16:02:21 <tflink> #startmeeting f19beta-blocker-review-6
16:02:21 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed May 15 16:02:21 2013 UTC.  The chair is tflink. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:02:21 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:02:21 <tflink> #meetingname f19beta-blocker-review-6
16:02:21 <tflink> #topic Roll Call
16:02:22 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f19beta-blocker-review-6'
16:02:28 <adamw> YAY FUN
16:02:36 <tflink> whee!
16:02:41 * satellit listening
16:02:42 <ignatenkobrain> !
16:02:42 <tflink> #chair adamw
16:02:42 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw tflink
16:04:06 * jreznik is here to have some late afternoon fun
16:04:45 <jreznik> (and yeah, some guys around are trying to convince me to go to have a beer now :)
16:04:47 * ignatenkobrain looking
16:05:11 <ignatenkobrain> jreznik: beer - bad
16:05:31 <tflink> ignatenkobrain: huh?
16:06:02 <ignatenkobrain> tflink: yep =)
16:06:20 <adamw> jreznik: blocker meetings have a two beer minimum.
16:06:45 <jreznik> :D
16:07:05 <tflink> anyhow, let's get this party started with some boilerplate
16:07:15 <tflink> #topic Introduction
16:07:21 <tflink> Why are we here?
16:07:21 <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.
16:07:27 <tflink> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:07:27 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:07:32 <tflink> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:07:32 <tflink> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:07:37 <tflink> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:07:38 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_19_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:07:40 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_19_Alpha_Release_Criteria
16:07:43 <tflink> #info Up for review today, we have:
16:07:58 <tflink> #info 1 Proposed Blockers
16:07:59 <tflink> #info 6 Accepted Blockers
16:07:59 <tflink> #info 10 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:07:59 <tflink> #info 6 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
16:09:49 <tflink> if there are no objections, we'll start with the lone proposed blocker
16:09:57 <tflink> #topic (962569) create new VM fails with error argument of type 'bool' is not iterable
16:10:00 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962569
16:10:03 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, virt-manager, NEW
16:10:21 <adamw> I'm going +1 on this, I think someone else also reported they couldn't get v-m to fly on a fresh f19 install
16:10:35 <adamw> it works for me with an existing virt-manager setup, but that's not the same
16:11:01 <Viking-Ice> adamw, which criteria?
16:11:10 <tflink> Viking-Ice: it's listed in the bug
16:11:21 <adamw> the self-hosting virt criterion
16:11:26 <tflink> The release must be able host virtual guest instances of the same release.
16:11:30 <Viking-Ice> well it's not violating that criteria
16:11:40 <tflink> Viking-Ice: how's that?
16:11:41 <Viking-Ice> the problem is with vm creation right?
16:11:58 <Viking-Ice> not hosting or running for that matter already created vm's
16:12:03 <jreznik> tflink: adamw confirmed it can host *pre-created* one
16:12:25 <Viking-Ice> -1 blocker +1 FE
16:12:41 <tflink> Viking-Ice: that's kind of twisting the intention of the criterion
16:12:59 <tflink> and the bug is about VM _creation_ anyways
16:13:00 <Viking-Ice> does "boxee" work
16:13:09 <tflink> boxee?
16:13:17 <jreznik> Viking-Ice: you mean boxes?
16:13:18 <tflink> I assume you don't mean the media player
16:13:40 <Viking-Ice> jreznik, yeah boxes sorry
16:14:07 <ignatenkobrain> gnome-boxes works correctly in my laptop
16:14:10 <Viking-Ice> that's what get's shipped with the default right
16:14:13 <adamw> didn't work for me
16:14:41 <Viking-Ice> adamw, what creating or hosting/running already existing one
16:14:45 <tflink> I'd settle for waiting for more confirmation but I'm definitiely not -1
16:14:49 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963293
16:14:55 <adamw> creating a new one
16:15:18 * tflink starts a TC4 istall on bare metal
16:15:28 <adamw> viking does have a point though, logically speaking it feels like we should care more about Boxes than virt-manager
16:15:38 <tflink> what about kde?
16:15:44 <tflink> does boxes run on kde?
16:15:55 <adamw> the maintainer says he wants it to
16:16:03 <Viking-Ice> tflink, second class city sense
16:16:03 * ignatenkobrain starts TC4 install in gnome-boxes
16:16:35 <jreznik> I read an email thread today that boxes are pretty broken in everything except GNOME
16:17:49 <Viking-Ice> tflink, honestly I think we should care about them all but by criteria this should be FE the argue can be made then one you run boxee or virt-manager you are doing so on GA not F19
16:17:52 <tflink> what is the default VM manager, anyways?
16:17:58 <jreznik> adamw: the reason why you don't see boxes machines in virt-manager and vice versa is that virt-manager uses system wide libvirtd, boxes user session wide
16:18:02 <tflink> does boxes work right now?
16:18:51 <jreznik> question is - does criteria match virtualizations managers or is it enough to use cli to run the machine?
16:19:18 <Viking-Ice> jreznik,  no hosting/running is what we really should be caring about in development release not the "apps"
16:19:19 * jreznik knows there's "recommended" word in criteria
16:20:22 <Viking-Ice> come to think of it I think that critera should not exist et all <sigh>
16:21:01 <Viking-Ice> you would never create host or run development release on the development platform itself
16:21:07 <tflink> thoughts on blockery-ness? I see a -1 from viking, a +1 from adamw inline
16:21:37 <ignatenkobrain> adamw: in my gnome-boxes bug not confirmed.
16:21:44 * jreznik is now more 0 - what intentions were behind this criteria? allow fn testing on fn?
16:22:05 <tflink> I suspect it was to allow people to upgrade @ beta and still test with VMs
16:22:22 <adamw> Viking-Ice: "you would never create host or run development release on the development platform itself"
16:22:24 <Viking-Ice> tflink, we always think of fn being something that users dismiss but never run on
16:22:25 <adamw> er...except I do that all the time.
16:22:41 <Viking-Ice> users = testers
16:23:19 <adamw> ignatenkobrain: it works for you? hm.
16:23:34 <ignatenkobrain> adamw: installing. 80%
16:23:41 <adamw> odd.
16:23:48 <adamw> anyways, this is getting somewhat messy
16:23:53 <tflink> does boxes use libvirt?
16:23:56 <adamw> tflink: yes.
16:23:57 <Viking-Ice> ignatenkobrain, do you have the 3.8.2 updates?
16:24:02 <ignatenkobrain> adamw: but i have boxes from 3.8.2
16:24:06 <ignatenkobrain> Viking-Ice: yes.
16:24:36 <adamw> we have a couple of questions: should we require current-on-current virt to work at beta at all, and what do we consider to be the 'blessed stack' at this point?
16:25:02 <adamw> if there's a reasonable belief that we need to revisit those i'm okay with punting this and starting up some kind of review
16:25:29 <tflink> if boxes and/or cli work at this point, I can see this being not a blocker
16:25:33 <tflink> for beta anyways
16:25:39 <jreznik> tflink: I'd say so too
16:25:51 <ignatenkobrain> tflink: I thik so too
16:25:52 <tflink> if virt-manager is the "default" vm manager, I'd push for final blocker, though
16:26:13 <Viking-Ice> boxee is the default
16:26:21 <Viking-Ice> since it comes with the default
16:26:36 <ignatenkobrain> Viking-Ice: not boxee. boxes =)
16:26:40 <Viking-Ice> frack
16:26:54 <tflink> http://www.boxee.tv/
16:27:00 <Viking-Ice> I should file a request for rename ;)
16:27:23 <Viking-Ice> at beta either or should suffice
16:27:36 <jreznik> well, virt-manager works on my F19 installation - but it's not TC4 but fully updated F19
16:27:54 <jreznik> at least I was able to create new machine
16:27:54 <tflink> jreznik: upgraded from F18?
16:28:28 <jreznik> tflink: and yep, upgraded from F18 (it did not work for me on F18 ;-)
16:28:42 <adamw> 'if either virt-manager or boxes works we're okay' seems reasonable to me
16:28:43 <tflink> jreznik: sounds like you might be in the same boat as adamw then
16:29:02 <ignatenkobrain> jreznik: why virt-manager requred avahi-tools ?
16:29:05 <tflink> so -1/+1 overall?
16:29:10 <ignatenkobrain> tflink: -1
16:29:11 <adamw> ignatenkobrain: we've got a bug for that somewhere.
16:29:25 <tflink> ignatenkobrain: more details would be useful than just -1
16:29:32 <adamw> yeah, i'm okay with -1/+1, or punt to confirm and check on boxes
16:29:40 <tflink> -1 to my interpretation, or -1 to ...
16:29:58 <tflink> other votes?
16:30:00 <adamw> it'd be good if a few more people could do vanilla f19 installs to metal and try both v-m and boxes
16:30:02 <ignatenkobrain> tflink: -1. works for me in updated boxes.
16:30:22 <tflink> adamw: yeah, in the process of doing that
16:30:33 <ignatenkobrain> tflink: boxes default. its working.
16:31:27 <Viking-Ice> is there someone here that has not voted yet?
16:31:38 <ignatenkobrain> I can test v-m, but will take some time
16:31:59 <jreznik> version is the same, based on this I'm -1 now but would be great to have tflink's test done
16:32:09 <tflink> proposed #agreed 962569 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - There are workarounds for VM management (use CLI, use boxes) so this doesn't qualify as a blocker - VMs can be created and run on F19. However, it would be good to have virt-manager working in beta and a tested fix would be considered past freeze.
16:32:22 <jreznik> at least to have a clue what could be wrong and what will be the impact - with beta we can expect people doing upgrades and if upgrades are not affected...
16:32:22 <Viking-Ice> ack
16:32:24 <adamw> sure, ack, we can re-propose if there turn out to be issues with both v-m and boxes
16:32:37 <tflink> yeah, that sounds like a plan
16:32:38 <jreznik> ack
16:32:42 <brunowolff> ack
16:32:52 <tflink> it kind of sounds virt-manager specific to me, but I don't pretend to be an expert :)
16:32:59 <tflink> #agreed 962569 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - There are workarounds for VM management (use CLI, use boxes) so this doesn't qualify as a blocker - VMs can be created and run on F19. However, it would be good to have virt-manager working in beta and a tested fix would be considered past freeze.
16:33:05 <adamw> #action adamw to look at tweaking virt criteria and test cases to cover apparent new consensus on virt issues
16:33:24 <adamw> tflink: well I had a _different_ problem with boxes
16:33:40 <tflink> adamw: ah, details :)
16:33:56 <Viking-Ice> adamw, I guess we should revisit the whole criteria as well as that alleged recommendation
16:33:57 <tflink> I'll poke at both once this bare-metal install is done and updated
16:34:09 * jreznik will try to poke cole to take a look
16:34:22 <Viking-Ice> with a stick?
16:34:31 <jreznik> Viking-Ice: virtualized one
16:34:43 <ignatenkobrain> adamw: in V-M confirmed.
16:35:22 <tflink> anything else on this bug?
16:35:32 <tflink> install done, rebooting to update
16:35:37 <jreznik> I don't think so
16:35:47 <tflink> ok, on to the proposed FEs
16:36:01 <tflink> #topic (962631) "Do not install bootloader" option never shows in Fedora 19 (Beta TC4)
16:36:04 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962631
16:36:07 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, NEW
16:36:13 <adamw> Viking-Ice: yeah, that's what the action item is for.
16:36:55 <Viking-Ice> adamw, arguably the virtualzation community should conduct those testing themselves ;)
16:37:09 <Viking-Ice> ( since there exist a sub community around it )
16:37:43 <Viking-Ice> +1 FE
16:38:19 <tflink> this would be a final blocker, no?
16:38:34 <ignatenkobrain> tflink: I think that final blocker
16:39:02 <adamw> i'm not sure we actually cover this in the criteria, but if not, it's an oversight
16:39:16 <adamw> +1 fe anyhow
16:39:26 <tflink> yeah, +1 FE
16:40:08 <jreznik> +1 FE
16:40:17 <ignatenkobrain> +1 FE
16:40:46 <tflink> proposed #agreed 962631 - AcceptedFreezeException - This is not a blocker for F19 beta but would be a blocker for final - including the fix now would allow for more earlier testing and a tested fix would be considered past freeze/
16:40:50 <tflink> proposed #agreed 962631 - AcceptedFreezeException - This is not a blocker for F19 beta but would be a blocker for final - including the fix now would allow for more earlier testing and a tested fix would be considered past freeze.
16:41:07 <Viking-Ice> ack
16:41:10 <ignatenkobrain> ack
16:41:10 <adamw> ack
16:41:10 <brunowolff> ack
16:41:17 <tflink> #agreed 962631 - AcceptedFreezeException - This is not a blocker for F19 beta but would be a blocker for final - including the fix now would allow for more earlier testing and a tested fix would be considered past freeze.
16:41:27 <tflink> #topic (962006) Crash when installing a specific btrfs layout with a kickstart
16:41:30 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962006
16:41:33 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, NEW
16:42:21 <adamw> this is just on the principle that a crasher in partitioning seems like the kind of thing we want to fix if possible. i pulled the partitioning stuff in this kickstart from an old anaconda bug and found it crashed current anaconda.
16:42:22 <brunowolff> +1 Fe
16:42:32 <Viking-Ice> is this not a blocker
16:42:40 <Viking-Ice> ?
16:42:55 <Viking-Ice> +1 fe btw
16:43:17 <ignatenkobrain> +1 FE
16:43:21 <adamw> Viking-Ice: i didn't really want to call it a blocker as it doesn't seem to showstop all btrfs installs or anything
16:43:31 <jreznik> +1 FE
16:43:39 <tflink> do we have any indication that a fix is being worked on?
16:43:49 <adamw> it's probably down to some specific odd property specified in this kickstart; it may be something to do with the fact that the label 'f17' is used multiple times or something. i literally just copy/pasted the lines out of the other guy's kickstart.
16:44:27 <adamw> tflink: doesn't look like it, but anaconda team generally prioritizes FEs after blockers, and they're about done with blockers, so i expect they'd work on this pretty soon if it's accepted...
16:44:32 <Viking-Ice> ok for the first do we officially support btrfs now?
16:44:38 <adamw> yes
16:45:08 <Viking-Ice> this breaks the ks criteria right?
16:45:28 <tflink> I don't think so, it isn't all BTRFS ks
16:45:31 <adamw> not really, the kickstart criteria are still pretty weak
16:45:44 <adamw> all we really have is "The installer must be able to complete a scripted installation which duplicates the default interactive installation as closely as possible. "
16:45:51 <Viking-Ice> anyway we all agree on FE so let's not dwell on it
16:45:57 <adamw> sounds good
16:46:00 <tflink> I'm still a bit confused on why this is a FE
16:46:10 <tflink> but I'm outvoted nonetheless
16:47:08 <adamw> tflink: it seems like a win to fix as many identified issues as possible in the partitioning stuff, on the basis that the more we fix, the more we can test, and the fewer people testing will run into problems. i'd incline towards +1 FE on pretty much any partitioning crasher at this point.
16:47:09 <tflink> hrm, not sure about justification
16:47:17 <adamw> (and it is a final blocker per the existing criteria, if that helps.)
16:47:23 <tflink> ah, ok
16:47:33 <adamw> "The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system offered in a default installer configuration, LVM, software, hardware or BIOS RAID, or combination of the above "
16:47:42 <adamw> the Nuclear Criterion
16:48:02 <Viking-Ice> but does that cover ks
16:48:15 <tflink> proposed #agreed 962006 - AcceptedFreezeException - This is a partitioning crasher in kickstarted installs and thus, would be a final blocker. However, more testing earlier would be appreciated and a tested fix would be considered past freeze.
16:48:42 <jreznik> ack
16:48:43 <ignatenkobrain> ack
16:48:49 <Viking-Ice> ack
16:49:05 <tflink> #agreed 962006 - AcceptedFreezeException - This is a partitioning crasher in kickstarted installs and thus, would be a final blocker. However, more testing earlier would be appreciated and a tested fix would be considered past freeze.
16:49:14 <tflink> #topic (962012) AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'get_selected'
16:49:17 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962012
16:49:20 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, NEW
16:50:29 <ignatenkobrain> +1 FE
16:51:00 <Viking-Ice> +1 in Beta we should autoblock all hard crashes in  anaconda
16:51:49 <ignatenkobrain> Viking-Ice: yes. I think so too.
16:52:21 <brunowolff> +1 FE
16:52:36 <adamw> i dunno about autoblocking, but i'm generally +1 fe to crashes early in freeze.
16:53:02 <jreznik> +1 FE, early and it could save us troubles later
16:53:39 <tflink> proposed #agreed 962012 - AcceptedFreezeException - While this is not a blocker for F19 beta, easily-hittable crashes in the UI are good to have fixed. A tested fix would be considered past freeze.
16:53:45 <ignatenkobrain> ack
16:53:49 <brunowolff> Crashes can prevent people from finding other bugs. Getting these fixes in, except at the last minute seems like a good idea.
16:53:57 <brunowolff> ack
16:54:19 <Viking-Ice> ack
16:54:31 <tflink> #agreed 962012 - AcceptedFreezeException - While this is not a blocker for F19 beta, easily-hittable crashes in the UI are good to have fixed. A tested fix would be considered past freeze.
16:54:42 <tflink> topic (962628) AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'get_selected'
16:54:45 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962628
16:54:47 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, NEW
16:55:17 <ignatenkobrain> also +1 FE
16:55:36 <tflink> yeah, seems like pretty much the same idea
16:55:46 <jreznik> +1 FE
16:56:17 <Viking-Ice> +1
16:56:25 <brunowolff> +1 FE
16:56:36 <tflink> proposed #agreed 962012 - AcceptedFreezeException - While this is not a blocker for F19 beta, it is an easy to hit crash in the UI and it would be preferrable to fix early. A tested fix would be considered past freeze.
16:56:40 <ignatenkobrain> ack
16:57:09 <Viking-Ice> ack
16:57:16 <jreznik> ack
16:57:35 <adamw> ack
16:57:55 <tflink> #agreed 962012 - AcceptedFreezeException - While this is not a blocker for F19 beta, it is an easy to hit crash in the UI and it would be preferrable to fix early. A tested fix would be considered past freeze.
16:58:03 <tflink> #topic (962989) Regression in gnome/gtk 3.8 with drag and drop
16:58:03 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962989
16:58:03 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, muffin, NEW
16:58:54 <Viking-Ice> +1
16:59:41 <ignatenkobrain> Will refrain, as I do not understand what the bug
16:59:48 <adamw> it's a fairly serious bug in cinnamon
16:59:58 <adamw> if we had a similar bug in gnome it'd be a blocker, i think, so +1 fe for cinnamon.
17:00:16 <tflink> whoops, skipped one - will come back to it next
17:00:28 <jreznik> +1 FE as adamw explained
17:00:31 <Viking-Ice> yeah the "second class" citizien should atleast get FE
17:00:31 <tflink> +1
17:00:32 <ignatenkobrain> drag'n'drop in my gnome works correctly.
17:01:43 <tflink> proposed #agreed 962989 - AcceptedFreezeException - This fixes drag'n'drop for cinnamon which is a secondary DE. Blockers for secondary DEs are FEs and would be good to have working at beta. A tested fix would be considered past freeze.
17:01:55 <tflink> ignatenkobrain: it's for cinnamon, not gnome though
17:02:02 <ignatenkobrain> ack
17:02:10 <jreznik> ack
17:02:13 <brunowolff> ack
17:02:15 <tflink> #agreed 962989 - AcceptedFreezeException - This fixes drag'n'drop for cinnamon which is a secondary DE. Blockers for secondary DEs are FEs and would be good to have working at beta. A tested fix would be considered past freeze.
17:02:20 <tflink> #topic (928645) IMEs for some languages no longer automatically configured in g-i-s / GNOME in Fedora 19
17:02:23 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928645
17:02:26 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-initial-setup, NEW
17:03:24 <tflink> this is what I get for not putting RejectedFreezeException into the #agreed
17:03:33 <Viking-Ice> hehe
17:03:42 <tflink> -1 FE as this is easy to setup post-install
17:03:43 <ignatenkobrain> +1. I think needed update from 3.8.2
17:03:49 <Viking-Ice> -
17:03:56 <Viking-Ice> -1
17:04:10 <tflink> heck, we could reject it based on the votes from monday
17:04:45 * tflink starts writing code to materialize a stick in bugzilla when people propose as blocker/fe and DONT INCLUDE WHY
17:04:49 <adamw> i think it was discussed as a blocker there
17:05:05 <tflink> it was, but there were several -1FE votes
17:05:08 <adamw> ah
17:05:27 <adamw> well, the rationale here is just that you can't exactly fix this post-install, and it's kind of nice for IME-based users to get their IME set up automatically
17:05:50 <adamw> it shouldn't be too hard for them to configure it post-install, that's true. and it is a beta
17:06:10 <adamw> if we don't 'fix' it in beta we probably get less test coverage on the functionality for final, i guess.
17:06:16 <ignatenkobrain> also can be delayed to final
17:06:18 <tflink> also true
17:07:18 <tflink> this feels a bit vague, though
17:07:29 <tflink> as far as what we'd be considering for a fix
17:07:56 <ignatenkobrain> final.
17:08:29 <tflink> eh, I think adam has a point about testing - I'm less -1 now
17:08:54 <ignatenkobrain> tflink: too. -1
17:08:55 <Viking-Ice> if the risks are minimal I give my +1
17:09:23 <Viking-Ice> but if we risk breaking it for everyone else I'm still -1
17:09:37 <tflink> yeah, as long as we're careful about what we're taking in and when, I can go with +1
17:10:07 <tflink> adamw, jreznik: votes?
17:10:30 <adamw> probably a +1 that's conditional like viking's
17:10:39 <jreznik> tflink: phone call, sorry, re-reading
17:11:08 <jreznik> Viking-Ice's condition looks reasonable
17:12:16 * Viking-Ice jumps out for fresh air
17:12:30 <tflink> proposed #agreed - 928645 - AcceptedFreezeException - It would be good to have a fix for this before beta so that it gets more testing. However, the fix would have to be minimal scope and risk before pulling past freeze. A well tested fix would be considered past freeze.
17:12:39 <ignatenkobrain> ack
17:12:50 <jreznik> ack
17:12:50 <brunowolff> +1 FE, but we should be careful given that there are work arounds
17:12:59 <brunowolff> ack
17:13:08 <tflink> #agreed - 928645 - AcceptedFreezeException - It would be good to have a fix for this before beta so that it gets more testing. However, the fix would have to be minimal scope and risk before pulling past freeze. A well tested fix would be considered past freeze.
17:13:15 <tflink> #topic (962865) IOError: iface iter could not read dir /var/lib/iscsi/nodes/iqn.2009-02.net.tirfa.:for.all/192.168.0.5,3260,1.
17:13:18 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962865
17:13:20 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, python-blivet, MODIFIED
17:13:32 <tflink> long story short on this one is that installing to iscsi targets without auth does not work
17:13:41 <tflink> the install crashes at the end, every time
17:13:49 <adamw> sounds like a solid +1
17:13:50 <ignatenkobrain> tflink: +1
17:14:15 <adamw> final blocker, too.
17:14:51 <tflink> proposed #agreed 962865 - AcceptedFreezeException - This bug prevents installation to iscsi targets without auth and would be a final blocker. More testing now would be helpful and a tested fix would be considered past freeze.
17:14:57 <ignatenkobrain> ack
17:15:10 <adamw> ack
17:15:35 <jreznik> ack
17:15:51 <brunowolff> ack
17:15:51 <tflink> #agreed 962865 - AcceptedFreezeException - This bug prevents installation to iscsi targets without auth and would be a final blocker. More testing now would be helpful and a tested fix would be considered past freeze.
17:15:59 <tflink> #topic (962176) [abrt] nemo-1.8.1-1.fc19: _gdk_x11_display_error_event: Process /usr/bin/nemo was killed by signal 5 (SIGTRAP)
17:16:02 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962176
17:16:04 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, nemo, ON_QA
17:16:21 <adamw> more cinnamon horkage
17:16:48 <adamw> the bug got a little polluted before 962989 was spun off, but ignoring that stuff, this bug is basically for a crasher that a couple of people hit in cinnamon
17:17:04 <tflink> yeah, sounds like a blocker for cinnamon
17:17:28 <ignatenkobrain> cinnamon. I think tha can delay to final
17:17:44 <adamw> ignatenkobrain: we're voting on freeze exception status here, not blocker
17:17:56 <adamw> issues in desktops other than kde and gnome can never be blockers, but they can be freeze exception
17:18:03 <ignatenkobrain> adamw: okay. +1 FE
17:18:04 <adamw> from what I understand of this one, +1
17:18:12 <adamw> esp since the update is already available and tested
17:18:19 <tflink> proposed #agreed 962176 - AcceptedFreezeException - This would be a blocker for a primary DE and thus is a FE. A tested fix would be considered past freeze.
17:18:22 <ignatenkobrain> ack
17:18:24 <jreznik> ack
17:18:56 <adamw> ack
17:18:59 <brunowolff> +1 FE
17:19:01 <brunowolff> ack
17:19:04 <tflink> #agreed 962176 - AcceptedFreezeException - This would be a blocker for a primary DE and thus is a FE. A tested fix would be considered past freeze.
17:19:07 <tflink> #topic (960045) f19 Beta TC4 soas live  fails to boot after "liveinst" install but @sugar-desktop installed with yum works
17:19:10 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960045
17:19:13 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, spin-kickstarts, NEW
17:19:16 <tflink> similar
17:19:22 <adamw> yeah, sounds like it's in the same boat
17:19:26 <tflink> +1 FE to fix broken soas
17:19:31 <adamw> i keep meaning to take a look at this one but never get around to it
17:19:32 <adamw> +1
17:19:38 <ignatenkobrain> +1 FE
17:19:40 <jreznik> +1
17:20:02 <Viking-Ice> +1
17:20:06 <tflink> proposed #agreed 960045 - AcceptedFreezeException - This bug breaks SOAS which is a secondary DE, a tested fix would be considered past freeze.
17:20:10 <ignatenkobrain> ack
17:20:13 <Viking-Ice> ack
17:20:13 <adamw> ack
17:20:15 <jreznik> ack
17:20:16 <tflink> #agreed 960045 - AcceptedFreezeException - This bug breaks SOAS which is a secondary DE, a tested fix would be considered past freeze.
17:20:25 <tflink> #topic (958787) X error "AddScreen/ScreenInit failed for gpu driver 0 -1" on iMac12,2 with F19 Beta TC3 when starting GDM
17:20:28 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958787
17:20:30 <tflink> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, xorg-x11-server, NEW
17:21:12 <Viking-Ice> dont we need some input from ajax
17:21:36 <adamw> yeah...i know tflink thinks i'm being inconsistent, but this is one where it would be good to see some dev input before voting
17:21:37 <tflink> yeah, I don't like taking gfx bugs as FE without at least some indication that there could be a fix
17:21:45 <adamw> since we don't know what a fix would look like at all
17:21:51 <Viking-Ice> punt
17:21:52 <tflink> so, punt?
17:21:59 <adamw> sure
17:22:29 <adamw> not sure if we'll get any, but eh
17:22:35 <tflink> proposed #agreed 958787 - We need input from devs before considering this as a FE for F19 beta - will revisit once more information is available
17:22:43 <brunowolff> ack
17:22:43 <jreznik> ack
17:22:47 <ignatenkobrain> ack
17:22:52 <tflink> #agreed 958787 - We need input from devs before considering this as a FE for F19 beta - will revisit once more information is available
17:22:53 <adamw> ack
17:23:01 <tflink> OK, that's all of the proposed FEs for today
17:23:04 <adamw> yay
17:23:06 <tflink> on to the accepted blockers
17:23:09 * satellit MacBook Pro i7 8,1 works EFI boot and installs
17:23:39 <tflink> actually, do we need to hit any of the accepted blockers?
17:23:45 <tflink> it looks like they're all waiting for new builds
17:23:52 <Viking-Ice> satellit, you can just as well participate in voting since you are lurking ;)
17:24:03 <satellit> thanks
17:24:05 <adamw> they're mostly straightforward, yeah
17:24:16 <adamw> for the size ones we kinda need to fire rc1 and see how it turns out
17:24:22 <jreznik> yep
17:24:29 <ignatenkobrain> yes
17:24:35 <tflink> any objections to skipping them for today?
17:24:42 <Viking-Ice> nope
17:24:43 <adamw> maybe just a blanket #info
17:24:49 <adamw> mind if I do that?
17:25:01 <tflink> go for it, I was about to do it myself but I won't stop you
17:25:21 <tflink> since this a bit of a special case
17:25:21 <adamw> #info All current accepted blockers are in a state where we need to do a new spin and see where they stand, so we will check in on them after building RC12
17:25:23 <adamw> grrr
17:25:24 <adamw> #undo
17:25:24 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x28a87390>
17:25:27 <adamw> #info All current accepted blockers are in a state where we need to do a new spin and see where they stand, so we will check in on them after building RC1
17:25:28 <tflink> RC12?
17:25:36 <tflink> gah, I've missed so much!!!
17:25:41 * jreznik overslept 11 RCs!
17:25:41 <adamw> .fire tflink
17:25:42 <tflink> :)
17:25:43 <zodbot> adamw fires tflink
17:25:47 <adamw> for not paying attention
17:25:54 <ignatenkobrain> good
17:25:55 <tflink> adamw: hey, I'm not the one referencing RC12
17:26:01 <jreznik> :D
17:26:10 <tflink> anyhow
17:26:14 <tflink> #topic Open Floor
17:26:25 <tflink> Anything that I missed or that should be brought up now?
17:26:37 <Viking-Ice> not that I'm aware of
17:27:20 <adamw> nothing much here either
17:27:40 <adamw> just be aware that the size bugs have turned into catch-alls; RC1 will include quite a lot of builds related to those bugs
17:27:47 * tflink sets the fuse for [0,NaN]
17:27:48 <adamw> not really a problem, just a heads-up
17:28:26 <tflink> when are we expecting RC1?
17:29:03 <jreznik> good question - do we want to make a chance for some FEs to squeeze in?
17:30:20 <brunowolff> I don't think so, given that there are a lot of changes for rc1.
17:30:21 <tflink> either way, it can be discussed in #fedora-qa or relenge
17:30:26 <adamw> today i think
17:30:37 * tflink will send out minutes shortly
17:30:42 <tflink> Thanks for coming, everyone!
17:30:46 <tflink> #endmeeting