16:01:12 <kparal> #startmeeting F21-blocker-review
16:01:12 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Sep  3 16:01:12 2014 UTC.  The chair is kparal. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:01:12 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:01:12 <kparal> #meetingname F21-blocker-review
16:01:12 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f21-blocker-review'
16:01:12 <kparal> #topic Roll Call
16:01:13 <danofsatx> bug tabs pre-loaded, even ;)
16:01:18 <kparal> danofsatx: and you shall have it!
16:01:36 <sgallagh> Hello folks
16:01:39 <kparal> who's here for our usual 3 hours of pure fun?
16:01:39 * pschindl is here
16:01:45 <kparal> #chair pschindl roshi
16:01:45 <zodbot> Current chairs: kparal pschindl roshi
16:01:47 * roshi is here
16:01:50 * pwhalen is here
16:01:55 <danofsatx> good day, everyone!
16:02:03 * satellit listening
16:02:06 <amita> hi kparal
16:02:11 * danofsatx has a hard stop in 1.5 hours
16:03:08 * tflink can be around if needed
16:03:19 <kparal> adamw might attend intermittently, as he said
16:03:29 <kparal> and provided I spelled it correctly, even
16:03:31 * sgallagh has to run the FESCo meeting in an hour, but I'll be reading both
16:03:47 <kparal> let's go
16:03:49 <kparal> #topic Introduction
16:03:49 <kparal> Why are we here?
16:03:49 <kparal> #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.
16:03:49 <kparal> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:03:49 <kparal> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:03:51 <kparal> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:03:53 <kparal> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:03:55 <kparal> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:03:57 <kparal> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Alpha_Release_Criteria
16:03:59 <kparal> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:04:01 <kparal> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Final_Release_Criteria
16:04:04 <kparal> #info 6 Proposed Blockers
16:04:05 <kparal> #info 5 Accepted Blockers
16:04:09 <kparal> #info 2 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:04:11 <kparal> #info 1 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
16:04:14 <kparal> ============================================================
16:04:15 <kparal> Proposed Blockers
16:04:17 <kparal> ============================================================
16:04:20 <kparal> #topic (1128474) Adjust anaconda for new format of .buildstamp with Product name included
16:04:21 <kparal> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128474
16:04:23 <kparal> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST
16:04:45 <kparal> oh, secretary volunteer... roshi?
16:04:57 <roshi> yup
16:05:01 <kparal> thanks
16:05:19 <roshi> np
16:06:02 <kparal> cookie to the first one to come up with proper criterion
16:06:38 <danofsatx> When using the dedicated installer images, the installer must be able to use either HTTP or FTP repositories (or both) as package sources. The network install image must default to a valid publicly-accessible package source.
16:06:56 <roshi> ^^
16:06:58 <kparal> that works
16:06:59 <danofsatx> whoops, wrong one
16:07:13 <kparal> I think the second sentence covers it
16:07:19 <roshi> that one fits fine, IMO
16:07:19 <kparal> danofsatx: do you have a better one?
16:07:23 <danofsatx> oh, didn't see that....
16:07:29 * danofsatx was befuddled.
16:07:30 <jsmith> WORKSFORME
16:07:38 <sgallagh> works for me
16:07:39 <danofsatx> where's me cookie?
16:07:47 <kparal> .moar danofsatx cookie
16:07:47 <zodbot> here cookie, have some more danofsatx
16:07:50 <kparal> hehe
16:07:55 <kparal> .moar cookie danofsatx
16:07:56 <zodbot> here danofsatx, have some more cookie
16:07:59 <roshi> you probably lost it already - when you were befuddled
16:09:08 <adamw> ahoyhoy
16:09:24 <roshi> o/
16:09:53 <sgallagh> So this seems like an obvious blocker, yes?
16:09:58 <danofsatx> adamw ho!
16:10:11 <adamw> yeah, seems that way
16:10:12 <roshi> +1 blocker for me
16:10:24 <jsmith> +1 blocker
16:10:31 <sgallagh> +1 blocker
16:10:34 <danofsatx> +1
16:10:37 <kparal> propose #agreed 1128474 - AcceptedBlocker - violates "The network install image must default to a valid publicly-accessible package source." criterion
16:10:37 <kparal> ack/nack/patch?
16:10:44 <danofsatx> ack
16:10:46 <kparal> hey
16:10:47 <jsmith> ACK
16:10:50 <kparal> have I lost everybody?
16:10:51 <kparal> I might have been too fast, but technically, you should say 'ack' now :)
16:11:01 <kparal> yes, it seems as obvious blocker to me as well
16:11:04 <roshi> ack
16:11:13 <sgallagh> ack
16:11:14 <kparal> #agreed 1128474 - AcceptedBlocker - violates "The network install image must default to a valid publicly-accessible package source." criterion
16:11:30 <kparal> #topic (1135746) Fedora 21 Server TC5 software selection spoke is blank
16:11:30 <kparal> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135746
16:11:30 <kparal> #info Proposed Blocker, comps, NEW
16:11:31 <roshi> though, if I was going to be a kermudgeon I would say that it was defaulting to the right place, just not setting it up correctly locally...
16:11:48 * danofsatx doesn't follow
16:12:08 <adamw> is anyone secretarying?
16:12:12 <kparal> roshi is
16:12:15 <roshi> yup, me
16:12:29 <adamw> roshi: the term 'valid' is intended to convey 'working' :P
16:12:33 <roshi> that way I can get more emails on the bugs as they get updated :p
16:12:44 <adamw> roshi: it's so much fun, isn't it
16:13:06 <kparal> this also seems as an obvious blocker
16:13:09 <roshi> something like that :)
16:13:23 <roshi> +1
16:13:29 <roshi> and there are votes in the bug already
16:13:31 <danofsatx> +1 blocker
16:13:31 * satellit repo is bad also if try to ues sources for http://  1128474
16:13:34 * danofsatx is reporter
16:13:55 <pschindl> +1
16:14:00 <sgallagh> +1 blocker
16:14:02 <kparal> propose #agreed 1135746 - AcceptedBlocker - violates "When using a dedicated installer image that contains packages, the installer must be able to use the install medium as a package source."
16:14:08 <sgallagh> Ack
16:14:13 <danofsatx> ack
16:14:30 <roshi> ack
16:14:41 <kparal> #agreed 1135746 - AcceptedBlocker - violates "When using a dedicated installer image that contains packages, the installer must be able to use the install medium as a package source."
16:14:55 <kparal> #topic (1134524) F21 Workstation Alpha TC4 netinstall does not offer correct environment
16:14:56 <kparal> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134524
16:14:56 <kparal> #info Proposed Blocker, distribution, MODIFIED
16:15:30 <sgallagh> Didn't we accept this last week?
16:15:31 <danofsatx> this BZ leaves me confused.
16:15:40 <jsmith> sgallagh: I thought so
16:15:43 <danofsatx> no, we punted awaiting imput from workstation WG
16:15:48 <sgallagh> ah
16:15:58 <sgallagh> Right, we weren't sure if netinstall was supported
16:16:00 <kparal> from what I've read on the desktop list, workstation team concluded they care about netinst
16:16:22 <kparal> which would make it a blocker
16:16:33 <satellit_e> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134524#c8
16:17:55 <kparal> I'm a bit confused. so does it work or not?
16:18:07 <danofsatx> so, based on c8, should this criteria be moved to beta?
16:18:13 <satellit_e> not till release?
16:19:06 * kparal reads the whole report properly
16:19:21 <roshi> perhaps the bigger issue is we should have repos for TCs if this is going to be an issue going forward
16:20:00 <adamw> if desktop team concludes they care about netinst, we need to look at the criteria for that...
16:20:19 <roshi> true
16:20:43 <kparal> so, IIUIC, this doesn't work out of the box, but works if you feed it a custom repo link
16:21:11 <satellit> yes
16:21:11 <adamw> the general pre-.next requirement at alpha was that it should work without manual repo config
16:21:19 <adamw> so if we care about workstation netinst we should probably block on this
16:21:41 <kparal> +1 to that
16:21:50 * roshi has a hard time thinking netinst wouldn't be cared about
16:21:58 <kparal> why doesn't it simply use development/21/ repo?
16:22:40 <sgallagh> kparal: Because that provides it with ALL of the environments. We want it to be equivalent to the set of stuff you'd get from the live install
16:22:56 <satellit> there was a discussion that .ks in live was different than repo (minor)
16:23:08 <kparal> what's wrong on offering all the environment?
16:23:18 <adamw> so i'd say we should agree in principle to modify the criteria wording to require workstation netinst to work in the same way we previously required non-productized netinst to work, and block on that basis
16:23:19 <kparal> we could have just a single netinst this way
16:23:22 <sgallagh> kparal: Selecting the right one by default, I think
16:23:30 <adamw> kparal: it's just not what they want
16:23:34 <sgallagh> kparal: It's not that easy.
16:23:41 <kparal> it never is :)
16:23:48 <adamw> "2) What you get going through either path should be identical;
16:23:48 <adamw> installing from the network shouldn't put you into a
16:23:48 <adamw> choose-your-own-adventure path of selecting desktops and optional
16:23:48 <adamw> server components.
16:23:48 <adamw> "
16:23:57 <roshi> yeah, kparal it would involve changing spokes and whatnot and a global netinst wasn't something people wanted
16:24:03 <roshi> (not sure why though, tbh)
16:24:05 <adamw> but that's not really our problem, our problem is just deciding if this is a blocker
16:24:13 <kparal> adamw: ok, I understand that argument
16:24:25 <danofsatx> +1 blocker
16:24:28 <adamw> we're doing blocker review not product design :)
16:24:33 * danofsatx settles it
16:24:46 <roshi> psh, being all specific and on point about it adamw :p
16:24:46 <kparal> so we have to agree that the criterion should be changed
16:24:51 <kparal> as adamw said
16:25:04 <adamw> hm, does it?
16:25:14 <roshi> +1 with the blocker if we change the criteria to support it
16:25:21 <danofsatx> but can we change F21 criterion if we're already evaluating against it? F22 criterion is the new edit target, not F21
16:25:25 <adamw> now i remember, the current criterion actually covers that bug, and at first we thought that'd be a problem but now it doesn't seem to be
16:25:30 <kparal> the current criterion say: "When doing a graphical install using the dedicated installer images, the installer must be able to install each of the release blocking desktops, as well as the minimal package set."
16:25:43 <adamw> danofsatx: we've pretty commonly done it in the past, yeah.
16:25:57 <danofsatx> doesn't sound right, but ok
16:26:01 <adamw> we could *clarify* the criterion for .next, but it's good enough right now to use to make this a blocker, so let's do that and move on
16:26:10 <sgallagh> +1 blocker
16:26:10 <kparal> ok
16:26:34 <satellit> repo for wks has only server and libreoffice if change sources
16:26:35 <roshi> danofsatx: the thing we try for is doing the things that make sense and not just following a rule regardless of if it fits the purpose we had the criterion for initially
16:26:44 <roshi> especially with the .next stuff, AIUI
16:26:56 <danofsatx> understood.
16:27:01 <kparal> propose #agreed 1134524 - AcceptedBlocker - violates "When doing a graphical install using the dedicated installer images, the installer must be able to install each of the release blocking desktops, as well as the minimal package set."
16:27:07 <danofsatx> ack
16:27:10 <roshi> our targets move a bit more than is optimal sometimes :)
16:27:11 <sgallagh> Ack
16:27:17 <pschindl> ack
16:27:20 <roshi> ack
16:27:35 <danofsatx> at least it's a target rich environment. hard to miss ;)
16:27:38 <adamw> danofsatx: practically speaking, we suck too much at updating the criteria in time to commit to not changing them ;)
16:27:42 <roshi> haha
16:27:46 <kparal> #agreed 1134524 - AcceptedBlocker - violates "When doing a graphical install using the dedicated installer images, the installer must be able to install each of the release blocking desktops, as well as the minimal package set."
16:27:50 <adamw> danofsatx: we still haven't done the rewrites for .next for beta/final yet
16:28:05 <kparal> #topic (1102241) [RFE] libguestfs should detect OSTree (project-atomic) qcow2 disk image
16:28:05 <kparal> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1102241
16:28:05 <kparal> #info Proposed Blocker, libguestfs, NEW
16:28:23 <adamw> i'll add a note to revisit that criterion
16:28:47 <kparal> I have a feeling we already discussed this one last week?
16:29:39 <kparal> of course we did
16:29:50 <kparal> who was the secretary? let's blame somebody
16:30:15 <kparal> adamw it seems!
16:30:29 <kparal> anyway:
16:30:30 <kparal> 16:26:08 <roshi> #agreed - 1102241 - RejectedBlocker - This doesn't directly violate any specific criteria and a workaround is already in place as a default for generating the images
16:30:40 <jsmith> WORKSFORME
16:30:43 <kparal> so let's just skip this one and go on
16:30:46 <kparal> any objections?
16:31:08 <roshi> none from me
16:31:11 <kparal> roshi: please update the bug report and then fire adamw
16:31:11 <danofsatx> +1 skip
16:31:26 <sgallagh> Nothing to see here. Move along.
16:31:28 <kparal> #topic (1136519) Review Request: f21-kde-theme - Fedora Twenty One KDE Theme
16:31:28 <kparal> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136519
16:31:28 <kparal> #info Proposed Blocker, Package Review, MODIFIED
16:31:31 <sgallagh> .fire adamw
16:31:31 <zodbot> adamw fires adamw
16:31:32 <roshi> bah, I won't fire adamw - he can just owe us one :p
16:31:39 <kparal> :)
16:32:28 <sgallagh> -1 blocker, +1 FE
16:32:31 <kparal> so, does this change the default background or not?
16:32:36 <kparal> "I guess doesn't qualify as "default", but does affect kde spin theming."
16:32:39 <sgallagh> It changes the default background FOR KDE
16:32:43 <danofsatx> on KDE it does
16:32:57 <kparal> and without it, it would be the same as in F20?
16:33:03 <danofsatx> correct
16:33:03 <kparal> in that case it would be a blocker
16:33:09 <kparal> KDE is blocking
16:33:20 <satellit> same f21 clouds with login screens on left
16:33:23 <kparal> still in Fedora.Next world, at least I think
16:33:29 <danofsatx> although, there was talk in the channel this morning regarding sddm...let me see if I can find it
16:34:09 * roshi catches up on the reading the report
16:35:06 <sgallagh> Ah right. KDE is blocking.
16:35:09 <danofsatx> ok, this fixes KDM, which is no longer the default display manager for KDE. it is now sddm, and it is currently unclear whether sddm is updated.
16:35:31 <kparal> danofsatx: does it change also the desktop background?
16:35:38 <kparal> not just login manager screen?
16:35:46 <danofsatx> according to rdieter, yes
16:36:03 <kparal> "This is Fedora Twenty One KDE Theme Artwork containing KDM theme,
16:36:03 <kparal> KSplash theme and Plasma Workspaces theme."
16:36:09 <danofsatx> I unfortunately haven't verified any of them yet :(
16:36:13 <kparal> I guess "Plasma Workspaces" is nowadays what they call KDE
16:36:30 <danofsatx> satellit: any input?
16:37:09 <satellit> I saw the screenshot on #fedora-kde yesterday looked like clouds with left login bars
16:37:13 * kparal pinging rdieter on #fedora-devel
16:37:26 <jreznik_> sorry, I'm here
16:37:56 <kparal> jreznik_: now something about this bug? does it really change the default desktop background, or just the login manager screen?
16:37:57 <jreznik_> kparal: right Plasma Workspaces means KDE and it changes default background
16:38:03 <kparal> coolie
16:38:05 <kparal> coolio
16:38:23 <kparal> propose #agreed 1136519 - AcceptedBlocker - violates "The default desktop background must be different from that of the two previous stable releases."
16:38:24 <jreznik_> that's why I pushed on rdieter to have it asap and did review yesterday night
16:38:29 <adamw> ack
16:38:38 <kparal> jreznik_: thanks
16:38:44 <sgallagh> Ack
16:38:47 <jreznik_> ack
16:39:02 <roshi> ack
16:39:04 <sgallagh> (Out of curiosity, does this requirement mean that we could just come up with three backgrounds and cycle through them repeatedly?)
16:39:19 <roshi> it wouldn't violate the criteria as it's written
16:39:48 <kparal> #agreed 1136519 - AcceptedBlocker - violates "The default desktop background must be different from that of the two previous stable releases."
16:39:50 * rdieter waves, hi
16:39:57 <mkolman> red green and blue solid color backgrounds ? :)
16:39:57 <kparal> hey, we just accepted it :)
16:40:21 <sgallagh> mkolman: We used to have solid-red as a background when you logged in as root.
16:40:23 <rdieter> kparal: ok, need anything else from me?
16:40:24 * sgallagh waves his cane
16:40:36 <jreznik_> sgallagh: it's a pet project for design team, I actually told gnokii if we could just have one wp forever and he wasn't happy to hear it :)
16:40:37 <kparal> rdieter: no, thanks. jreznik_ already answered everything
16:41:05 <kparal> #topic (1135670) RuntimeError: maximum recursion depth exceeded
16:41:05 <kparal> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135670
16:41:05 <kparal> #info Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, POST
16:42:26 <kparal> so I guess this occurs when you click the storage spoke?
16:42:30 <kparal> or custom partitioning spoke
16:42:47 <kparal> samantha doesn't get a cookie for not providing a criterion
16:43:00 <adamw> i think we're looking at an existing mdraid array here
16:43:03 <adamw> looking at the patch
16:43:11 <kparal> mkolman: do you know?
16:43:23 <adamw> kparal: it's evaluating existing storage, i think, so it's not UI interaction dependent
16:43:23 <kparal> because custom part doesn't have to work in Alpha
16:43:25 <kparal> IIRC
16:43:30 <adamw> anaconda evaluates existing storage as soon as you start it
16:44:03 <jreznik> that would be really long list without recursion depth limits :)
16:44:14 <sgallagh> Right, I think this causes a crash no matter the path as long as the existing configuration triggers the bug
16:44:15 <kparal> alright, in that case let's find a good criterion
16:44:17 <adamw> so this becomes basically a conditional case
16:44:37 * kparal offers a second cookie
16:44:45 <sgallagh> Right, the question is whether Alpha is required to handle all existing cases or whether it assumes an unpartitioned drive
16:44:48 <adamw> if it affects all existing mdraids, i'd say that's enough possible cases to merit blocker status
16:44:55 <adamw> lemme check the criteria again
16:44:56 <adamw> we may be really tight at aplha
16:45:00 <mkolman> kparal: I think a fix is already WiP
16:45:18 <adamw> "The installer must be able to complete an installation to a single disk using automatic partitioning. "
16:45:22 <danofsatx> The installer must be able to complete an installation using any supported locally connected storage interface.
16:45:26 <adamw> "
16:45:26 <adamw> ...well, so long as the disk is big enough, of course. It must work whether the disk is formatted or not and whether or not it contains any existing data - but since this is an Alpha, it's OK if it can only install to a disk with existing data by overwriting it.
16:45:26 <adamw> "
16:45:27 <sgallagh> "The installer must be able to complete an installation using any supported locally connected storage interface."
16:45:34 <adamw> no, that's not the one
16:45:36 <adamw> ;)
16:45:54 <kparal> adamw: the second quote is from where?
16:46:00 <adamw> that's devices/interfaces, not filesystems/storage vlo,ues
16:46:08 <adamw> kparal: the 'Details!' paragraph
16:46:13 <kparal> riiiight
16:46:25 <kparal> always forget to look in there
16:46:26 <roshi> wait, we're supposed to read those? :p
16:46:29 * roshi ducks
16:46:41 <kparal> in that case +1 blocker
16:47:28 <kparal> other opinions?
16:47:36 <adamw> if it affects all existing mdraid, +1
16:47:42 <danofsatx> +1blk
16:47:43 <sgallagh> +1
16:47:47 <adamw> certainly +1 fe, and we have a fix already, so we don't need to worry too hard about it
16:48:30 <kparal> propose #agreed 1135670 - AcceptedBlocker - adamw says we shouldn't worry too hard about it
16:48:42 <kparal> er, that's not the right one
16:48:45 <kparal> propose #agreed 1135670 - AcceptedBlocker - violates "The installer must be able to complete an installation to a single disk using automatic partitioning."
16:48:46 <roshi> haha
16:48:49 <sgallagh> :)
16:49:26 <sgallagh> patch: #agreed 1135670 - AcceptedBlocker - violates "The installer must be able to complete an installation to a single disk using automatic partitioning... whether the disk is formatted or not and whether it contains any existing data"
16:49:45 <adamw> =)
16:49:45 <adamw> ack
16:49:49 <adamw> oh. hmm.
16:49:50 <adamw> wait.
16:49:51 <danofsatx> ack
16:49:56 <adamw> that says "single disk", doesn't it?
16:50:01 <roshi> it does
16:50:03 <adamw> single disk raid is pretty unusual.
16:50:07 <adamw> we all fail reading comprehension!
16:50:12 <adamw> in that case i change my vote to -1 blocker +1 FE
16:50:13 <danofsatx> nack
16:50:31 <kparal> oh damn, more complications
16:50:56 <sgallagh> adamw: I'm sticking with blocker
16:51:04 <sgallagh> Because we still can't install to a single disk
16:51:11 <sgallagh> Because reading the set of disks crashes
16:51:22 <kparal> that's actually a good point
16:51:23 <adamw> hrm, that is a bit ambiguous
16:51:34 <adamw> i think i was thinking of a single disk attached to the system when i wrote the criterion, but...
16:51:35 <sgallagh> Regardless of how many disks are in the RAID set, we can't break it apart and install on just one of them
16:51:55 <kparal> it might be a bit too much to ask for Alpha
16:51:58 <jreznik> but is it worth blocking Alpha? it's pretty corner case
16:52:11 <adamw> i wouldn't say corner case, but not necessarily serious enough to block alpha
16:52:27 <kparal> I guess I'm also more -1/+1 here
16:52:30 <danofsatx> is it really still a corner case with the hybrid drives all the rage these days?
16:52:36 <jreznik> adamw: I meant corner case in your meaning of not enought to block alpha
16:52:50 <jreznik> danofsatx: we're talking about Alpha now
16:52:51 * roshi hasn't voted yet, but it seems to be a configuration issue and a fix is wip
16:52:56 <roshi> -1/+1 fe
16:53:00 <jreznik> -1/+1 fe
16:53:24 <sgallagh> +1/+1 (I think it should go in, but I'm okay if we decided it's not a blocker)
16:54:12 <kparal> propose #agreed 1135670 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - doesn't strictly violate Alpha disk criteria (not a single disk setup), but we would include the fix if this is fixed in time
16:54:17 <adamw> ack
16:54:25 <sgallagh> Ack
16:54:49 <roshi> ack
16:55:00 <jreznik> ack
16:55:10 <pschindl> ack
16:55:13 <kparal> #agreed 1135670 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - doesn't strictly violate Alpha disk criteria (not a single disk setup), but we would include the fix if this is fixed in time
16:55:30 <kparal> and we have one extra contestant here
16:56:17 <kparal> #topic (1136953) Make eog the default image viewer
16:56:18 <kparal> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136953
16:57:26 <kparal> I'm not sure this release criterion was made with this purpose
16:57:52 <kparal> and I think this is too trivial to block Alpha
16:58:06 <kparal> but +1 FE of course
16:58:56 <sgallagh> Yeah, I'll admit it was a bit of a reach, but it didn't *exactly* match the FE criteria as written either
16:59:08 <kparal> but it's a good question, whether we should block later milestone with this type of requests
17:00:02 <jreznik> kparal: I'd say it should have the same weight as FESCo requests
17:00:20 <kparal> jreznik: meaning block Alpha?
17:00:53 <jreznik> kparal: if we block Alpha on FESCo requests, then yes (even it's trivial change)
17:01:04 <kparal> I mean it makes sense. they want to change it, we should wait. but it's not a "QA blocker". it's some other kind of blocker :)
17:01:05 <jreznik> as WGs are I'd say in par with FESCo
17:01:19 <jreznik> kparal: it's the same kind as FESCo blocker
17:01:20 <sgallagh> jreznik: FESCo has the privilege to declare any BZ a blocker, regardless of the criteria
17:01:33 <kparal> sgallagh: are you sure workstation group wants to block alpha with this?
17:01:43 <sgallagh> I'm not sure that WGs should have that exact power though, as blocker means it holds up all the Products
17:01:58 <sgallagh> kparal: I'm certain that they'd be fine with FE
17:01:58 <jreznik> sgallagh: good point
17:02:09 <sgallagh> Since they have a fix ready anyhow
17:02:13 <roshi> +1 sgallagh
17:02:20 <kparal> let's de-nominate to FE then?
17:02:26 <roshi> I'd say so
17:02:28 <sgallagh> Fine with me
17:02:40 <kparal> we might hit the same topic some time in the future, but let's do this now
17:02:46 <pschindl> I'm +1
17:02:49 <pschindl> fe
17:03:01 <pschindl> +1 fe. sry
17:03:10 <sgallagh> +1 FE
17:03:14 <jreznik> kparal: yeah, I think we will hit this in the future, so maybe let's do FE now but raise it on list what to do in the future
17:03:24 <roshi> good call
17:03:26 <kalev> +1 FE
17:03:53 <kparal> propose #agreed 1136953 - AcceptedFreezeException - if this is fixed in time, we will accept it in the release
17:04:28 <kparal> roshi: and please adjust the blocks: field
17:04:36 <roshi> yeah
17:05:01 <kparal> ack/nack/patch?
17:05:10 <kalev> ack
17:06:00 <pschindl> ack
17:06:06 <roshi> ack
17:06:09 <sgallagh> Ack
17:06:15 <kparal> #agreed 1136953 - AcceptedFreezeException - if this is fixed in time, we will accept it in the release
17:06:20 * sgallagh goes semi-responsive for FESCo meeting
17:06:27 <sgallagh> ping me directly if my input is needed
17:06:29 <kparal> sgallagh: thanks for attending
17:06:42 <kparal> ============================================================
17:06:43 <kparal> Proposed Freeze Exceptions
17:06:43 <kparal> ============================================================
17:06:52 <kparal> #topic (1136813) Release Notes in f21 alpha TC5 workstation does not start when clicked in Sundry
17:06:52 <kparal> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136813
17:06:52 <kparal> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, fedora-release-notes, MODIFIED
17:07:39 <kparal> ah, it has been dropped
17:07:52 <kparal> an hour ago
17:07:54 <kparal> let's go on
17:07:55 <kalev> I dropped this and filed two new ones instead :)
17:08:21 <kparal> you make my life so difficult
17:08:22 <kalev> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136959 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135890 are the FE requests
17:08:23 <kparal> ok
17:08:26 <kalev> I am very sorry!
17:08:30 <kparal> #topic (1136959) gnome-screenshot launcher doesn't work
17:08:30 <kparal> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136959
17:08:30 <kparal> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-screenshot, NEW
17:09:09 <kparal> +1 FE
17:10:19 <roshi> +1 FE is fine with me
17:10:26 <kparal> it's likely to have minimal impact and it fixes a crasher
17:10:34 <jreznik> +1 FE
17:10:36 <danofsatx> +1FE
17:10:42 <kalev> +1 FE
17:11:00 <kparal> propose #agreed 1136959 - AcceptedFreezeException - if this is fixed in time, we will accept it in the release
17:11:09 <drago01> may I throw one more bug in?
17:11:16 <kparal> drago01: sure
17:11:23 <danofsatx> ack
17:11:28 <drago01> kparal: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133142
17:11:29 <kalev> ack
17:11:32 <pschindl> ack
17:11:49 <kparal> #agreed 1136959 - AcceptedFreezeException - if this is fixed in time, we will accept it in the release
17:12:00 <roshi> ack
17:12:03 <kparal> #topic (1135890) can't set password
17:12:03 <kparal> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135890
17:12:03 <kparal> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-initial-setup, NEW
17:12:29 <danofsatx> +1
17:12:45 <kparal> drago01: do you propose that one as FreezeException or an AlphaBlocker?
17:13:01 <satellit> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135141  ?
17:13:03 <drago01> kparal: freeze exception (I do have a fix already anyway)
17:13:17 <satellit> password is too short?
17:13:45 * satellit no pop up
17:14:08 <kparal> +1 FE
17:14:31 <kalev> +1 FE (I love voting on my own requests)
17:14:39 <kparal> satellit: I guess your bug is a duplicate of the one being discussed?
17:14:49 <satellit> looks like it
17:14:58 <kalev> I'll mark them as duplicate
17:15:09 <danofsatx> satellit, yours looks awfully similar. the problem appears to be grey text on grey background - it's there, but you can't see it.
17:15:31 <kparal> propose #agreed 1135890 - AcceptedFreezeException - if this is fixed in time, we will accept it in the release
17:15:44 <satellit> was told that checker in G-I-S was tricky
17:16:40 * kparal pokes roshi pschindl
17:17:02 <kparal> ack/nack/patch?
17:17:31 <danofsatx> ack
17:17:35 <satellit> danofsatx: mine button did not work if password too short or simple
17:18:01 <pschindl> ack
17:18:11 <kalev> ack
17:18:33 <roshi> ack
17:18:39 * roshi was reading
17:18:54 <kparal> #agreed 1135890 - AcceptedFreezeException - if this is fixed in time, we will accept it in the release
17:18:56 <roshi> g-i-s password standards are high (which is a good thing)
17:19:16 <kparal> now let's do the one drago01 proposed right now
17:19:19 <kparal> #topic (1133142) Wrong shadows on CSD windows when SNA is enabled
17:19:19 <kparal> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133142
17:19:20 <kparal> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, xorg-x11-drv-intel, MODIFIED
17:19:38 <adamw> roshi: actually the password check is meant to be advisory, not enforced
17:19:42 <adamw> that's getting changed upstream
17:20:12 <roshi> it's annoying during testing, but I like the "We won't let you use 'password' as your password"
17:20:25 <danofsatx> -1 FE. corner case.
17:20:37 <drago01> roshi: (there are studies that suggest that enforced high password standards just force people to write passwords down somewhere so its not always a "good thing")
17:20:48 <kalev> +1 FE, makes Alpha looks much more polished
17:20:49 <kparal> drago01: do you have any reasoning for this bug? updating intel driver is quite risky
17:20:56 <satellit> not shown now if too short a password...
17:21:01 <kparal> is SNA the default method?
17:21:24 <drago01> kparal: looks bad; sna is enabled by default; intel has high user base; fix isn't that invasive
17:21:26 <sgallagh> drago01: True, but if you train people to lock those passwords in a desk, it's significantly mitigated
17:21:48 <kparal> drago01: are we very very sure that it shouldn't break anything else?
17:21:50 <adamw> +1 FE if SNA is defualt
17:21:51 <roshi> true drago01 - I suggest using a battery staple on such people :P
17:22:08 <danofsatx> criteria?
17:22:17 <kparal> danofsatx: no criteria for FEs
17:22:17 <adamw> we don't have criteria for FEs, really.
17:22:21 <adamw> just 'guidelines'.
17:22:22 <danofsatx> oh.
17:22:25 <drago01> kparal: pretty sure yes
17:22:31 <kparal> ok
17:22:34 <kparal> +1 FE then
17:22:49 <kparal> propose #agreed 1133142 - AcceptedFreezeException - if this is fixed in time, we will accept it in the release
17:23:01 <kalev> ack
17:23:28 <pschindl> ack
17:24:04 <roshi> ack
17:24:09 <kparal> .moar acks kparal
17:24:10 <zodbot> here kparal, have some more acks
17:24:15 <kparal> zodbot: thanks
17:24:21 <kparal> #agreed 1133142 - AcceptedFreezeException - if this is fixed in time, we will accept it in the release
17:24:40 <kparal> #topic (1122081) BTRFVolumeDevice  does not fill mountpoint property
17:24:40 <kparal> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122081
17:24:40 <kparal> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, python-blivet, POST
17:26:40 <kparal> +1 FE
17:26:49 <adamw> this early i'm ok with it, +1 FE
17:26:53 <adamw> later on i'd probably -1
17:27:03 <roshi> +1 adamw
17:27:05 <roshi> +1
17:27:05 <kalev> +1 FE
17:27:17 <pschindl> +1
17:27:29 <kparal> propose #agreed 1122081 - AcceptedFreezeException - if this is fixed in time, we will accept it in the release
17:27:37 <roshi> ack
17:27:41 <kalev> ack
17:27:59 <kparal> #agreed 1122081 - AcceptedFreezeException - if this is fixed in time, we will accept it in the release
17:28:20 <kparal> and now your most favorite part
17:28:22 <kparal> ============================================================
17:28:22 <kparal> Accepted Blockers
17:28:22 <kparal> ============================================================
17:28:31 <kparal> #topic (1134507) Installing Fedora Server F21 Alpha TC4 from network tree crashes
17:28:32 <kparal> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134507
17:28:32 <kparal> #info Accepted Blocker, anaconda, MODIFIED
17:29:34 <kparal> this might be already fixed, needs to be tested, maybe even with TC5
17:30:59 <kparal> yeah, the anaconda version is already stable
17:31:06 <kparal> not sure if it is in TC5
17:31:11 <kparal> #info this might be already fixed, needs to be tested, maybe even with TC5
17:31:41 <kparal> roshi: please add needinfo to sgallagh and ask to re-test
17:31:48 <kparal> maybe switch to ON_QA?
17:31:51 <sgallagh> Hmm?
17:32:03 <sgallagh> TC5 doesn't work at all for Server
17:32:06 <sgallagh> See the earlier blocker :)
17:32:11 <roshi> will do
17:32:20 <kparal> ah
17:32:28 <kparal> so we will need to wait
17:32:34 <sgallagh> I'll be working on fixing that this afternoon.
17:32:42 <sgallagh> Hopefully we'll be able to roll a working TC6 tomorrow
17:32:56 <kparal> #undo
17:32:56 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by kparal at 17:31:11 : this might be already fixed, needs to be tested, maybe even with TC5
17:33:04 <kparal> #info this might be already fixed, needs to be tested with TC6
17:33:18 <kparal> sgallagh: thanks for info
17:33:32 <kparal> let's move on
17:33:36 <kparal> #topic (1088933) update grubby to support device tree options for arm
17:33:36 <kparal> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1088933
17:33:37 <kparal> #info Accepted Blocker, grubby, POST
17:34:14 <adamw> hey, progress!
17:34:24 <kparal> if you say so
17:34:31 <roshi> so don't ask for the needinfo on the previous bug kparal ?
17:34:41 <kparal> roshi: no :)
17:34:54 <roshi> whew, I almost pressed the button too
17:34:58 <pwhalen_> i dont think the status has changed, but we'll discuss it at our meeting today
17:34:59 <roshi> that was a close call :P
17:35:01 <sgallagh> roshi: Go ahead and set needinfo
17:35:06 <sgallagh> It'll keep me honest :)
17:35:10 <kparal> hehe
17:35:21 <kparal> pwhalen_: can you please update the bug report afterwards?
17:35:22 <roshi> done
17:35:28 <roshi> now you must be honest :)
17:35:56 <pwhalen> kparal, ok
17:36:00 <kparal> thank you
17:36:26 <kparal> #info pwhalen will discuss this today at arm meeting and will update the bug report
17:36:54 <kparal> let's go on...
17:36:58 <kparal> #topic (1127450) Black screen after userless installation of KDE live
17:36:59 <kparal> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127450
17:36:59 <kparal> #info Accepted Blocker, initial-setup, ON_QA
17:37:20 <satellit> I tested this and it looked fixed
17:37:44 <kparal> satellit: great
17:38:01 <satellit_e> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127450#c25
17:38:16 <kparal> #info satellit tested this and it seems to be fixed, let's set to VERIFIED and close it once it is pushed
17:38:35 <roshi> who will do that once it's pushed?
17:38:46 <kparal> someone
17:38:48 <kparal> :)
17:39:00 <roshi> I dunno - that guy has plenty on his plate :p
17:39:01 <kparal> bodhi, ideally
17:39:32 * kparal is skipping a few more accepted blockers already in verified state
17:39:43 <kparal> and that's all!
17:39:51 <kparal> is there any purpose to go over accepted FEs?
17:40:06 <roshi> not at this point I don't think
17:40:22 <roshi> but then again, Go/No-Go is tomorrow
17:40:49 <adamw> if it was fixed back on 08-20 probably nothing needs 'pushing'
17:40:55 <adamw> i'll double check and close it
17:41:04 <kalev> I have one more thing to discuss, if you guys have a few more minutes
17:41:11 <kparal> #topic Open Discussion <your bugs here>
17:41:16 <kparal> kalev: bring it on
17:41:30 <kalev> the topic is GNOME 3.13.91
17:41:50 <kalev> I've got builds underway and it's fixing 3 proposed FE-s, at least
17:42:07 <kalev> I'm planning to submit it to Bodhi / testing later today or early tomorrow
17:42:24 <kalev> and depending on the feedback there, considering asking for a freeze exception for the whole of 3.13.91 update
17:42:31 <kalev> would that make sense?
17:42:48 <adamw> does it introduce any significant behaviour changes?
17:42:50 <kalev> it would be nice to get extensive alpha testing for the new release
17:42:52 <adamw> api/abi changes, etc etc
17:43:08 <kalev> GNOME is in feature and UI and API / ABI freeze since .90
17:43:12 <kalev> so it should be mostly bug fixes
17:43:25 <adamw> i see the 's' word
17:43:52 <kparal> I'd rather have it in Alpha than not. but if there were no blockers and this update arrived, I'd rather not take it in
17:44:19 <kparal> so if we look like having at least a week to Alpha release, why not
17:44:37 <kalev> yes, I guess it depends on the schedule, I wouldn't want to pull this in very late either
17:44:42 <adamw> if we can get it in the next day or two, while we're still whacking showstoppers in netinst, it's probably ok
17:44:45 <kparal> (at that point when it is proposed as FE)
17:44:45 <kalev> need at least a few days to fix up issues that come up
17:44:46 <adamw> i wouldn't want to go beyond that
17:44:55 <adamw> in theory we're supposed to be releasing this week, btw,  but...yeah, that's not happening.
17:44:57 <drago01> adamw: the 's' word is mostly used as self protection "you me there are NO BUGS" .. "I said should ..." "ok" ;)
17:45:06 <kalev> but we do have quite a few people working on GNOME so we should be able to fix any new issues in a timely manner
17:45:44 <jreznik_> yeah, I'd agree with adamw - if we can get this week, it still ok I'd say
17:46:55 <kparal> #info GNOME 3.13.91 is about to land in updates-testing soon, FreezeException might be discussed if there's still reasonably long time before Alpha release
17:47:05 <kalev> OK cool, I'll try to get this in testing quickly and will file a freeze exception request once things are in place
17:47:32 <kparal> and we might need to vote on it in the bug report itself, since the next meeting is in a week
17:47:39 <jreznik_> thanks kalev
17:47:43 <roshi> true kparal
17:48:13 <sgallagh> o_O
17:48:26 <sgallagh> A Freeze Exception for a complete GNOME Megaupdate?
17:48:42 <jreznik> sgallagh: we did it several times
17:48:47 <kparal> nothing can go wrong, right?
17:48:50 <sgallagh> ...
17:49:25 <roshi> things have been so smooth so far :)
17:49:33 <kparal> we don't have a lot of criteria covering Alpha desktop, so we're pretty flexible in how well it works
17:49:43 <kparal> and it's better to spot the problems earlier than later
17:49:44 * jreznik tried gnome a few days ago but 10 minutes was enough to force him to make his default desktop working again :)
17:50:18 * satellit_e this is wks TC5 install seems ok
17:50:34 <kparal> ok, anything else anyone?
17:50:41 * roshi has nothing
17:50:50 <roshi> secretarializing is done as well
17:52:08 <kparal> roshi: thanks a lot
17:52:23 <kparal> it's actually easier to lead the meeting than to update the bugzilla :)
17:52:32 <roshi> np - trying to get my bz email quota up :)
17:52:42 <roshi> I know - why do you think I run the meetings now :p
17:53:00 <kparal> maybe they should introduce badges for that - e.g. CCed to 10 000 bug reports!
17:53:08 <roshi> haha
17:53:10 <roshi> for sure
17:53:18 <tflink> bug stalker I,II,III ...
17:53:29 <roshi> +1 tflink
17:54:11 <kparal> thanks everyone for coming. these meetings get longer and longer as we get closer to the release... :)
17:54:27 <kparal> #endmeeting