16:00:55 <tflink> #startmeeting f19beta-blocker-review-5
16:00:55 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon May 13 16:00:55 2013 UTC.  The chair is tflink. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:55 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:55 <tflink> #meetingname f19beta-blocker-review-5
16:00:55 <tflink> #topic Roll Call
16:00:55 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f19beta-blocker-review-5'
16:01:23 <adamw> mor-diddly-orning
16:01:47 * satellit_e listening
16:02:06 <tflink> whee! blocker review time!
16:02:57 * adamw suits up for FUN
16:03:04 * brunowolff is here
16:04:15 * nirik is lurking
16:05:29 <tflink> hrm, we have 3 active ... one more?
16:06:27 <adamw> here's a viking
16:06:46 <tflink> cool, we should have enough, then
16:06:59 <tflink> boilerplate time!
16:07:06 <tflink> #topic Introduction
16:07:13 <tflink> Why are we here?
16:07:13 <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.
16:07:20 <tflink> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:07:20 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:07:27 <tflink> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:07:27 <tflink> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:07:34 <tflink> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:07:34 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_19_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:07:38 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_19_Alpha_Release_Criteria
16:07:41 <tflink> #info Up for review today, we have:
16:08:18 <tflink> #info 7 Proposed Blockers
16:08:18 <tflink> #info 9 Accepted Blockers
16:08:18 <tflink> #info 3 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:08:18 <tflink> #info 5 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
16:08:37 <tflink> if there are no objections, I'll start with the proposed blockers
16:09:01 <tflink> #topic (958714) X keyboard layouts/options should be set through localed
16:09:04 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958714
16:09:06 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ON_QA
16:09:18 <adamw> oh, we can close this, I think.
16:10:01 <Viking-Ice> yeah this has been fixed right
16:10:01 <adamw> i verified it, and 19.25 was pushed stable on saturday
16:10:05 <adamw> i don't know why bodhi didn't close the bug
16:10:07 <adamw> yep
16:10:16 <tflink> ok
16:10:33 <tflink> #info this has been fixed and pushed to stable - can be closed and no need for it to be a blocker
16:10:50 <tflink> #topic (960262) installer will not launch with valid IP but no internet connection
16:10:53 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960262
16:10:56 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:11:23 <adamw> "So it must be the port redirect is in place with hotels, airports, and airplanes intended to get you to pay for a session, and is causing anaconda's confusion."
16:11:28 <adamw> that sure sounds plausibl
16:11:29 <adamw> e
16:11:48 <adamw> i think i can live with a beta not working in that situation
16:11:59 <Viking-Ice> but I install always when I travel ;)
16:12:06 <Viking-Ice> -1/-1
16:12:15 <adamw> did anyone try and check this one? I think we were planning to poke it after the last meeting, but I know i forgot
16:12:22 <adamw> based on the data we have so far, though, i agree, -1
16:13:15 <Viking-Ice> I thought we had narrowed it down to that failed geo ip crap that exist in anaconda
16:13:21 <Viking-Ice> but maybe I was just dreaming
16:13:49 <tflink> proposed #agreed 960262 - RejectedBlocker - From the data in the bug, it sounds like this is a bit too obscure to block release and the reporter has been unable to reproduce. Please re-propose if it turns out to be more severe than it currently seems
16:13:53 <adamw> i don't recall seeing any more discussion of this bug since last week
16:13:55 <adamw> ack
16:14:29 <brunowolff> ack
16:15:01 <Viking-Ice> ack
16:15:25 <tflink> #agreed 960262 - RejectedBlocker - From the data in the bug, it sounds like this is a bit too obscure to block release and the reporter has been unable to reproduce. Please re-propose if it turns out to be more severe than it currently seems
16:15:29 <tflink> #topic (959707) AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'set_chosen'
16:15:32 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959707
16:15:35 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST
16:16:10 <Viking-Ice> why is this in post
16:17:15 <tflink> I assume there is a fix
16:17:48 <Viking-Ice> bcl?
16:18:01 <adamw> bcl@redhat.com 	2013-05-10 15:42:01 EDT 	Status 	NEW 	POST
16:18:16 <adamw> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/anaconda-patches/2013-May/004145.html
16:18:51 <adamw> man, partitioning bug review really sucks
16:19:00 <adamw> it's so hard to come up with objective guidelines
16:19:15 <adamw> i mean, obviously it's pretty easy to hit this, but it's also pretty easy to avoid it...eh
16:19:30 <tflink> yeah, I could go either way on it
16:19:37 <Viking-Ice> ok let's look at this way how invasive is it to pull in the patch
16:19:40 <Viking-Ice> (FE )
16:19:55 <brunowolff> I wasn't sure if the person was specifying a valid condition that didn't work or an invalid one that caused a traceback instead of a nice error message?
16:20:03 <adamw> it's a perfectly valid action
16:20:21 <Viking-Ice> well then it breaks criteria
16:20:27 <adamw> it happens if you go into custom partitioning with the Installation Options dropdown set to LVM, then create some partitions and change them to be BTRFS
16:20:47 <adamw> but if you set the Installation Options dropdown to BTRFS, then it works okay, because you don't have to change their type so you don't hit this path
16:21:17 <tflink> I guess +1 - it does violate criteria
16:21:32 <tflink> it'd be pretty hard to argue that it doesn't
16:21:48 <adamw> tflink: no it ain't, i can do that if you like :P
16:21:50 <tflink> the argument would be whether or not the workaround is easy enough
16:21:57 <brunowolff> Unless the criteria allow for work arounds, this does seem to be blocker material.
16:21:58 <adamw> the criteria say it must be possible to create btrfs volumes. it is possible.
16:22:08 <adamw> it's just not possible on every single path. :)
16:22:13 <adamw> this is why I say writing the criteria is a giant pita
16:22:23 <tflink> LVM is the default, though right?
16:22:29 <adamw> i mean, say you could make it fail by changing type from LVM to BTRFS to LVM to BTRFS to LVM to BTRFS 50 times
16:22:35 <adamw> but it worked fine in any other circumstance
16:22:40 <tflink> so by default, doing custom partitioning is going to blow up, no?
16:22:45 <adamw> does that violate the criteria? if not, why does this?
16:22:46 * satellit no longer in --text install
16:22:49 <tflink> er, custom partitioning w/ BTRFS
16:23:17 <adamw> tflink: well i mean, it's all semantics, isn't it? what is "by default"? Is it more "default" to set the drop-down to BTRFS, or to leave it at LVM and then change the partition types?
16:23:30 <adamw> it's just such a huge possibility space we're trying to impose logic on. grr.
16:24:03 <adamw> sorry, this is frustrating me, you can probably tell =) i just feel like whatever we do, we wind up having to make handwaves at partitioning stuff
16:24:07 <Viking-Ice> to me this breaks criteria
16:24:20 <tflink> true, I usually assume that if I'm doing custom partitioning, any autopart stuff isn't going to affect my install
16:24:23 <tflink> but that's me
16:24:37 * satellit why is any  one a default?
16:24:42 <adamw> the dropdown isn't 'autopart stuff', it's part of both paths. though I agree that's a somewhat obscure point and I wish the UI made it clearer
16:24:50 <adamw> anyhoo, side alley
16:24:54 <adamw> i guess just go ahead and vote for now
16:25:01 <adamw> i'm gonna side with whatever the majority is
16:26:11 <brunowolff> I'm a bit waffly on blocker, but I think this would be nice to have working for Beta, so I vote +1 blocker. I'm definitely FE +1.
16:26:22 <tflink> proposed #agreed 959707 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 beta release criterion when doing custom BTRFS partitions without changing the partition scheme first: "Correctly interpret, and modify as described below, any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table containing ext4 partitions, LVM and/or btrfs volumes, and/or software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions"
16:26:25 <adamw> ack
16:26:31 <Viking-Ice> ack
16:26:32 <brunowolff> ack
16:26:35 <adamw> er, wait
16:26:37 <adamw> patchg
16:26:47 <adamw> that's the wrong criterion. the one mkrizek cited in c#12 is correct.
16:27:09 <adamw> this isn't about modifying an existing disk.
16:28:29 <adamw> sorry, are you waiting on an actual patch?
16:28:39 <tflink> proposed #agreed 959707 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 beta release criterion when doing custom BTRFS partitions without changing the partition scheme first: "When using the custom partitioning flow, the installer must be able to ... create mount points backed by ext4 partitions, LVM volumes or btrfs volumes, or software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions"
16:28:39 <adamw> proposed #agreed 959707 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 beta release criterion when doing custom BTRFS partitions without changing the partition scheme first: "Create mount points backed by ext4 partitions, LVM volumes or btrfs volumes, or software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions"
16:28:43 <adamw> :P
16:28:49 <adamw> ack to yours
16:30:12 <tflink> other ack/nak/patch?
16:30:14 <adamw> any more acks?
16:30:37 <brunowolff> ack
16:30:51 <Viking-Ice> ack
16:31:03 <tflink> #agreed 959707 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 beta release criterion when doing custom BTRFS partitions without changing the partition scheme first: "When using the custom partitioning flow, the installer must be able to ... create mount points backed by ext4 partitions, LVM volumes or btrfs volumes, or software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions"
16:31:09 <tflink> #topic (962098) AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'split'
16:31:12 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962098
16:31:14 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:32:15 <Viking-Ice> looks like a hard crash hence autoblocker
16:32:19 <Viking-Ice> per criteria
16:32:50 <tflink> this could be rephrased as "askmethod isn't working", no?
16:33:01 <tflink> which I don't think is a blocker
16:33:06 <adamw> i'd be -1 on this just because 'askmethod' is pretty obscure
16:33:07 <adamw> yeah
16:33:20 <tflink> I thought that askmethod was going away anyways
16:33:30 <adamw> tflink: it went away, and came back, for a specific situation
16:33:33 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889887
16:33:42 <adamw> but I doubt many people are going to be using it
16:34:10 <Viking-Ice> it's a hard crash right
16:34:17 <Viking-Ice> hence it violates the crash critera
16:34:23 <adamw> which criterion are you thinking of?
16:34:35 <adamw> i'm not sure what "the crash criteria" is
16:34:53 <tflink> proposed #agreed 962098 - RejectedBlocker - The askmethod option is only used in a few situations, doesn't directly violate any F19 beta release criteria and is not commonly used enough to justify blocking F19 beta release over.
16:34:54 <adamw> i don't think we have anything that says 'any crash is a blocker'
16:35:11 <tflink> I think he's referring to the auto-blockers
16:35:22 <adamw> ack
16:35:24 <tflink> isn't there something that says, if everything crashes right away -> autoblocker
16:35:27 <tflink> ?
16:35:55 <tflink> I don't think this but triggers that, but it sounds like that's what Viking-Ice is referring to
16:36:15 <adamw> "Complete failure of any release-blocking TC/RC image to boot at all under any circumstance - "DOA" image"
16:36:44 <Viking-Ice> trying to dig it up in the new stuff basically if anaconda gui crashes
16:36:46 <adamw> there's also the 'showstopper' criterion, but:
16:36:52 <adamw> "This criterion covers showstopper bugs in the installer for which there isn't any other specific criterion: obviously, it can't 'complete an installation' if there's a showstopper. However, it does not mean that any failed installation test at all constitutes a release blocking issue: an installer which works fine in most cases but crashes when you attach it to a Hitachi hard disk on a wet Thursday is still 'able to complete an installation'. "
16:37:04 <adamw> note the second part of that. this isn't a showstopper, imo.
16:37:53 <adamw> so, i'm still ack to rejectedblocker
16:37:57 <brunowolff> ack
16:38:19 <tflink> Viking-Ice: did you mean the reporting criteria for alpha?
16:38:30 <tflink> "The installer must be able to report failures to Bugzilla, with appropriate information included."
16:38:59 <Viking-Ice> sigh cant find it, it was the one that said the installer could should not crash
16:39:59 <adamw> Viking-Ice: there's something about not crashing on invalid partition layouts, but that's specific to partitioning
16:40:32 <Viking-Ice> I would assume this would hit the serial one but I was sure we had one that the gui could not crash
16:40:35 <Viking-Ice> dammit
16:42:27 <adamw> shall we move on?
16:42:39 <tflink> Viking-Ice: any objection to moving on?
16:42:51 <Viking-Ice> tflink, nope
16:42:54 <tflink> #agreed 962098 - RejectedBlocker - The askmethod option is only used in a few situations, doesn't directly violate any F19 beta release criteria and is not commonly used enough to justify blocking F19 beta release over.
16:43:06 <tflink> #topic (950145) LVMError: pvcreate failed for /dev/sda3: running lvm pvcreate --config  devices { filter=["r|/sda1$|","r|/sda2$|","r|/sda3$|","r|/sda4$|","r|/sdb1$|","r|/sdb2$|","r|/loop3$|","r|/loop4$|","r|/loop5$|","r|/loop6$|","r|/loop7$|","r|/sdb$|"] }  ...
16:43:10 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=950145
16:43:13 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:43:47 <tflink> sounds blockery to me
16:45:02 <adamw> yeah, this seems pretty bad
16:45:07 <adamw> my reproducer is a pretty simple scenario
16:45:18 <Viking-Ice> yeah
16:45:23 <adamw> and various other people have hit it in various ways
16:46:20 <adamw> +1
16:46:33 <Viking-Ice> this is auto blocker violates "Remote package sources" criteria
16:46:37 <Viking-Ice> right
16:46:41 <Viking-Ice> if not +1 anyway
16:46:51 <tflink> proposed #agreed 950145 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 beta release criterion for systems with partition-less disks: "When using the guided partitioning flow, the installer must be able to ...cCleanly install to a disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table which contains existing data and sufficient unpartitioned space for a Fedora installation"
16:47:03 <tflink> without the extra c
16:47:17 <tflink> proposed #agreed 950145 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 beta release criterion for systems with partition-less disks: "When using the guided partitioning flow, the installer must be able to ...cleanly install to a disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table which contains existing data and sufficient unpartitioned space for a Fedora installation"
16:47:26 <adamw> sure, ack
16:47:35 <brunowolff> ack
16:48:44 <Viking-Ice> ack
16:49:03 <tflink> adamw: for the sake of being pedantic; wouldn't autopart failures for an uninitialized disk not hit the criteria as written?
16:49:23 * adamw gets lost in the negatives there
16:49:45 * satellit afk
16:49:50 <tflink> when I say uninitialized, I mean something brand new or just got a 'dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda'
16:49:55 <adamw> tflink: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_19_Alpha_Release_Criteria#Disk_layouts
16:50:23 <adamw> beta criteria add on to that
16:50:35 <tflink> #agreed 950145 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F19 beta release criterion for systems with partition-less disks: "When using the guided partitioning flow, the installer must be able to ...cleanly install to a disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table which contains existing data and sufficient unpartitioned space for a Fedora installation"
16:50:49 <tflink> #topic (962148) installer disallows adding space from subsequently added drives
16:50:52 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962148
16:50:55 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:51:02 <adamw> this is another hand-wave-y one
16:51:11 <adamw> i'm kinda -1y on this as i really don't want us to get into setting the bar on beta too high
16:51:15 <adamw> it is a *beta*
16:51:39 <adamw> i'm trying to keep the overall goal of the beta in mind: to provide a broadly testable image. it's not supposed to provide a bug-free image...
16:52:04 <adamw> how do you guys see it?
16:52:19 <tflink> yeah, I'm not sure it would be worth blocking beta over
16:52:26 <tflink> it's a bug, for sure
16:52:33 <tflink> but -1 blocker for beta
16:52:54 <Viking-Ice> same here -1
16:52:56 <brunowolff> I'm more on the -1 side for this one.
16:53:09 <adamw> oh good, i'm not nuts :)
16:53:44 <adamw> +1 FE, though
16:53:56 <adamw> we should probably consider FE status for bugs we reject, since freeze is tomorrow
16:53:56 <tflink> yeah, I'd be ok with FE
16:54:16 <tflink> the usual caveats - if not too big and if tested
16:54:17 <Viking-Ice> me too
16:54:18 <brunowolff> I'm +1 FE if we get a tested fix, not at the very last minute.
16:54:25 <adamw> right
16:54:56 <tflink> proposed #agreed 962148 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - While this is certainly a bug, it doesn't clearly violate any F19 beta release criteria. However, it would be nice to see this fixed and a tested fix would be considered past freeze.
16:55:02 <adamw> ack
16:55:04 <brunowolff> ack
16:55:37 <Viking-Ice> ack
16:55:43 <tflink> #agreed 962148 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - While this is certainly a bug, it doesn't clearly violate any F19 beta release criteria. However, it would be nice to see this fixed and a tested fix would be considered past freeze.
16:55:47 <tflink> #topic (928645) IMEs for some languages no longer automatically configured in g-i-s / GNOME in Fedora 19
16:55:50 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928645
16:55:53 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-initial-setup, NEW
16:56:50 <Viking-Ice> -1/-1
16:56:55 <adamw> language criterion is final, right?
16:57:13 <adamw> and it's more about translations than input methods anyway
16:57:15 <Viking-Ice> this needs to be upstream-able and might be fixed in the big 3.8.2 update
16:57:18 <tflink> yeah, that's what I'm remembering
16:57:30 <Viking-Ice> ( comment 15 regarding upstream )
16:57:36 <adamw> definitely -1 blocker, i might possibly be +1 FE but it's kinda borderline. it _is_ nice to get this kinda stuff working properly
16:57:53 <tflink> but the bug is about ime in g-i-e, right?
16:58:02 <adamw> it is now
16:58:04 <tflink> what would you use an IME for in g-i-e
16:58:05 <tflink> ?
16:58:19 <tflink> usernames and passwords have to be ascii, no?
16:58:21 <adamw> tflink: entering user names possibly, but the point is to set it up for the eventual desktop
16:58:37 <adamw> now we have g-i-s, g-i-s seems like the logical place to do it (previously it was in g-s-d)
16:58:49 <tflink> either way, -1/-1 for beta
16:59:03 <adamw> yeah, let's not get sidetracked
16:59:21 <adamw> okay, i can go with -1 FE as it is reasonably easy to set up manually
16:59:33 <adamw> you just have to go into the GNOME config stuff and add an input method, really
16:59:48 <tflink> proposed #agreed 928645 - RejectedBlocker - While an inconvenience for some users, this bug does not clearly violate any F19 beta release criteria and is thus rejected as a blocker.
16:59:51 <Viking-Ice> ack
16:59:53 <adamw> ack
16:59:57 <tflink> I can add rejectedFE if people really want it
17:00:26 <Viking-Ice> I dont think it's necessary
17:00:44 <Viking-Ice> but if you think it will be re-poposed as FE then go ahead
17:01:13 <brunowolff> ack
17:01:16 <tflink> #agreed 928645 - RejectedBlocker - While an inconvenience for some users, this bug does not clearly violate any F19 beta release criteria and is thus rejected as a blocker.
17:01:30 <tflink> OK, that's all of the proposed blockers for today
17:01:33 <adamw> really?
17:01:37 <adamw> i felt like there were more
17:01:49 <Viking-Ice> stockholm syndrom from last release cycle
17:02:47 <tflink> I see one proposed FE potentially worth discussing today
17:02:50 <Viking-Ice> let's finish the PFE ( no need to go over accepted blockers a tthis point ) +
17:03:07 <tflink> no fix as of yet, no accepted blockers worth discussing in this forum today
17:03:23 <adamw> hold one sec
17:03:34 <Viking-Ice> sec has passed lets move on ;()
17:03:35 <adamw> add https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868421 to the proposed blockers
17:03:37 <adamw> :P
17:03:55 <adamw> smooge tried to re-propose it in 04-08 but it still had 'RejectedBlocker' in whiteboard so we lost it
17:04:17 <adamw> that's the only extra one I can find, though.
17:05:12 <adamw> and now I see what it is, I'm regretting that I found it.
17:05:25 <adamw> somebody wave that MiB thing and wipe out the last three minuts.
17:05:29 <tflink> #topic (868421) Dracut should not time out and fail waiting for LUKS decryption
17:05:32 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868421
17:05:33 <adamw> noooooo!
17:05:35 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, dracut, ASSIGNED
17:05:57 <adamw> so, anyone know what the very latest on this goddamn bug is? it seems like things have moved on a bit with recent systemd
17:06:17 <Viking-Ice> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-April/010363.html
17:06:36 <Viking-Ice> this is already fixed if I'm not mistaken
17:07:24 <brunowolff> I had something timeout while waiting for a password entry, when I took too long to get back after starting a reboot. I don't know if it was really the luks request or something that depended on it.
17:07:33 <tflink> we were -1 for f18 final, I don't see how things are different now
17:07:42 <tflink> sure, it's a crappy bug that I wish would get fixed
17:07:54 <adamw> i could possibly be argued into being +1 for final if someone were really persuasive, i don't see that i'd ever be +1 for a beta
17:07:54 <tflink> but if wishes were horses .... we'd all be eating steak
17:08:01 <brunowolff> I really don't see this as a blocker or FE though. It can be fixed in an update and is mostly a convenience thing.
17:08:02 <adamw> ba-dum tish
17:08:13 <Viking-Ice> the rest of you are not eating stake?
17:08:36 <tflink> Viking-Ice: too much fiber or metal, depending on what the stake is made out of
17:08:39 * Viking-Ice <slurp> horse steak
17:09:03 <tflink> Viking-Ice: it's a potentially obscure quote from the US tv series "Firefly"
17:09:23 <Viking-Ice> tflink, yeah thanks for cancelling that one
17:09:53 <Viking-Ice> anyway I think that one has been fixed and we should punt or outright reject
17:09:53 <brunowolff> But it is a joke about US people not eating steak from horses while playing on the If wishes were horses than peasants would ride saying.
17:09:57 <tflink> anyone not -1 blocker for beta
17:10:07 <Viking-Ice> -1
17:10:24 <tflink> don't get me started on the billboard ads they put up around here re: horse slaughter
17:11:52 <tflink> proposed #agreed 868421 - RejectedBlocker - While unfortunate, this bug still does not violate any F19 beta release criteria. Thus, rejected as a blocker for F19 beta
17:11:57 <Viking-Ice> ack
17:12:36 <brunowolff> ack
17:13:50 <tflink> #agreed 868421 - RejectedBlocker - While unfortunate, this bug still does not violate any F19 beta release criteria. Thus, rejected as a blocker for F19 beta
17:14:14 <tflink> #topic (960045) f19 Beta TC4 soas live  fails to boot after "liveinst" install but @sugar-desktop installed with yum works
17:14:17 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960045
17:14:20 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, spin-kickstarts, NEW
17:14:23 <tflink> oh, this is a proposed FE
17:14:31 <tflink> done with the proposed blockers AFAIK
17:14:50 <tflink> +1 FE, breaks soas
17:15:11 <Viking-Ice> +1
17:15:53 <tflink> proposed #agreed 960045 - AcceptedFreezeException - This bug represents a non-booting soas spin which is a freezeException by definition. A tested fix would be considered past freeze.
17:15:58 <Viking-Ice> ack
17:16:04 <tflink> ack/nak/patch?
17:16:18 <brunowolff> ack
17:17:00 <tflink> looks like we may have lost an adamw
17:17:06 <tflink> #agreed 960045 - AcceptedFreezeException - This bug represents a non-booting soas spin which is a freezeException by definition. A tested fix would be considered past freeze.
17:17:16 <tflink> I do believe that is it for today
17:17:40 <tflink> the only accepted blockers that are not ON_QA or VERIFIED are the iso size bugs, which don't need anything from us
17:17:49 <brunowolff> Note that freezes for the spin ks files are not really controlled and people have made changes during freezes for stuff not attached to FE or blocker bugs.
17:17:58 <adamw`> sorry folks, my freenode connection keeps lagging out
17:18:06 <adamw`> brunowolff: yeah, i've hated that for years
17:18:12 <tflink> brunowolff: yeah, that and comps
17:18:21 <Viking-Ice> adamw, canadian internet flaky?
17:18:37 <brunowolff> I need to take my dog outside.
17:18:46 <Viking-Ice> adamw, did you upset the elders of the internet ;)
17:18:53 <adamw> Viking-Ice: I think I did :)
17:19:04 <adamw> Viking-Ice: the internet is fine, but my freenode connection keeps crapping out for some reasons
17:19:13 <adamw> like bip just times out and reconnects every  few hours. odd
17:19:19 * tflink assumes that there are no objections to ...
17:19:23 <tflink> #topic Open Floor
17:19:24 <Viking-Ice> none
17:19:25 <adamw> annoying too as I keep winding up as adamw`, sigh
17:19:40 <Viking-Ice> the rest of the proposed FE can be closed?
17:19:58 <Viking-Ice> one is in stable and the otherone well should be there as well right?
17:20:06 <tflink> Viking-Ice: I assume they will be once they're pushed stable
17:20:34 <adamw> i'm working through the ones that should be closed
17:20:38 <adamw> i think bodhi has broken again
17:20:42 <adamw> i'll poke lmacken/nirik about that
17:20:56 <nirik> :(
17:20:56 <tflink> it might be the code changes for the pending bugzilla upgrade
17:21:01 <nirik> likely so.
17:21:08 <Viking-Ice> do we have status update on the anconda and selinux on the AFE
17:21:12 <tflink> which is 2 days before beta release, conveninently
17:21:46 <Viking-Ice> we really ought to have our own bugzilla...
17:22:12 <tflink> Viking-Ice: the concept is somewhat appealing but the cost of doing so is scary
17:22:12 <Viking-Ice> RHEL can keep it's own with their policy and customers
17:22:29 <Viking-Ice> tflink, the cost of not doing so is expensive as well
17:22:32 <adamw> i'd like to have our own bugzilla too, but I sure ain't doing the work :/
17:23:08 <tflink> Viking-Ice: true, but I'm not convinced that the cost of not doing so is higher than having our own
17:23:08 <Viking-Ice> I think people are over estimating the maintainership of our own bugzilla instance
17:23:31 <Viking-Ice> but then again infra does not run on fedora which is just as equally shameful
17:23:31 <Viking-Ice> so
17:23:32 <Viking-Ice> ...
17:24:14 <tflink> anyways, I think we've gotten sufficiently  off into the weeds to trigger the patent-pending non-deterministic fuse
17:24:26 <Viking-Ice> do we have status update on the anconda and selinux on the AFE ?
17:24:38 <tflink> AFE?
17:24:50 <Viking-Ice> Accepted Freeze Exceptions
17:25:13 <Viking-Ice> where we have 2 anaconda bugs and one selinux related
17:25:45 <adamw> just looking at the selinux one to figure out current status...
17:27:43 <Viking-Ice> is comment 43 some autocomment or are users actually putting this in?
17:27:46 <adamw> 3.12.1-42 went stable
17:27:55 <tflink> do we need status updates for acceptedFE?
17:28:10 <Viking-Ice> should we always require status updates?
17:28:13 <adamw> Viking-Ice: those comments are from setroubleshoot I believe, the "Normal login to mate desktop" is what the user entered
17:28:27 <adamw> tflink: we don't _need_ them, but it can't hurt to take a look
17:28:42 <tflink> so, going through the accepted FE?
17:28:48 <adamw> so selinux-policy 3.12.1-42 went stable and I believe this was fixed in -41, so we could probably close this or at least set ON_QA
17:28:59 <Viking-Ice> let's close it
17:29:15 <tflink> #topic (922958) SELinux is preventing /usr/sbin/lightdm from 'create' accesses on the file .dmrc.T5D7TW.
17:29:18 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=922958
17:29:20 <tflink> #info Accepted Freeze Exceptions, selinux-policy, MODIFIED
17:29:40 <tflink> #info selinux-policy 3.12.1-42 went stable
17:29:54 <tflink> close or ON_QA?
17:30:01 <adamw> i've just closed it
17:30:08 <Viking-Ice> hurray
17:30:09 <tflink> #info this bug has been closed
17:30:10 <adamw> there was a bodhi comment to the effect that it fixed the bug, from boblfoot
17:31:00 <tflink> #topic (960254) Mount point information is not immediately updated when assigning a partition to a disk
17:31:03 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960254
17:31:06 <tflink> #info Accepted Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, NEW
17:32:09 <Viking-Ice> adamw, do we have any kind of status update on that one
17:32:21 <adamw> nothing i'm aware of
17:32:22 <tflink> I assume no movement on this as its assigned to dlehman who was on vacation last week
17:32:30 <adamw> he's back now
17:32:35 <adamw> so hopefully he'll get oni
17:32:36 <adamw> it
17:32:37 <tflink> as of today, no?
17:32:49 <tflink> #info no movement on this recently
17:32:54 <Viking-Ice> ah so I guess we can punt this and other anaconda bugs until $NEXTMEETING
17:33:08 <tflink> which other anaconda bugs?
17:33:17 <Viking-Ice> 962148
17:33:38 <Viking-Ice> it's assigned to him as well
17:33:44 <adamw> that one we just accepted, didn't we?
17:33:47 <tflink> Viking-Ice: didn't we just accept that an hour ago?
17:33:58 <adamw> yeah, same story there
17:34:02 <adamw> should get looked at soon
17:34:11 <Viking-Ice> did we I thought we had two since last meeting on the AFE
17:34:26 <Viking-Ice> in anycase I think we are done for today
17:34:31 <tflink> do we want to go into the oversize bugs for LXDE and XFCE?
17:34:45 <tflink> ok, back to ...
17:34:50 <tflink> #topic Open Floor
17:35:04 <tflink> Anything else which should be covered in-meeting today?
17:35:18 <Viking-Ice> nothing from me
17:35:58 <Viking-Ice> we seem to be on good track for a GO unless the 3.8.2 mega update breaks everthing
17:36:27 * tflink renews preparation of the patent-pending non-deterministic fuse that he started earlier for [0,5] minutes
17:37:02 <adamw> yeah, it looks like it
17:37:11 <adamw> i'm proposing a few more FEs just to keep the devs busy...:P
17:37:31 <tflink> i wonder if dmraid was fixed
17:37:43 <tflink> dm/md - whichever is the obscureone
17:37:44 <Viking-Ice> do they pay you guys per bug report ;)
17:38:09 * tflink will re-test w/ TC4
17:38:11 <adamw> Viking-Ice: oh boy I wish
17:38:11 <Viking-Ice> adamw, and you need to fill minimum qouta to get paid ;)
17:38:27 <adamw> project colada would be complete already
17:38:40 <tflink> I can think of few worse ideas than to pay testers per bug filed or per test case run
17:39:15 <tflink> but I think I hear the fuse going off
17:39:24 <tflink> Thanks for coming, everyone!
17:39:29 * tflink will send out minutes shortly
17:39:33 <tflink> #endmeeting