15:58:52 <roshi> #startmeeting F21-blocker-review
15:58:52 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Oct  1 15:58:52 2014 UTC.  The chair is roshi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:58:52 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:58:52 <roshi> #meetingname F21-blocker-review
15:58:52 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f21-blocker-review'
15:58:53 <roshi> #topic Roll Call
15:59:11 <roshi> who's around for some review funtimes?
16:01:45 <roshi> adamw: tflink danofsatx-work satellit_e pwhalen ?
16:01:50 <roshi> anybody?
16:01:53 <adamw> ahoyhoy
16:02:05 * adamw dons waders, prepares for 'fun'
16:02:06 * nirik is lurking, ping if I am needed.
16:02:16 * pwhalen is here
16:02:31 * tflink can be here but is trying to fix some stuff ATM
16:03:22 <roshi> well, that's enough to go forward - hopefully more show up though :)
16:03:43 <roshi> .moar boilerplate
16:03:43 <zodbot> roshi: (moar <an alias, 2 arguments>) -- Alias for "echo here $2, have some more $1".
16:03:49 <roshi> .moar boilerplate meeting
16:03:49 <zodbot> here meeting, have some more boilerplate
16:03:54 <roshi> #topic Introduction
16:03:54 <roshi> Why are we here?
16:03:54 <roshi> #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.
16:03:58 <roshi> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:04:01 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:04:03 <roshi> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:04:06 <roshi> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:04:08 <roshi> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:04:11 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Alpha_Release_Criteria
16:04:14 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:04:17 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Final_Release_Criteria
16:04:20 <roshi> alright, we've got 19 blockers for today
16:04:26 <roshi> #chair adamw pwhalen tflink
16:04:26 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw pwhalen roshi tflink
16:04:45 <roshi> volunteer to secretialize?
16:05:03 <adamw> sure
16:05:11 <roshi> and someone to take over the meeting in 2.5 hours - I have an appt I'll have to leave for
16:05:25 <adamw> i guess we could just wind up at that point?
16:05:29 <adamw> well, let's see where we are
16:05:38 <roshi> works for me
16:05:45 <roshi> alright, first blocker
16:05:45 <roshi> #topic (1074358) all initramfs in existing /boot are updated and broken on install
16:05:49 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074358
16:05:51 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:06:41 <roshi> +1 blocker in theory, knowing there's no criteria *yet*
16:07:35 <adamw> so reading through this again, i'm curious whether the old kernels boot with the new distribution
16:07:47 <adamw> i'm not sure if we really support sharing /boot with another release of fedora in this way
16:08:03 <adamw> i think i'd like to get an anaconda dev's opinion before +1ing this
16:08:34 <roshi> should there be a warning or something before it breaks existing installs though?
16:09:28 * danofsatx-work is here, but konversation is borked
16:09:41 <roshi> .moar irssi danofsatx-work
16:09:41 <zodbot> here danofsatx-work, have some more irssi
16:10:16 <roshi> can we get an anaconda dev in here to pontificate on it?
16:10:46 <danofsatx> lets try kvirc
16:11:28 <roshi> danofsatx: we're looking at .bug 1074358
16:13:11 <adamw> roshi: well, it only breaks existing install if you share /boot with one
16:13:16 <adamw> and i'm not really sure we intend to allow that
16:13:23 <adamw> <dlehman> my opinion? we shouldn't allow use of preexisting /boot filesystem
16:13:30 <adamw> (though i suspect that might make people kick)
16:13:59 <roshi> I can see arguments either way
16:14:10 <roshi> I'm curious why it's worked in the past
16:14:32 <roshi> but that's more academic and less important
16:14:36 <adamw> well, i think it's to do with whether we change things in grub or not
16:14:50 <adamw> there's some kind of change with the s/linux/linux16/ stuff going on there, i don't understand what that is exactly
16:15:10 <roshi> I guess I'm more +/- 1 at this point
16:15:15 <roshi> feels like an edge case
16:15:41 * roshi only ever reuses /home
16:16:38 <adamw> <dlehman> adamw: https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/anaconda.git/tree/pyanaconda/packaging/__init__.py?h=f21-branch#n345
16:16:38 <adamw> <adamw> dlehman: so, it's going to Do Stuff for all kernels it finds in /boot, basically?
16:16:38 <adamw> <dlehman> yes
16:16:38 <adamw> * dlehman originally tried to write it to use the contents of rpms we installed, but live
16:18:20 <adamw> so i'm gonna say a weak -1 to this based on my understanding of the criteria we're currently reviewing
16:18:36 <roshi> with the new info, I agree with the weak -1
16:18:40 <danofsatx> under current criteria, -1.
16:18:47 * danofsatx reviews test@
16:18:50 <adamw> "The installer must be able to install into free space alongside an
16:18:50 <adamw> > existing GNU/Linux installation, install and configure a bootloader that
16:18:50 <adamw> > will boot both systems, within the limitations of the upstream
16:18:50 <adamw> > bootloader." i don't think this would violate that
16:19:06 <adamw> as this isn't the 'typical' dual boot scenario
16:19:21 <roshi> yeah, because this borks other things
16:19:22 <adamw> when we say 'install into free space', it sort of implies no shared /boot
16:19:27 <roshi> yeah
16:19:29 <pwhalen> right, close.. -1 based on that
16:21:15 <roshi> proposed #agreed - RejectedBlocker - 1074358 - This bug doesn't directly violate any criteria and nothing indicates having a shared /boot is desired functionality.
16:21:36 <adamw> ack
16:21:52 <pwhalen> ack
16:22:01 <danofsatx> ack
16:22:03 <roshi> #agreed - RejectedBlocker - 1074358 - This bug doesn't directly violate any criteria and nothing indicates having a shared /boot is desired functionality.
16:22:20 * roshi writing it counts as an implied 'ack,' IMO
16:22:32 <roshi> #topic (1114786) DeviceError: ('cannot replace active format', 'sda6')
16:22:35 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114786
16:22:38 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:25:00 * roshi is reading
16:26:51 <adamw> it's a bit of a mess between livesys, systemd and anaconda in swap partition handling
16:27:05 <roshi> so it seems
16:27:54 <adamw> it's live-specific
16:28:22 * adamw checks he can reproduce
16:28:24 <roshi> I think chris is right though, it shouldn't result in a crash
16:30:48 <adamw> yeah, i i think we can reasonably read c#12 criterion as covering this
16:30:51 <adamw> just want to be sure it's reproducible
16:31:28 <roshi> I can remove all partitions and go forward with no issues
16:31:38 * jreznik is here, mtg conflict again
16:32:13 <adamw> yeah, me too
16:32:18 <pwhalen> +1 blocker if reproducible; ack
16:32:26 <adamw> theory: only happens if the swap is a 'simple' partition
16:32:29 <adamw> doesn't happen if it's part of an lv
16:32:33 * pwhalen quickly grabs lunch
16:33:21 <roshi> ah, yeah
16:33:35 <adamw> `blkid -t TYPE=swap -o device` - the command livesys runs - returns nothing on my test system
16:33:36 * roshi runs a quick install not using lvm
16:34:18 <roshi> my test system returns /dev/vda2
16:35:52 <adamw> roshi: the one you had a successful run on?
16:36:32 <roshi> successful in the sense that anaconda didn't crash when I reused swap and began the installation
16:36:50 * roshi thought the crash presented inside the storage spoke
16:37:21 <adamw> oh, and cmurf was testing on GPT too
16:37:23 <danofsatx> that's the way I read it, too
16:37:41 <adamw> if you need both GPT and a non-LV swap partition to hit this, i'm not sure it's quite worth a blocker
16:37:50 * adamw runs some more tests
16:38:12 <roshi> yeah, if that's the case, I think -1
16:38:52 <danofsatx> why? one of the benfits of GPT was more than 4 partitions, which a lot of users used LVM to get around in the first place on MBR drives.
16:38:56 * roshi installs with simple partitions
16:40:07 <adamw> danofsatx: we're not deciding whether it's a bug, remember. but whether it'sa blocker.
16:40:14 <adamw> the default layout for UEFI installs is still LVM.
16:40:35 <danofsatx> understood, I'm simply pointing out that it may be more common than you think
16:40:38 <adamw> so you'd have to both do a UEFI/GPT install and explicitly pick a layout with a 'normal' swap device, then be trying to do this in custom part on a second install, to hit the bug.
16:41:05 <adamw> and, er, you don't need LVM to avoid the partition limit.
16:41:14 <adamw> you just need extended partitions, which have been a thing since, like, 1990 somehing?
16:42:17 <adamw> anyhow, sidebar
16:42:37 * adamw has an MBR install with a 'regular' swap partition running
16:42:44 <adamw> we do have a simple workaround for the bug, too: boot with noswap
16:43:21 <danofsatx> which someone susceptible to this bug would know how to do. file it as a common bug with workaround, and move on.
16:43:53 <adamw> just want to check if i can hit it with a non-GPT install
16:43:57 <roshi> I installed with standard partitions in a VM
16:44:15 <roshi> then clicked through storage messing with the existing swap and LVM and could get no crash
16:44:28 * roshi could be doing it wrong, but it wfm
16:44:34 <adamw> good enough for me
16:44:46 * pwhalen reads scrollback
16:44:47 <adamw> we can always revisit if cmurf can demonstrate wider impact
16:45:18 <adamw> i might consider final blocker if it's not fixed by then, this might be the kind of thing where a workaround is OK for beta but not final
16:45:31 <roshi> true
16:45:33 <roshi> -1
16:45:55 <danofsatx> -1
16:46:08 <pwhalen> sounds pretty limited, also needs to be a live install+UEFI/GPT+
16:46:30 <pwhalen> change to -1
16:46:39 <jreznik> -1 Beta
16:47:16 <roshi> proposed #agreed - RejectedBlocker - 1114786 - Couldn't reproduce this bug. Utilizing noswap is an easy workaround for this if it's run into. Document on Common Bugs. Please repropose for final if it can be shown to have a wider impact.
16:47:22 <adamw> ack
16:47:22 <pwhalen> ack
16:47:32 <jreznik> ack
16:47:33 <roshi> #agreed - RejectedBlocker - 1114786 - Couldn't reproduce this bug. Utilizing noswap is an easy workaround for this if it's run into. Document on Common Bugs. Please repropose for final if it can be shown to have a wider impact.
16:47:48 <roshi> sheesh, we're flying!
16:47:55 <roshi> 2 bugs in 49 minutes!
16:47:56 <roshi> #topic (1098735) apper: hawkey backend missing features
16:47:56 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098735
16:47:56 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, apper, NEW
16:48:59 <danofsatx> +1
16:52:42 <roshi> which criteria was this filed against?
16:53:14 <roshi> post-install updates, right?
16:53:21 <danofsatx> The installed system must be able to download and install updates with the default graphical package manager in all release-blocking desktops.
16:53:23 <roshi> that's what I'm getting out of it anyways
16:53:33 <danofsatx> apper don't work.
16:53:49 * roshi grumbles at that not being put in the blocker proposal
16:54:02 <roshi> +1
16:54:14 <roshi> I don't use kde, so I had to look up what apper was
16:54:16 <roshi> :p
16:54:27 <adamw> "Installing updates via apper known to crash packagekitd occasionally" is a bit different from 'doesn't work'
16:54:27 * danofsatx didn't write it
16:55:19 <roshi> does apper not work persistently danofsatx?
16:55:36 <roshi> that's what I took this bug as saying, reading all the comments
16:55:39 <danofsatx> hang on a sec....
16:56:33 <adamw> it seems like it can't do groups.
16:56:35 <adamw> which isn't a criterion.
16:56:58 <adamw> the only explicit criterion we have is that updates have to work. technically speaking we don't actually require graphical package *install* to work.
16:56:59 <roshi> perhaps discuss if that should be a criterion at next QA meeting?
16:57:16 <adamw> for Final we have "All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical mechanism of a release-blocking desktop after a default installation of that desktop must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test. "
16:57:24 <adamw> which a package installer that can't install packages might be argued to fail
16:57:30 <danofsatx> unfortunately, I haven't been testing it. I've only been monitoring the conversations in #f-kde
16:57:42 <adamw> i know halfway through this bug i said it was a blocker, but i think i had a different understanding of the bug at that time
16:58:16 <adamw> i think i'd be -1 to this specific bug as it's a messy popcorn fest, if there are specific bugs in upgrade, we can consider a bug focused on that particular issue as a blocker, but if it's 'it basically works but you get a crash notification sometimes' i'm not sure that blocks
16:58:27 <jreznik> it's definitely something we want to fix for final, but it's not beta thing -1
16:58:56 <roshi> I lean -1 as the criteria is written, but would be up for a discussion about it at a later time (adding a criteria)
16:59:16 <roshi> would be +1 at final for sure though
16:59:18 * danofsatx didn't see jreznik in the corner
16:59:32 <adamw> i can re-propose for final as part of secretarialization
16:59:41 <roshi> despite the fact I only use the GUI package manager in testing, not irl
16:59:42 <danofsatx> please do
16:59:46 <pwhalen> -1, should be fixed in final
17:00:32 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1098735 - RejectedBlocker - This doesn't clearly violate any *beta* criteria, but would be considered a blocker for final.
17:00:55 <adamw> s/would/may/
17:01:01 <adamw> let's not commit to anything :P
17:01:11 * roshi was wondering that
17:01:21 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1098735 - RejectedBlocker - This doesn't clearly violate any *beta* criteria, but may be considered a blocker for final.
17:02:25 * danofsatx reluctantly acks
17:03:02 * danofsatx also realizes kvirc doesn't do spell checking
17:03:24 <roshi> ack/nack/patch?
17:03:58 <roshi> danofsatx: do you see this as something that blocks on beta, or do you just think it should be fixed?
17:03:59 <adamw> acl
17:04:00 <adamw> ack
17:04:02 <pwhalen> ack
17:04:10 <danofsatx> final blocker
17:04:22 <roshi> #agreed - 1098735 - RejectedBlocker - This doesn't clearly violate any *beta* criteria, but may be considered a blocker for final.
17:04:31 <roshi> I'll be voting +1 at final time
17:04:41 <roshi> I hope it gets fixed beforehand though
17:04:45 <roshi> #topic (1147998) Cloud image does not permit successful reboot
17:04:45 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147998
17:04:45 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, cloud-utils, NEW
17:05:03 <roshi> I've already documented this on common-bugs
17:05:27 <roshi> basically, if you use an mbr in your image, growroot overwrites it
17:05:48 <roshi> then you attempt to boot (from previous shutdown or reboot) and it just hangs
17:05:59 <roshi> +1 blocker
17:06:09 <roshi> fixes are being worked on now, aiui
17:06:33 <roshi> adamw: this is that issue ab was running into in #freeipa
17:08:16 <adamw> ah
17:08:19 <adamw> you can only boot it once
17:08:22 <adamw> yeah, sounds like +1 :)
17:10:16 <jreznik> +1, cloud guys really wants this fixed
17:10:22 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1147998 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the "Shutdown, Reboot, Logout" Beta criteria.
17:10:31 <danofsatx> +1
17:10:33 <danofsatx> ack
17:10:34 <jreznik> ack
17:10:41 <adamw> ack
17:10:46 <roshi> the criteria just says "desktop" but i mailed test@ looking to change the wording to "system"
17:10:51 <jreznik> btw. criteria are written as release blocking desktops...
17:11:00 <roshi> #agreed - 1147998 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug violates the "Shutdown, Reboot, Logout" Beta criteria.
17:11:57 <roshi> or "release blocking products" would fit better
17:12:08 <roshi> anyways, another discussion for another time
17:12:22 <roshi> #topic (1142512) 21 Alpha KDE lives and ARM disk image over size limit
17:12:25 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142512
17:12:27 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, distribution, NEW
17:13:53 <pwhalen> for arm, I dont think there is a reason to have a size limit. if we do, most users would be using 8GB media to write images.
17:14:16 <Kevin_Kofler> The KDE image should already be below the size limit now, isn't it?
17:14:36 <adamw> Kevin_Kofler: i didn't check tc1 yet, lemme see
17:14:42 <roshi> pwhalen +1
17:14:50 <roshi> makes no sense for arm
17:15:53 <adamw> beta TC1 x86-32 live is still over
17:15:54 <adamw> 1054867456
17:16:11 <adamw> i think we all agree it makes no sense for arm images now, i just need to check if any test cases / policies need to be amended there
17:16:24 <adamw> beta tC1 x86-64 live is good
17:16:34 <adamw> if you amend target size to 1400000000 everything is fine of course
17:16:58 <Kevin_Kofler> I'll have a look at the situation, we may want to increase the target size anyway.
17:17:20 <Kevin_Kofler> We'll have this sorted out by next Tuesday (next SIG meeting) at the latest.
17:17:42 <roshi> so punt or -1?
17:18:43 <danofsatx> -1
17:18:52 <adamw> ? as it stands, it's clearly +1.
17:19:02 <adamw> (if amended to remove 'ARM' and just refer to the 32-bit live.)
17:19:07 <pwhalen> id say punt
17:19:14 <adamw> there are easy things to do to fix it (take stuff out or adjust the target size)
17:19:27 <adamw> but we have a target size, and we have a beta tc1 image, and the image is bigger than the target size.
17:19:38 <adamw> i don't see how you can logically say anything but +1, the criterion is very clear.
17:19:54 <danofsatx> since when are we logical?
17:19:58 * danofsatx didn't get that memo
17:20:07 <roshi> I was assuming the target size was going to change
17:20:14 <roshi> but yeah, you're right
17:20:27 <roshi> refactor: punt or +1?
17:20:35 <jreznik> punt
17:20:37 <pwhalen> punt
17:20:45 <danofsatx> punt then, if you must
17:20:53 * adamw really doesn't understand why
17:20:56 <adamw> but sure, whatever.
17:21:09 * adamw updated bug for TC1
17:21:10 <roshi> either way we'll be looking at it next week
17:21:26 <pwhalen> almost has the same effect does it? we'll be .. right, as roshi said
17:21:34 <pwhalen> s/does/doesnt/
17:21:43 <roshi> it's a clear +1, but I was waiting to say +1 since the target size for beta was up in the air (even though there's already one written down)
17:23:37 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1142512 - Punt - The desired size limit is currently up for discussion. If the limit isn't upped this is a clear blocker, if it is we increased we can revisit next week.
17:23:42 <adamw> sure, the practical difference isn't much
17:23:49 <adamw> +1, whatever (pouts)
17:24:07 <pwhalen> heh
17:24:39 <pwhalen> ack
17:24:45 <danofsatx> ack
17:25:10 <roshi> it really doesn't matter to me - it violates the letter but I'm not sure it's going to stay that way for long
17:25:33 <roshi> #agreed - 1142512 - Punt - The desired size limit is currently up for discussion. If the limit isn't upped this is a clear blocker, if it is we increased we can revisit next week.
17:25:49 <roshi> #topic (1038413) fedup stage2 keymap will always be US again for F20-F21 due to anaconda not writing vconsole.keymap kernel parameter any more (#1035316)
17:25:52 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1038413
17:25:55 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, fedup, NEW
17:26:07 <danofsatx> ok, I'm out. Have a test in "Hardware and Systems Software", a class I really, really, *reaaaallly* don't need.
17:26:13 <Kevin_Kofler> I'd like to add something about the PK/Hawkey/Apper issue (#1098735): It's right that the bug report is a bit of a mess, but the issue that really matters for us is that installing packages does not work (properly, at least) because Hawkey does not support comps. I've been looking into adding comps support to libhif and PackageKit-hif, but my time is limited, and my unfamiliarity with libhif code and with
17:26:15 <Kevin_Kofler> GObject code in general does not help either. The crashes when updating, I have no idea whether they're even still reproducible.
17:26:40 <danofsatx> +
17:26:47 <roshi> good luck danofsatx :)
17:26:54 <adamw> Kevin_Kofler: so the thing is, we don't actually block beta on graphical package install working (which is maybe odd, but hey)
17:27:13 <adamw> Kevin_Kofler: because the bug covers something that possibly is a blocker under the criteria (but which it doesn't clearly infringe) and something that isn't but possibly shoudl be, the discussion gets confused
17:27:26 <adamw> Kevin_Kofler: it'd be a lot clearer if there were separate bugs for whatever's wrong with updating vs. whatever's wrong with installing
17:27:46 <adamw> danofsatx: gl!
17:27:52 <Kevin_Kofler> danofsatx: Good luck!
17:29:06 <Kevin_Kofler> adamw: The bug report has become a bit of a mess indeed, I'll see if we can make some clones for the different issues and then we can have a discussion on what blocks Beta, what blocks Final and what is just broken.
17:29:13 <adamw> Kevin_Kofler: that'd be great, thanks a lot
17:29:26 <roshi> awesome Kevin_Kofler, thanks :)
17:29:30 <adamw> we can certainly have a discussion about whether we *should* block beta on graphical package install working, it just needs a clear context
17:30:48 <roshi> QA agenda item we've created #2
17:32:31 <roshi> +1 blocker for 1038413
17:32:41 * roshi remembers the discussion for this on F20 fondly
17:33:56 <adamw> wait, we hit a new bug?
17:33:57 <adamw> i missed that.
17:34:09 <adamw> hey, this old friend
17:34:15 <roshi> yep :)
17:36:42 * adamw refreshes memory
17:36:50 <adamw> sorry, also splitting time with fesco meeting
17:37:00 <roshi> np
17:37:24 <adamw> so i'm pretty sure my initial evaluation is right, but it'd be good to explicitly test
17:37:29 <adamw> of course, we'd need the fedup bug fixed for that
17:37:46 <adamw> either +1 or punt, ig uess
17:38:48 <roshi> any other votes?
17:40:59 <adamw> i think they're all dead, jim
17:41:17 <roshi> yeah
17:41:42 <roshi> Scotty, beam up the bodies so we can do a proper burial
17:42:22 <pwhalen> ah yes
17:42:25 <roshi> I'll give it a few minutes before we call it I guess
17:42:27 <pwhalen> sorry.. +1
17:42:43 <roshi> adamw: get back! Zombie!
17:42:46 <adamw> it's a miracle!
17:42:57 <adamw> clearly, we have a difference in interpretation here.
17:43:01 <roshi> ...
17:43:06 <roshi> this is awkward
17:43:07 <adamw> pwhalen: are you feeling more like a) turning water into wine or b) eating brains?
17:43:20 * oddshocks lurking
17:43:30 <pwhalen> c) wine + brains
17:43:32 <roshi> there's another, it's obviously zombies
17:43:41 <adamw> aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh alcoholic zombies
17:43:54 <roshi> adamw: grab your cricket bat and we'll head to the Winchester
17:43:57 <adamw> heh
17:44:19 <roshi> oddshocks: vote on 1038413?
17:46:12 <roshi> hrm, our zombies seem to be narcoleptic
17:46:51 <adamw> how many blockers do we have left? any really significant ones?
17:47:42 <roshi> 13 left
17:47:48 <Kevin_Kofler> IMHO, zes, a US kezboard lazout is verz clearlz a blocker, yombies or not. ;-)
17:47:50 <pwhalen> eek
17:47:56 <roshi> well, 14 counting the one we're voting on
17:48:45 <roshi> well, boot failures, fedup issues, corrupted NTFS volumes
17:53:24 <roshi> .moar cricket-noises meeting
17:53:25 <zodbot> here meeting, have some more cricket-noises
17:56:32 <adamw> why does the number seem to keep going up?
17:56:38 <adamw> i'm sure that's meant to happen the other way around.
17:56:45 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1038413 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug partially violates the Beta "Upgrade requirements" criteria.
17:56:47 <adamw> i think we have enough +1s for this bug at least
17:56:48 <adamw> ack
17:56:57 <roshi> well, we started with 19 bugs for this meeting
17:57:07 <roshi> 14 when I emailed the announcement iirc
17:59:18 <adamw> zoiks
17:59:31 <pwhalen> ack
17:59:40 <pwhalen> double duty time for me with the arm meeting
18:00:15 <adamw> fesco is winding up so i can be back fulltime
18:00:31 <roshi> that leaves you and me here fulltime adamw
18:00:36 <roshi> unless others are going to join in
18:01:03 <roshi> tflink oddshocks
18:01:06 <roshi> ^^
18:01:07 <adamw> we should maybe consider changing the meeting day, again, it seems to be coinciding with an awful lot of others
18:01:13 <roshi> yeah
18:01:19 * adamw tries to remember why we moved from fri to wed
18:01:38 <tflink> easier for brno folks to make it since it isn't friday evening for them
18:01:48 <tflink> it worked well until fesco changed to the same time
18:01:50 <roshi> no idea, been wednesday the whole time for me, iirc
18:02:02 <tflink> well, that's one of things
18:02:25 <roshi> what if we moved it up
18:02:28 <tflink> how short are you on people?
18:02:30 <roshi> 1500 UTC or something
18:02:32 <tflink> roshi: ask adam
18:02:37 <roshi> it's me and adamw
18:02:54 <roshi> pwhalen was here, but is now in an arm meeting that's double booked
18:02:59 * tflink shifts gears
18:03:01 <roshi> thoughts adamw ?
18:03:05 <pwhalen> still here-ish
18:03:20 <adamw> sigh, then i'd have three 8am meetings a week
18:03:28 <adamw> it's like you people want me to keep sensible hours or something
18:03:34 <pwhalen> we may not have enough for the arm meeting, two so far
18:03:42 <adamw> DOWN WITH ARM
18:03:50 <pwhalen> I'm down with arm
18:03:51 <roshi> if it was at a different time I would go to the arm meetings :P
18:03:57 <sgallagh> adamw: I have six 7am meetings a week...
18:04:01 <sgallagh> (Yes, *six*)
18:04:06 <roshi> ooof
18:04:22 <roshi> but hey, people have surfaced
18:04:26 <sgallagh> (Well, two of them are double-booked, so it's only four workdays, but still..)
18:04:28 * roshi quickly pastes the next bug
18:04:41 <sgallagh> I'll help, but I'm multi-tasking
18:04:52 <roshi> #topic (1146140) boot fail during upgrade from f20 to f21 on udev
18:04:52 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146140
18:04:52 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, fedup-dracut, NEW
18:04:58 <roshi> thanks sgallagh tflink
18:06:47 <roshi> seems a +1 to me
18:07:06 <tflink> not enough data, I think
18:07:16 * tflink is still looking through logs, though
18:08:00 <oddshocks> roshi: sorry, I'd have no idea whether to vote yes or no for something like that :P
18:08:02 <tflink> -1 for now
18:08:10 <tflink> those logs don't seem to be matching
18:08:11 <adamw> eh? what data are you looking for?
18:08:21 <adamw> afaik everyone who's tried a fedup from 20 to 21 hits this
18:08:26 <roshi> if it's reproducible, +1
18:08:39 <tflink> those logs aren't from a f20->f21 run
18:08:56 <adamw> hum, maybe there's a better bug report
18:08:57 <tflink> but if it's reproducable on a sane system, I'd be +1
18:09:02 <adamw> i hit this in a clean 20 to 21 test
18:09:38 <tflink> well, there are no "me too" in the bug, didn't realize it had been reproduced
18:09:48 <roshi> yeah, that's what I was looking for too
18:10:21 <adamw> hold on, let me find the one i was looking for
18:10:26 <roshi> fedup has several issues going on now iirc
18:10:32 <adamw> ah, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099299
18:10:58 <adamw> yeah, i believe this looks like a dupe of that bug
18:10:59 <tflink> which is also proposed as a blocker for f21
18:11:01 <adamw> same message
18:11:03 <tflink> er, beta
18:11:59 <adamw> close it as a dupe of 1099299.
18:12:07 <tflink> WFM
18:12:11 <sgallagh> Ack
18:12:13 <roshi> wfm
18:13:09 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1146140 - Dupe - Close as a duplicate of 1099299.
18:13:24 <tflink> ack
18:13:38 <adamw> ack
18:13:47 <roshi> #agreed - 1146140 - Dupe - Close as a duplicate of 1099299.
18:13:54 <roshi> I have to leave for an appt
18:13:57 <sgallagh> ack
18:14:10 <roshi> someone want to take over or call it?
18:14:47 <tflink> if you leave, do we have enough people to continue?
18:15:17 <roshi> you, sgallagh adamw and pwhalen - but I think everyone also has other stuff they could/should be working on atm
18:15:36 <tflink> I can take over if we continue
18:15:39 <roshi> there's 12 left, not going to make it through them all anyway
18:17:04 <tflink> adamw, sgallagh, pwhalen: thoughts?
18:17:36 <adamw> maybe can it for today and try again tomorrow or fri or mon?
18:17:55 <roshi> works for me
18:18:04 <roshi> I'll send out an announcement when I get back
18:18:28 <roshi> all agreed?
18:18:32 <sgallagh> Yeah, I'm dealing with rolekit stuff right now
18:18:37 <sgallagh> 14 days to beta....
18:18:47 <tflink> when is freeze, btw?
18:18:51 <tflink> is it tuesday?
18:19:26 <roshi> well, I'm going to endmeeting then
18:19:41 <roshi> thanks for coming!
18:19:42 <adamw> tflink: no, two weeks
18:19:44 <adamw> 2014-10-14
18:19:51 <tflink> oh, good
18:20:00 <roshi> #endmeeting