 <jreznik> adamw: ok, I'll try to avoid talking about gnome as I know how it looks like, I try it sometimes to see where it is but don't know all aspect of how it behaves...
16:28:16 <tflink> ack/nak/patch?
16:29:02 <jreznik> adamw: I understand what are you talking about now, thanks for clarification
16:29:18 <jreznik> but than patch - do not talk about try icon
16:29:24 <adamw> yeah
16:29:34 <adamw> let's see
16:29:36 <adamw> after the dash...
16:29:56 <tflink> proposed #agreed 946906 - RejectedBlocker - It was confirmed that the notification is displayed on more recent releases - the issue about persistent notification alerts is by design and thus, outside the scope of the blocker process
16:30:04 <adamw> nack
16:30:13 * tflink waits for patch
16:30:21 <adamw> it's probably not good to say 'by design', it might not be. this whole thing is just a mess in general
16:30:39 <tflink> how about ...
16:30:47 <adamw> proposed #agreed 946906 - RejectedBlocker - It was confirmed that the notification is displayed on more recent releases. Whether the notification should persist as an icon and what it should do is beyond the scope of the criteria
16:31:04 <jreznik> ack
16:31:15 <tflink> proposed #agreed 946906 - RejectedBlocker - It was confirmed that the notification is displayed on more recent releases. Anything beyond the initial notification is outside the scope of the blocker process
16:31:30 <tflink> oh, that's pretty what adamw wrote
16:31:37 <adamw> pick one!
16:31:39 <tflink> either is fine with me
16:31:40 <adamw> ackt to either
16:31:42 <adamw> i like yours
16:31:56 * jreznik should write the third version :)
16:32:12 <jreznik> yep, tflink's sounds better
16:32:37 <tflink> #agreed 946906 - RejectedBlocker - It was confirmed that the notification is displayed on more recent releases. Anything beyond the initial notification is outside the scope of the blocker process
16:33:39 <tflink> #topic (957554) preupgrade dependancy conflicts with fedup - preventing fedup upgrade path
16:33:42 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957554
16:33:45 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, PackageKit, NEW
16:34:25 <tflink> how has nobody else hit this?
16:34:29 <adamw> i don't have this problem
16:34:36 * tflink wonders if something else is at play here
16:34:36 <adamw> does he have an old PK?
16:34:44 <tflink> or a pk extension
16:35:26 <tflink> either way, I'm definitely not +1
16:35:34 <tflink> either punt for clarification or reject
16:36:10 <adamw> does nayone have an f18 system handy?
16:36:15 <tflink> other thoughts?
16:36:19 * tflink does
16:36:25 <adamw> poke around
16:36:28 * adamw powers his up
16:37:30 <tflink> fedup installs fine
16:38:41 <adamw> you know what
16:38:41 <tflink> i wonder if he's on f17
16:38:47 <adamw> i think he tried to install f19 fedup on f18
16:39:02 <adamw> f18's fedup doesn't obsolete preupgrade
16:39:23 <tflink> or he's on f19 and upgrading to rawhide
16:39:36 <adamw> oh no
16:39:39 <adamw> i've got it now
16:39:48 <adamw> this was a bug and it was fixed in 0.7.3-4
16:39:57 <adamw> * Tue Apr 30 2013 Will Woods <wwoods@redhat.com> 0.7.3-4 - Dependency fix: can't Obsolete preupgrade until F19 :/
16:40:32 <adamw> the obsolete was added in 0.7.3-2
16:40:42 <adamw> neither that nor -3 went stable, so this only affects updates-testing = not a blocker
16:41:07 * tflink installed on f18 just fine from updates-testing
16:41:20 <adamw> yes
16:41:21 <tflink> i wonder if this is an issue installing fedup on f19
16:41:24 <adamw> updates-testing has 0.7.3-4
16:41:26 <adamw> NOW
16:41:28 <jreznik> ok, -1 then
16:41:30 <tflink> oh
16:41:31 <adamw> but it didn't yesterday
16:41:31 <tflink> ok
16:42:37 <tflink> proposed #agreed 957554 - RejectedBlocker - This is currently not an issue for installing fedup on F18 and thus, does not violate any of the F19 beta release criteria.
16:43:42 <adamw> that's fine, or you can change it to reflect that we can close the bug, which I just did.
16:43:56 <adamw> (no need to wait for it to be pushed stable, as the broken one was only ever in testing.)
16:45:50 <tflink> proposed #agreed 957554 - RejectedBlocker - This is currently not an issue for installing fedup on F18 and thus the bug can be closed
16:46:50 <jreznik> ack
16:48:47 <tflink> since it's already closed ...
16:48:57 <tflink> #agreed 957554 - RejectedBlocker - This is currently not an issue for installing fedup on F18 and thus the bug can be closed
16:49:10 <tflink> ok, that's all of the proposed blockers on my list
16:49:48 <tflink> on to the proposed FE
16:50:22 <tflink> hrm, do we want to be doing these so early?
16:50:43 <tflink> several of them seem like clear -1s to me, thoujgh
16:51:26 <adamw> we can knock them off if we have the time, sure
16:51:28 <adamw> we don't *need* to
16:52:49 <tflink> go through the "feduped system still has fc18 packages" bugs?
16:53:18 <tflink> I'm fine either way
16:54:47 <tflink> #topic (957922) gstreamer-plugins-bad-free-0.10.23-13.fc18.i686 or gstreamer-plugins-bad-free-0.10.23-13.fc18.x86_64 remains following fedup f18 --> f19 as no f19 rpm exists
16:54:51 <jreznik> we can do that, but I'd like to leave soon
16:54:51 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957922
16:54:53 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gstreamer-plugins-bad-free, NEW
16:55:32 <adamw> not an FE, not really a bug
16:55:52 <adamw> well, 'this package hasn't been rebuilt' is probably a bug, but i'm sure it's filed already.
16:56:18 <tflink> proposed #agreed 957922 - RejectedFreezeException - fc18 packages remaining on a system upgraded to fc19 does not impact the usability of the system and thus does not qualify as a Freeze Exception
16:56:28 <adamw> ack
16:56:42 <jreznik> ack
16:56:45 <tflink> #agreed 957922 - RejectedFreezeException - fc18 packages remaining on a system upgraded to fc19 does not impact the usability of the system and thus does not qualify as a Freeze Exception
16:56:49 <tflink> #topic (957924) gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.31-5.fc18.i686 or gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.31-5.fc18.x86_64 remains following fedup F18 --> f19
16:56:52 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957924
16:56:54 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gstreamer-plugins-good, NEW
16:57:02 <tflink> proposed #agreed 957924 - RejectedFreezeException - fc18 packages remaining on a system upgraded to fc19 does not impact the usability of the system and thus does not qualify as a Freeze Exception
16:57:31 <jreznik> ack
16:57:32 <tflink> #agreed 957924 - RejectedFreezeException - fc18 packages remaining on a system upgraded to fc19 does not impact the usability of the system and thus does not qualify as a Freeze Exception
16:57:48 <tflink> 2 more :-/
16:57:51 <tflink> #topic (957926) NetworkManager-pptp-0.9.3.997-3.fc18.i686 or NetworkManager-pptp-0.9.3.997-3.fc18.x86_64 remains following fedup f18 --> f19 due to lack of fc19.rpm
16:57:54 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957926
16:57:56 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, NetworkManager-pptp, NEW
16:58:05 <tflink> proposed #agreed 957926 - RejectedFreezeException - fc18 packages remaining on a system upgraded to fc19 does not impact the usability of the system and thus does not qualify as a Freeze Exception
16:58:15 <adamw> ack
16:58:15 <tflink> er, 3 more
16:58:22 <tflink> #agreed 957926 - RejectedFreezeException - fc18 packages remaining on a system upgraded to fc19 does not impact the usability of the system and thus does not qualify as a Freeze Exception
16:58:22 <adamw> ack ack ack ack ack ack
16:58:29 <adamw> tell me when i can stop acking :)
16:58:30 <tflink> #topic (957931) perl-Carp-1.26-242.fc18.noarch remains following fedup f18 --> f19 upgrade
16:58:33 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957931
16:58:36 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, perl, MODIFIED
16:58:41 <tflink> adamw: prepare the ACK cannon :)
16:58:56 <jreznik> well, accept all bugs of the same kind in batch...
16:59:00 <tflink> proposed #agreed 957932 - RejectedFreezeException - fc18 packages remaining on a system upgraded to fc19 does not impact the usability of the system and thus does not qualify as a Freeze Exception
16:59:00 <adamw> i'm just going to close all of these as dupes of the existing FTBFS bugs, assuming they have them
16:59:03 <tflink> oops
16:59:08 <tflink> proposed #agreed 957931 - RejectedFreezeException - fc18 packages remaining on a system upgraded to fc19 does not impact the usability of the system and thus does not qualify as a Freeze Exception
16:59:13 <tflink> wrong bzid
16:59:22 <adamw> use one of my ack stockpile
16:59:22 <tflink> #agreed 957931 - RejectedFreezeException - fc18 packages remaining on a system upgraded to fc19 does not impact the usability of the system and thus does not qualify as a Freeze Exception
16:59:31 <tflink> #topic (957935) ustr-1.0.4-13.fc18.i686 or ustr-1.0.4-13.fc18.x86_64 remain following fedup f18 --> f19 due to no ustr.fc19.rpm
16:59:34 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957935
16:59:36 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, ustr, NEW
16:59:46 <tflink> proposed #agreed 957935 - RejectedFreezeException - fc18 packages remaining on a system upgraded to fc19 does not impact the usability of the system and thus does not qualify as a Freeze Exception
16:59:58 * tflink assumes more bill-the-cat sounds
17:00:05 <tflink> #agreed 957935 - RejectedFreezeException - fc18 packages remaining on a system upgraded to fc19 does not impact the usability of the system and thus does not qualify as a Freeze Exception
17:00:09 <tflink> ok, done with that
17:00:17 <tflink> on to the accepted blockers
17:01:11 * tflink is going to skip the oversized spin bugs unless someone objects
17:02:00 <tflink> #topic (948099) Apper ignores "never check for updates" option (also on the live image)
17:02:02 <jreznik> no objections, it's now more spy work to find out what we can cut
17:02:03 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948099
17:02:06 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, PackageKit, MODIFIED
17:02:33 <tflink> and they were just filed, no real progress yet
17:02:52 <adamw> the fix for this one should be in TC1
17:02:58 <adamw> so we ought to be able to test it there
17:03:00 <tflink> it sounds like this might be an interesting one - for now it's been hacked around but I wonder if that's going to affect the post-install
17:03:11 <jreznik> seems like fix does not work
17:03:27 <jreznik> and it's now workarounded - looking on the last comment by rex
17:03:30 <tflink> ie, whether update notifications happen post-install
17:03:59 <jreznik> tflink: post install it should work
17:04:18 <jreznik> the thing is - apper does not respect "never check for updates"
17:04:40 <tflink> ok, I'm not 100% clear on how live install works and whether removing the applet would transfer to the installed system
17:04:42 <jreznik> on live cd, apper kded module is disabled, but only for liveuser
17:04:54 <jreznik> tflink: applet is not removed
17:04:58 <tflink> ah, I didn't see that part
17:04:59 <tflink> ok
17:05:15 <jreznik> just kded module that takes care of checking for updates is disabled for live user on live system
17:05:21 <tflink> #info it sounds like the issue has been worked around for now, will need testing
17:05:40 <tflink> doesn't look like it needs much from us
17:06:19 <adamw> yeah, i'm trusting them to be on top of that
17:06:36 <tflink> #topic (958436) Fedora 19 Beta TC1 install images do not boot correctly - fall to an emergency shell
17:06:39 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958436
17:06:40 * jreznik will check with rex/lukas
17:06:41 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, systemd, NEW
17:06:45 <tflink> sounds like TC1 is DOA?
17:06:53 * tflink hasn't tried it yet
17:07:55 <adamw> non-lives are, yeahg
17:08:04 <adamw> 3 or 4 confirmations so far, nice job by andre to use the automatic blocker
17:08:13 <adamw> i haven't had time to poke at it yet though
17:08:46 <tflink> ok, sounds like nothing to do from here, though
17:09:00 <tflink> #info this was just filed, nothing to do at this poitn
17:09:03 <tflink> #undo
17:09:03 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x186b82d0>
17:09:05 <tflink> #info this was just filed, nothing to do at this point
17:09:07 <adamw> well we can probably help diagnose, but we just didn't yet :)
17:09:15 <tflink> in a blocker meeting?
17:10:01 <adamw> oh i didn't mean that
17:10:05 * satellit KDE live x86_64 installs fine
17:10:07 * satellit Beta TC1
17:10:38 <tflink> #info all non-live components to beta TC1 seem affected
17:10:58 <tflink> I do believe that's all for today
17:11:02 <tflink> unless I missed something
17:11:09 <robatino> i also noted in the bug that i can't run the file conflicts test due to sudden excessive resource requirements. that would be an automatic blocker if it failed. other people with more resources than me need to check it
17:11:12 * satellit afk...
17:11:34 <robatino> requires the DVD
17:11:36 <jreznik> ok, thanks guys - I have to leave now...
17:11:37 <tflink> either way, it sounds like something is pretty broken in TC1
17:11:43 <adamw> robatino: yeah, i saw that, i was kinda thinking 'let's fix the crash and see if the file conflicts test problem still happens then'
17:11:48 <adamw> yeah, clearly
17:11:48 <tflink> jreznik: thanks for helping on a holiday :)
17:11:59 <adamw> +1!
17:12:05 <tflink> #topic Open Floor
17:12:15 <robatino> i got up to 85% before it failed, with 4 GiB RAM. it's possible that someone with 8 GiB or more might be able to finish it
17:12:29 <tflink> Anything else that should be brought up in the meeting?
17:12:55 * tflink is still working to get the /current redirect updated on the tracking app
17:13:19 <tflink> hit some stuff in infra that made testing the fix difficult but it looks to be resolved now
17:13:31 <tflink> will hopefully get that fixed later today
17:14:00 * adamw can't think of anything
17:14:58 * tflink sets the qa-patented non-deterministic fuse and hopes to walk away with all his fingers
17:15:03 <robatino> should also note that the file conflicts test was up to 6 problems detected before it failed. normally there would be 3, so it would be really good to find out what those problems are
17:15:39 <robatino> but i couldn't see what they were since my resource-starved box gave up
17:16:04 <adamw> robatino: okay. i've got ram coming out of my ears over here so i'll give it a shot later
17:16:10 <robatino> thanks
17:16:35 <robatino> still, might want to run it in a VT to be safe. for me it was swapping like crazy near the end
17:17:07 <adamw> sure
17:17:42 <tflink> Thanks for coming, everyone
17:17:50 * tflink will send out minutes shortly
17:17:52 <tflink> #endmeeting