16:01:34 <roshi> #startmeeting F21-blocker-review
16:01:34 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Nov 26 16:01:34 2014 UTC.  The chair is roshi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:01:34 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:01:34 <roshi> #meetingname F21-blocker-review
16:01:34 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f21-blocker-review'
16:01:34 <roshi> #topic Roll Call
16:01:40 <roshi> who's around?
16:02:21 <jzb> roshi: yo
16:02:36 <kilted1> bout to say, going to be a short meeting
16:02:39 * nirik is lurking around
16:03:02 <roshi> well, at this point there's enough for quorum :p
16:03:08 <roshi> kparal: you around?
16:03:11 * kparal is here
16:03:16 <roshi> adamw ?
16:03:20 * kparal pokes pschindl
16:03:58 <sgallagh> /me is here
16:04:19 <roshi> #chair kparal jzb kilted1 nirik sgallagh adamw
16:04:19 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw jzb kilted1 kparal nirik roshi sgallagh
16:04:27 * pschindl is here
16:04:36 <roshi> #chair pschindl
16:04:36 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw jzb kilted1 kparal nirik pschindl roshi sgallagh
16:04:40 <roshi> #topic Introduction
16:04:41 <roshi> Why are we here?
16:04:41 <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.
16:04:44 <roshi> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:04:47 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:04:49 <roshi> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:04:52 <roshi> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:04:54 <roshi> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:04:57 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Alpha_Release_Criteria
16:05:00 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:05:03 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Final_Release_Criteria
16:05:12 <roshi> we've got 5 proposed blockers and 7 proposed FEs
16:05:21 <roshi> #topic (1130550) OSError: process '['/usr/libexec/anaconda/anaconda-yum', '--config', '/tmp/anaconda-yum.conf', '--tsfile', '/mnt/sysimage/anaconda-yum.yumtx', '--rpmlog', '/tmp/rpm-script.log', '--installroot', '/mnt/sysimage', '--release', '21', '--arch', 'x86_64', ...
16:05:26 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1130550
16:05:28 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:06:18 <nirik> so, a bit more info on this one since monday...
16:06:20 <kparal> sbueno says we should take comment 23 into consideration
16:07:05 <roshi> 24 answers it for me
16:07:06 <roshi> -1
16:07:08 <nirik> yeah, looking like this just happens with packages that are bad/cannot be downloaded.
16:07:20 <nirik> it would be nice to error and not crash...
16:07:35 <roshi> a nicer error would be great, but it's not blocker IMO
16:07:53 <sgallagh> I agree. -1 blocker
16:08:07 <roshi> votes?
16:08:08 <sgallagh> (I'd even say -1 FE, since I can't see any reason we should encourage worrying about this in F21)
16:08:32 <nirik> -1 blocker based on what we have now.
16:08:50 <kparal> -1
16:09:02 <roshi> netinst for me has worked w/o fail
16:09:25 <nirik> yeah, it's not like tons of people are hitting it. and pwalen had a corrupt package in his repos...
16:09:47 <kilted1> -1
16:10:10 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1130550 - RejectedBlocker - Based on the information provided within this bug, this bug isn't an issue with anaconda and is not considered blocking.
16:10:18 <kparal> ack
16:10:28 * jreznik is here, sorry for being late
16:10:37 <sgallagh> Ack
16:10:52 <nirik> ack
16:10:58 <jreznik> ack
16:11:37 <roshi> #agreed - 1130550 - RejectedBlocker - Based on the information provided within this bug, this bug isn't an issue with anaconda and is not considered blocking.
16:11:39 <kparal> here's the dreaded question - who's secretarializing?
16:11:43 <roshi> no worries jreznik :)
16:12:48 <roshi> anyone looking to try something new and handle the secretarializing?
16:13:05 <kilted1> I can
16:14:11 <roshi> sweet, thanks kilted1
16:14:37 <pwhalen> yes, thank goodness that one was a bad repo, my apologies :)
16:14:41 <roshi> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting#Secretary_Duty for info on how to do it :)
16:14:45 <kparal> I'm not sure we can teach new people how to do it during the meeting, if you like some challenge, kilted1, why not :)
16:14:58 <kparal> *but
16:15:17 <kparal> thanks
16:15:17 <kilted1> I was just reading the wiki on it
16:15:23 <kparal> great
16:15:59 <roshi> kparal: I'll double check after the meeting
16:16:13 <roshi> and if you have any questions kilted1 just ping me or kparal
16:16:27 <roshi> alright, onto the next bug!
16:16:33 <roshi> #topic (1158533) selecting one disk from VG spanning over multiple disks causes troubles
16:16:36 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1158533
16:16:38 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:16:57 <Corey84-> i have seen this one personally not able to resolve tho
16:17:20 <nirik> well, kparal couldn't duplicate it...
16:17:22 <roshi> I have another machine I'm going to test this on right now
16:17:49 <kparal> I have spend quite some time on it
16:17:51 <kparal> *spent
16:18:02 <roshi> if kparal can't break it, it's usually rock solid :)
16:18:04 <nirik> sounds like we need more detailed steps.
16:18:07 <roshi> from what I've seen anyways
16:18:19 <roshi> punt again then?
16:18:35 <roshi> Corey84-: how did you run into it?
16:19:05 <kparal> -1 here
16:19:16 <kparal> satellit does not respond and nobody can reproduce it
16:19:25 <nirik> -1 based on lack of reproducability currently.
16:19:25 <kparal> also no other reports came since then
16:19:32 <roshi> true
16:19:33 <Corey84-> roshi, two hdd of diff size one VG spanning 2 pvs
16:19:39 <roshi> I'm intrested to hear Corey84- though
16:19:56 <roshi> ok, I have that on this machine
16:20:11 <roshi> remove one hdd or just select 1?
16:20:15 <Corey84-> was via libvirt not on real tho
16:20:54 <jreznik> -1
16:20:57 <Corey84-> select one hdd (as pv)
16:21:12 <roshi> well, votes are in
16:21:24 <Corey84-> but seems this report is more a lack of user knowledge / docs to me
16:21:29 <Corey84-> -1
16:21:30 <roshi> I'll check it later (just cause I'm curious)
16:22:10 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1158533 - RejectedBlocker - This bug doesn't seem to be reproducible and no new reports have come in suggesting otherwise.
16:22:15 * satellit_e late
16:22:17 <Corey84-> as the py 2.7 hook can happen on f20 without LVM too OR used to
16:22:36 <kparal> ack
16:22:39 <jzb> -1 from me as well
16:22:42 <nirik> ack
16:23:03 <jzb> roshi: "no new reports have come in confirming the bug"
16:23:09 <jzb> roshi: might be more parseable.
16:23:33 <roshi> patched #agreed - 1158533 - RejectedBlocker - This bug doesn't seem to be reproducible and no new reports have come in confirming this bug.
16:24:40 <roshi> ack/nack/patch?
16:25:13 * satellit_e I only saw this when 2 installed USB ext HD f21 were plugged in at same time when anaconda ran
16:25:16 <jreznik> ack
16:25:21 <pschindl> ack
16:25:34 <roshi> #agreed - 1158533 - RejectedBlocker - This bug doesn't seem to be reproducible and no new reports have come in confirming this bug.
16:25:48 <kparal> ack
16:25:49 <jzb> roshi: ack, sorry :-)
16:25:54 <roshi> np
16:25:56 <roshi> #topic (1168118) Apple Mac EFI: you have not created a bootloader stage1 target device
16:25:59 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1168118
16:26:01 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:26:47 <nirik> BTW, cloning bugs is horrible. I wish we didn't allow it. ;)
16:27:39 <roshi> been a while since I've seen one cloned like this
16:28:01 <kparal> it seems it occurs just with 2 disks scenario
16:28:24 <kparal> also, I wonder why some partitions are called /dev/mmcblk0p2
16:28:31 <kparal> is that a SD card or something?
16:28:32 <Corey84-> android
16:28:49 <Corey84-> that is defaul android sdd emmc naming
16:28:50 <nirik> this is also via custom...
16:29:00 <kparal> "It's very clear from the below logs that the anaconda don't query the
16:29:00 <kparal> Linux EFI partition /dev/mmcblk0p1 for stage1 device as it should.
16:29:00 <kparal> It just queries partitions of disk sda for stage1 device."
16:29:09 <roshi> mmcblk0 is a default sd card
16:29:24 <kparal> so, he's trying to install Fedora to an SD card, right?
16:29:29 <nirik> yep.
16:29:29 <roshi> on my systems anyways
16:29:32 <roshi> seems so
16:29:36 <Corey84-> looks that way almost
16:29:44 <roshi> do macs have built in sd readers now?
16:29:49 <jzb> roshi: some do yeah
16:29:55 <Corey84-> no its usb otg most likeyl
16:29:55 <nirik> no idea. Many other laptops do
16:30:17 <Corey84-> mac server  boxes i think do
16:30:23 <roshi> huh
16:30:25 <roshi> TIL
16:30:29 <jzb> nirik: I have an MBP retina - they do.
16:30:55 <sgallagh> My wife has a MacBook Air with an SD slot also
16:30:55 <Corey84-> well might have to revisit that $$ for one then lol
16:31:21 <nirik> anyhow... I'd be inclined to -1 this and say document it...
16:31:34 <Corey84-> ack
16:31:46 <Corey84-> -1 here
16:31:53 <nirik> do we have any critera that would be met here?
16:32:03 <roshi> what was the criteria listed in the bug?
16:32:20 <roshi> in the pile o' comments I imagine
16:32:49 <roshi> ah
16:32:53 <roshi> "When using the guided partitioning flow, the installer must be able to cleanly install to a disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table which contains existing..."
16:33:13 <sgallagh> Is this Guided or is it custom?
16:33:22 <nirik> it looked like custom from 1st comment.
16:33:24 <kparal> the bug is about custom
16:33:30 <sgallagh> Then -1 blocker
16:33:33 <Corey84-> -1
16:33:46 <kparal> the same problem might apply to guided
16:33:48 <Corey84-> with a remark to learn the diff maybe
16:33:54 <nirik> it could, hard to say...
16:34:30 <roshi> can anyone test this?
16:34:34 * roshi doesn't have the hardware
16:34:38 <Corey84-> seem to think this may have been an attempt at a pi dry install run
16:34:49 <Corey84-> no mac her either
16:35:26 <Corey84-> could see tho if its not mac specific
16:35:57 <nirik> I might be able to try, but this is my primary laptop and i don't at all want to mess with the internal mSATA.
16:36:09 <nirik> I could try installing just to sd tho
16:36:10 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1168118 - RejectedBlocker - The criteria doesn't apply to the custom partitioning attempted in this bug. If this can be reproduced with guided partitioning then please re-propose.
16:36:24 <roshi> just swap out the mSATA and put it back in later nirik
16:36:25 <sgallagh> roshi: Ack
16:36:30 <roshi> :p
16:36:36 <jreznik> ack
16:36:37 <sgallagh> roshi: You're evil
16:36:45 <nirik> roshi: it's a big pain. ;) about 25 little torx screws to open the back
16:36:55 <kparal> I'd rather just punt with such an explanation
16:36:56 <roshi> hey, I worked for a while fixing those things. I *know*
16:37:07 <Corey84-> not to mention possible warranty void criteria
16:37:08 <kparal> I'm quite sure we can find something similar for custom
16:37:14 <jzb> roshi: ack
16:37:29 <roshi> kparal: you wanting to punt or reject?
16:37:43 <nirik> so do we say we can install to SD anywhere? or is that assumed somewhere?
16:37:44 <kparal> the real question is: let's say that all installations to an sd card on uefi is broken. would we block on it?
16:37:55 <kparal> roshi: punt
16:37:58 * nirik nods. Just what I was getting at.
16:38:15 <kparal> and I'm not really sure
16:38:22 <sgallagh> kparal: Shall we expand it to "removable media" in general?
16:38:30 <kparal> we never dealt with SD card specific issues
16:38:36 <jzb> sgallagh: define "removable media" ;-)
16:38:39 <roshi> well, storage is storage
16:38:42 <kparal> and we rejected quite a few bugs concerning removable hard drives
16:38:48 <roshi> I mean, eSATA is "removable"
16:38:54 <kparal> *usb hard drives
16:38:55 <jzb> sgallagh: all media is removable if you try hard enough
16:39:00 * nirik looks for the critera here.
16:39:10 <Corey84-> can install to usb fine
16:39:26 <kparal> where's our library of knowledge a.k.a adamw, when we need it?
16:39:38 <Corey84-> ive put fedora and ubuntu on usb no issues in past
16:39:44 <roshi> installing to sdcards has worked no problem for me
16:39:51 <roshi> since, forever
16:40:01 <kparal> roshi: the problem is sd card + uefi, it seems
16:40:02 <roshi> I'm fine with a punt
16:40:15 <jzb> If you're doing Fedora + Chromebook isn't SD card one of the recommended methods?
16:40:30 <jzb> and I *think* they use UEFI
16:40:30 <kparal> let's ask the person to try with guided part, and let's discuss internally whether sd cards count as supported storage
16:40:40 <nirik> kparal: and possibly apple/mac
16:40:55 <Corey84-> chromebooks ARE uefi ONLY yes
16:41:16 <roshi> works for me kparal
16:41:27 <Corey84-> thinking more about it its likely not uefi in general but mac efi
16:41:47 <nirik> "The installer must be able to complete an installation using any supported locally connected storage interface."
16:41:49 <Corey84-> custom or guided roshi
16:41:50 <nirik> 'Locally connected storage interfaces' include PATA, SATA and SCSI.
16:42:15 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1168118 - Punt - More information is needed to decide on this bug. Please retest this attempted to use the guided install.
16:42:21 <sgallagh> Works for me. We don't treat SD as a blocker
16:42:27 <Corey84-> technically sdcards dont fall into that
16:42:29 <roshi> mac EFI is it's own thing
16:42:35 <pschindl> ack
16:42:37 <jzb> roshi: +1
16:42:40 <Corey84-> roshi,  inded
16:42:48 <kparal> ack
16:42:52 <roshi> we usually don't mess around with sdcard/usb-stick installation issues
16:43:00 <Corey84-> almsot too bloody good for its own good
16:43:05 <nirik> ack
16:43:12 <roshi> #agreed - 1168118 - Punt - More information is needed to decide on this bug. Please retest this attempted to use the guided install.
16:43:18 * nirik doesn't know what interface the mmcblk stuff actually uses under the hood.
16:43:20 <sgallagh> roshi: nack, I'm of the opinion that it's a non-blocker no matter what
16:43:23 <Corey84-> i can test them more now (non mac installs that is ) roshi
16:43:27 <roshi> kilted1: I don't know if the docs mention punts
16:43:48 <roshi> awesome Corey84-
16:43:50 <Corey84-> depends on initial format   but normally vfat
16:44:17 <roshi> sgallagh: I lean that way too, but we don't have "sd cards don't matter" *written* anywhere
16:44:26 <Corey84-> I have become rather good at reprovisioning on the quick and got a few boxes for screwing up things
16:44:26 <kilted1> roshi: no, it does not
16:44:30 <roshi> and after that discussion happens on test@ then we can make the call
16:44:33 <sgallagh> I thought nirik just pointed it out
16:44:41 <sgallagh> We only block on "PATA, SATA and SCSI"
16:44:59 <nirik> Corey84-: thats not what I mean. Not filesystem, but bus...
16:44:59 <roshi> kilted1: basically you just put a comment on the bug, and leave the whiteboard alone
16:45:02 <kparal> we also have additional criteria for remote storage
16:45:11 <kparal> usually network-connected
16:45:11 <Corey84-> punt then with a request for guided attempt and/or  more details on install
16:45:14 * kilted1 nods
16:45:27 <sgallagh> kparal: Right, but the lack of criteria is implicitly non-blocking
16:45:36 <Corey84-> normal dbus ime nirik
16:46:00 <roshi> it doesn't really matter to me, though I lean non-blocking since it was custom part and to an sdcard
16:46:07 <nirik> it looks like it's it's own thing here... sdhci...
16:46:13 <Corey84-> roshi +!
16:46:14 <nirik> but it's not clear.
16:46:16 <roshi> I mean, I voted -1 and proposed rejected earlier :)
16:46:35 <roshi> yeah, it's not clear and it'd be good to codify the status of SDcards and their ilk
16:46:42 <sgallagh> nirik: sdhci is a blanket term for "might be attached to PCI or USB"
16:46:49 <sgallagh> (IIRC)
16:47:19 <nirik> I'm fine with punt and clarify I guess.
16:47:22 <Corey84-> mine is usually via a usb adapter
16:47:26 <nirik> also, arm uses sd cards a lot.
16:47:31 <nirik> mine is not via usb.
16:47:43 <Corey84-> hence why i thought rpi install attempt earlier
16:48:10 <Corey84-> install for rpi via a pc then insert to the pi
16:48:11 <roshi> we can also just reject and ask them to repropose later if guided fails
16:48:26 <nirik> Corey84-: except fedora doesn't support the pi. ;)
16:48:36 <sgallagh> I don't much care for punting because the likely outcome is that we'll decide that "Ok, SD cards are blocking because of $REASONS" and now we're adding another blocker with little time to fix it.
16:48:48 <Corey84-> nirik, doesn't stop folks from hacking at it to try
16:48:51 <sgallagh> I'd rather treat it as non-blocker for F21 and have that conversation for future releases
16:49:02 <nirik> Corey84-: well, it's a different arch, but anyhow.
16:49:39 <roshi> it makes sense sgallagh - but I also don't want to let annoying bugs through by whistling and ignoring them for later
16:49:42 <Corey84-> NB  repropose
16:50:00 <roshi> honestly, I don't think the discussion would lead to SDCards becoming a supported storage type for installs
16:50:18 <roshi> ok, votes for reject?
16:50:20 <jzb> sgallagh: +1
16:50:31 <Corey84-> maybe not but might lead to a more clearly define line
16:50:36 <Corey84-> +1
16:50:41 <roshi> we have to define the line anyways
16:51:09 <sgallagh> roshi: Yes, we can define the line, but let's try not making the set of criteria bigger this late into the cycle
16:51:16 <Corey84-> im for a reject on this
16:51:27 <roshi> makes sense sgallagh
16:51:32 <roshi> +1
16:51:46 <nirik> so, reject based on what? not guided? sdcard isntalls not suported on apple hw? or ?
16:51:57 <roshi> votes for punt?
16:52:14 <Corey84-> custom  not guided   (reject)
16:52:16 <jzb> I'm +1 reject
16:52:23 <sgallagh> nirik: Reject based on install criteria being presently limited to SATA, PATA and SCSI
16:52:27 <roshi> #undo
16:52:27 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: AGREED by roshi at 16:43:12 : - 1168118 - Punt - More information is needed to decide on this bug. Please retest this attempted to use the guided install.
16:52:29 <sgallagh> With a note that we will revisit this for F22
16:52:33 <Corey84-> revisit if guided fails similiarly
16:53:03 <Corey84-> sgallagh, +1
16:53:08 <nirik> sgallagh: ok. +1
16:53:10 <satellit_e> I will test SD on bios boot if needed
16:53:34 <Corey84-> same  here  but on non mac here
16:53:49 * satellit_e not mac
16:54:34 <satellit_e> I also have a macbook pro 8.1 I can test
16:54:39 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1168118 - RejectedBlocker - This bug doesn't violate any specific criteria due to sdcards not being a supported storage type. Supported storage types are SATA, PATA and SCSI for locally connected storage. We can revisit this for F22.
16:55:07 * kparal shrugs
16:55:08 <Corey84-> ack
16:55:12 <nirik> satellit_e: more data on it good. does your macbook have a sd card reader?
16:55:17 <satellit_e> yes
16:55:46 <sgallagh> roshi: Ack
16:56:00 <nirik> ack
16:56:01 <satellit_e> ack
16:56:21 <roshi> #agreed - 1168118 - RejectedBlocker - This bug doesn't violate any specific criteria due to sdcards not being a supported storage type. Supported storage types are SATA, PATA and SCSI for locally connected storage. We can revisit this for F22.
16:56:29 * roshi expects to see more from that bug
16:56:49 <nirik> we could sure.
16:56:50 <Corey84-> ^
16:57:09 <roshi> the votes have spoken!
16:57:12 <roshi> onto the next
16:57:12 <roshi> #topic (1167959) Anaconda on Server DVD put on the usb by livecd-iso-to-disk --efi hangs in hub due to "probing storage"
16:57:16 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167959
16:57:18 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, POST
16:57:20 <Corey84-> mac is gaining fedora users indeed
16:57:49 <nirik> +1 blocker.
16:57:53 <pschindl> +1
16:58:24 <Corey84-> +1
16:58:43 <jzb> Seems to fit the criteria +1
16:58:47 <sgallagh> Yeah, seems both obvious and already fixed. +1
16:58:52 <roshi> +1
16:59:33 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1167959 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of several criteria, namely: All release-blocking images must boot in their supported configurations."
16:59:38 <nirik> pschindl: did the updates image/fix there work? or have you had a chance to test yet?
16:59:42 <Corey84-> ack
16:59:48 <nirik> ack
16:59:53 <sgallagh> ack
16:59:54 <jzb> that's the best kind of blocker - one that's already fixed.
17:00:03 <Corey84-> lol
17:00:36 <pschindl> nirik: I haven't tried yet.
17:00:40 <roshi> #agreed - 1167959 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear violation of several criteria, namely: All release-blocking images must boot in their supported configurations."
17:00:41 <pschindl> ack
17:00:45 <roshi> I love the fixed blockers :)
17:00:51 <roshi> I'll block on working all day lone
17:00:52 <nirik> ok. hopefully it does. ;)
17:00:57 <roshi> s/lone/long
17:01:07 <roshi> #topic (1167965) logvol swap --recommended fails
17:01:07 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167965
17:01:07 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, POST
17:01:48 <nirik> +1 blocker.
17:01:52 <nirik> also has fix in hand
17:02:14 <roshi> under which criteria?
17:02:53 <roshi> I mean, it's fixed
17:03:13 <sgallagh> This is custom partitioning. I'm thinking +1 FE, at least.
17:03:22 <sgallagh> But I don't see an obvious blocker criterion here
17:03:41 <adamw> ahoy
17:03:55 <sgallagh> /me throws out the rope ladder
17:04:05 <sgallagh> (I probably should have tied one end to the ship...)
17:04:05 <Corey84-> now the book of knwledge arrives lol
17:04:06 * nirik is digging
17:04:08 <roshi> "The installer must be able to use all available kickstart delivery methods."
17:04:31 <roshi> rather, "The installer must be able to complete a scripted installation which duplicates the default interactive installation as closely as possible. "
17:04:34 <roshi> from beta
17:05:02 <roshi> +1
17:05:12 <Corey84-> +1
17:05:14 <kparal> the question is whether a default installation uses logvol swap --recommended
17:05:28 <roshi> yeah
17:05:29 <adamw> yeah.
17:05:36 <adamw> be interested to know if this happens in a guided interactive install
17:05:43 <roshi> I'm not  that familiar with the innards of ks installs
17:05:59 <sgallagh> Hang on, let me quickly check the anaconda log of my TC4 install
17:06:21 * nirik doesn't know off hand either...
17:06:38 <kparal> sgallagh: look at /root/anaconda-ks.cfg
17:06:45 <sgallagh> doing so
17:06:52 <roshi> adamw: see discussion of 1168118 when you get some time :)
17:08:21 <adamw> will do, still getting up to speed
17:08:48 <sgallagh> WTF... my system is randomly hitting the caps-lock, making it really hard to type a password...
17:09:34 <sgallagh> so the anaconda-ks.log uses 'autopart --type=lvm'
17:10:02 <sgallagh> Which is not *explicitly* 'logvol --swap'
17:10:03 * adamw goes looking at what the fix says
17:10:36 * nirik goes to get more coffee.
17:11:46 * adamw really wishes, when people say 'it's fixed on master', they'd point to the damn fix
17:12:13 <roshi> that takes all the fun out of it, like putting the criteria in the proposal
17:12:17 * roshi ducks
17:12:33 <adamw> =)
17:12:36 <adamw> i'll say at least +1 FE
17:13:52 <kparal> I'm 0/+1. we don't have specific criteria for this
17:14:20 <Corey84-> lvm doesn't neccesate  logvol --swap so im +1 FE too
17:14:22 <kparal> and I just had a chat with anaconda folks, they are very unhappy when we accept more than it's written in the criteria
17:15:00 <roshi> FE is fine with me
17:15:11 <adamw> i think it's e3845945b97a0a31019ec2f4ec37bb14d99bf36b
17:15:28 <adamw> kparal: we've *still* not really nailed down kickstart criteria properly :/
17:15:39 <sgallagh> I'm +1 FE as well
17:16:01 <adamw> kparal: you could point out that the ideal place to make that point is when we're voting on whether bugs are blockers, at these meetings, which we keep asking them to come to...
17:16:26 <kparal> yes, that's a good remark
17:16:27 <adamw> erf, no, that was the NTFS resize bug. hrm..
17:16:41 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1167965 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - There isn't a criteria that this bug clearly violates. Would accept a fix for this during freeze.
17:17:00 <adamw> i'd possibly vote punt-for-details rather than reject on the blocker side
17:17:12 <roshi> I can patch
17:17:16 <adamw> i'd really like to know exactly what the problem is and therefore how you can hit it
17:17:28 <adamw> but we can always go reject-with-possible-repropose
17:18:00 <Corey84-> sounds more like a legacy system issue and/or misunderstanding of need for swap to me
17:18:57 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1167965 - PuntOnBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - More information is needed before we can decide whether this bug would block release. However, in the mean time we would accept a fix for this during freeze.
17:19:17 <jzb> roshi: +1
17:19:48 <sgallagh> roshi: Ack
17:20:29 <Corey84-> ack
17:21:14 <roshi> ack
17:21:23 <nirik> sure, ack
17:21:26 <roshi> #agreed - 1167965 - PuntOnBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - More information is needed before we can decide whether this bug would block release. However, in the mean time we would accept a fix for this during freeze.
17:21:43 <roshi> onto FEs
17:21:46 <roshi> that was the last blocker
17:21:58 <roshi> #topic (1167014) Manual partitioning using single partition: unable to escape from Partitioning page except with workaround
17:22:01 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167014
17:22:04 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, POST
17:24:39 <sgallagh> This is a very edge-case IMHO.
17:24:56 <nirik> well, it's not as edge as first thought.
17:25:14 <nirik> "it is because something in the right side (like label) has been changed and done is hit without hitting update setttings."
17:25:29 <roshi> so all you hve to do is hit update settings before done, right?
17:25:42 <nirik> yeah, if you know to do that...
17:25:48 <roshi> I don't see the bug then
17:25:58 * roshi has forgot to hit update settings thousands of times
17:26:07 <roshi> then I hit it and we're good
17:26:24 <roshi> I like that anaconda is explicit about making changes like that to storage
17:26:32 <sgallagh> Yeah, I'm rather disinclined to approve an FE for this.
17:26:50 <roshi> I'm going to go there: It's not a bug, it's a feature!
17:27:06 <nirik> roshi: so you get told to hit it ? or you hit done a bunch and realize you need to hit update before it works?
17:27:11 <sgallagh> we lost kparal...
17:27:32 <Corey84-> ive always got a hey dummy toast msg
17:27:43 <roshi> I hit done a couple times, then think "D'oh. Forgot to apply the changes."
17:27:55 <Corey84-> same with forgettign a bios grub part on a fresh gpt
17:28:37 <nirik> I'd prefer it get fixed and save confusion...
17:28:47 <Corey84-> but iirc a cancel /ignore option is there and can confuse a non aware user
17:28:48 <adamw> the problem is there's a bit of text on the screen explicitly telling you what you have to do to escape the screen, but it's a lie
17:28:52 <nirik> so I'm +1 FE, but feel free to drown me out. ;)
17:29:00 <adamw> and there isn't anything telling you you have to hit 'update settings' at all
17:29:17 <adamw> and in fact, hitting Done *runs* 'update settings', there's just some check somewhere getting confused (AIU the comments)
17:29:32 <Corey84-> its that cryptic tarceback stuff right adamw ?
17:29:38 <adamw> no.
17:30:02 <roshi> I'm fine with an FE for it
17:30:08 <Corey84-> +1 fe
17:30:11 <roshi> +1 to make the words say what they need to
17:30:47 <adamw> that's not what the fix does
17:31:16 <adamw> the fix is a one liner: https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/anaconda-patches/2014-November/014789.html
17:31:39 <adamw> when you click Done it saves all changes anyway, so the fix just *also* has it update the state of the actual 'Update Settings' button
17:31:51 <roshi> even better
17:32:03 <adamw> i don't see What Could Possibly Go Wrong(tm)
17:32:13 <sgallagh> Fine with me, I guess. +1 FE
17:32:29 <sgallagh> I'd prefer that the text match, but we're well past string freeze, so meh
17:32:42 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1167014 - AcceptedFreezeException - A fix for this would be considered during freeze.
17:32:46 <adamw> so, i'd probably not want to mess with this on general principles next week, but now? sure, whatever. +1 FE
17:32:47 <nirik> ack
17:32:47 <adamw> ack
17:32:54 <sgallagh> ack
17:32:54 <Corey84-> ack
17:32:58 <roshi> #agreed - 1167014 - AcceptedFreezeException - A fix for this would be considered during freeze.
17:33:01 <jzb> ack
17:33:07 <roshi> kilted1: how's the secretarializing going?
17:33:18 <roshi> #topic (1167658) custom partitioning: after you press Done for the first time, Reset All stops working
17:33:21 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167658
17:33:23 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, NEW
17:34:09 <kilted1> roshi: I am going to take the notes after the meeting and work thru them. I appear to have an issue with permissions in BZ, the whiteboard field is not editable.
17:34:15 <nirik> I guess +1... this seems pretty minor and I don't think my heart would break if we didn't get it.
17:34:31 <roshi> ah, we can get that sorted kilted1
17:34:57 * kilted1 nods
17:35:40 <Corey84-> seems minor to me too
17:35:40 <roshi> same here nirik
17:35:45 <sgallagh> I'd rather say -1 and leave it alone. Is it unpleasant? Sure
17:35:48 <Corey84-> im +1
17:36:01 <roshi> I generally expect "Reset" buttons to always reset things
17:36:06 <sgallagh> But I'm concerned that a fix might cause as many problems as it solves.
17:36:22 <nirik> well, if it's a one-liner like the last one...
17:36:27 <Corey84-> ^
17:36:31 <adamw> doesn't have a fix yet, by the looks of it.
17:36:32 <kparal> sgallagh: that should be something that developers decide
17:36:33 <jzb> nirik: "if"
17:36:48 <adamw> at this point in the cycle i'm kinda on the fence...last week i'd be +1, next week i'd be -1
17:36:49 <nirik> well, we don't have to take FE's...
17:36:53 <kparal> I'd want that functionality working
17:37:12 <sgallagh> kparal: I disagree. That's the point of the FE process: we have to decide if the benefits outweigh the risks of breaking freeze
17:37:12 <jzb> If we +1 now and get a fix, we can still -1 it later yes?
17:37:17 <sgallagh> In this case, I don't think they do
17:37:20 <jzb> if the fix seems dangerous
17:37:26 <Corey84-> i would too but not a major fail imo
17:37:26 <nirik> jzb: yes, although it might be more work/churn.
17:37:49 <sgallagh> I'd rather not tell them "Go do this work!... hahaha, we're not accepting it"
17:37:51 <nirik> ie we may have to get them to build with it reverted if they included it in a build of stuff we want.
17:37:59 <kparal> we don't need to take accepted FEs if it's too late
17:38:15 <kparal> so just specify a time condition
17:38:29 <roshi> so, by monday?
17:38:29 <Corey84-> im for +1 with note that it may go post release depending on timing of fix
17:38:35 <jzb> sgallagh: but we'd still "accept" the work because it needs to be fixed, right?
17:38:42 <jzb> it just may not make it into F21
17:38:52 <Corey84-> jzb, +1
17:38:53 <kparal> Corey84-: anaconda fixes won't go post-release
17:39:03 <sgallagh> jzb: That's my point: I'd rather let them fix it for F22 and not risk F21 for it
17:39:04 <nirik> well, I still have some faint hope of a RC before monday...
17:39:20 <Corey84-> fair enough for 22 is fine with me
17:39:40 <jzb> sgallagh: I'm assuming you've seen simple Anaconda fixes create more trouble than they're worth previously?
17:39:57 <sgallagh> jzb: On many occasions.
17:40:11 <Corey84-> it always posssible and this late in cycle ...
17:40:28 <sgallagh> And this one isn't likely to be simple
17:40:33 <jzb> yeah... I'm going to yield to sgallagh's previous experience here.
17:40:38 <sgallagh> Storage is *complex* and reverting to the right state can be tricky
17:40:40 <jzb> I'm -1 - let's get it into F22
17:40:41 * nirik has no idea of that. I haven't looked at the code.
17:40:57 <kparal> sgallagh: I think we're very much guessing here
17:40:57 <roshi> I'm looking at the UI code now
17:41:00 <Corey84-> -1 punt to 22
17:41:02 <roshi> for sure
17:41:05 <sgallagh> (Well, they're probably not making changes yet, so storing the original state may be safe, but I don't know that)
17:41:06 <kparal> and we're back to a lack of anaconda representation on blocker bug meetings
17:41:24 <nirik> I'm still +1, but feel free to outvote me. ;)
17:41:26 <roshi> kparal: were you able to revert if you exited the spoke and then went back into it?
17:41:29 <Corey84-> sure would help
17:41:29 <sgallagh> kparal: Without information, I'm going to -1 most FEs. I want this ship to sail with minimal risk
17:41:35 <kparal> roshi: no
17:41:48 <kparal> a single Done -> no reset, ever
17:41:54 <kparal> just reboot
17:41:57 <roshi> oh snap
17:42:52 <jzb> let's make sure it's in the release notes or whatever though
17:42:55 <kparal> I'm +1 here, if the fix is risky, anaconda devs don't need to implement, or they can warn us and we can consider taking it in
17:42:56 <Corey84-> nirik,  if this was last week i would be +1 too too close now imo
17:43:07 <jzb> "We know this exists, here's how to work around it"
17:43:21 <sgallagh> Yeah, I'd be good with Common Bugs instead, here
17:43:31 <Corey84-> with jzb's comment id be willing to +1
17:43:51 <roshi> I haven't run into this - but a bug that's "Clicked Done and you're not? Restart the installation." is kinda severe from a user standpoint
17:43:53 <adamw> the workaround is 'reboot and try again'
17:44:07 <roshi> for alpha or beta it wouldn't bug me
17:44:12 <adamw> or, you know, just figure out the partition layout you want from the current state of the screen
17:44:29 <Corey84-> adamw, +1
17:44:39 <roshi> final, the UI should work when you click buttons
17:44:41 <jzb> can you exit out and go back into partitioning ?
17:44:44 <Corey84-> preplan once
17:44:55 <roshi> jzb: even then the reset all button doesn't work
17:45:00 <jzb> roshi: gotcha
17:45:08 <jzb> Hey! It's snowing!
17:45:11 <sgallagh> I need to leave and go collect my kids.
17:45:15 <jzb> (sorry, that's probably not relevant here)
17:45:17 <sgallagh> /me shakes fist at the snow
17:45:27 <nirik> snow is lovely! enjoy snow!
17:45:35 <roshi> +1 ^^
17:45:43 <roshi> see you in a bit sgallagh
17:45:43 <nirik> anyhow, we have been on this a while? do we have a final tally?
17:46:03 <Corey84-> not in my area the idiots get stupidier on the roads with snow NO thanks but back to FE lol
17:46:26 <roshi> votes *for* FE?
17:46:41 <nirik> +1
17:46:43 <Corey84-> +1 with a note if its risky fix
17:47:26 <jzb> Corey84-: my concern is we may not know until it's too late that it was a risky fix.
17:47:41 <kparal> +1
17:48:02 <kparal> jzb: that's true for all patches
17:48:27 * satellit patch to force reboot if error?
17:48:44 <roshi> kparal: if you reenter the spoke can you update your stuff? just not reset to what you had before?
17:48:45 <Corey84-> satellit, +1  if in time
17:48:53 <jzb> kparal: but some pieces are more critical than others, e.g. Anaconda
17:49:00 <kparal> roshi: yes I believe I can do everything, just not reset
17:49:04 <roshi> kk
17:49:11 <roshi> votes against FE?
17:49:13 <roshi> -1
17:49:30 <jzb> kparal: if you're working on the space shuttle, you can replace the seats without a problem, but if you need to work on the engines...
17:49:37 <jzb> -1
17:49:45 <kparal> so for example, if you remove a partition in error, you can't reset it back, one you clicked Done once
17:49:56 <Corey84-> im still +1 with a note
17:50:19 <kparal> and the peculiar thing is that anaconda claims it has reset it to a on-disk state, so you might believe the changes were applied immediatelly
17:50:42 <roshi> -1 document in common bugs
17:50:50 <mkolman> kparal: the rescan storage button does not work ?
17:50:55 <roshi> so far we're 3+/0/-2
17:51:11 <kparal> mkolman: didn't try it. honestly, it's invisible
17:51:21 <kparal> I always forget about it
17:51:26 <roshi> well, -1 from sgallagh too I think
17:51:47 <mkolman> that should reset it down to the metal so to speak
17:51:56 <adamw> we could punt until there's at least a fix
17:51:59 * satellit -1 too late for changes
17:52:07 <kparal> sigh, I should have proposed it only after a patch was ready. otoh, it seemed to me to be a bit more important that a mere FE
17:52:12 <Corey84-> as kparal said  its insensitive iirc
17:52:51 <roshi> yeah kparal - it did to me too until you said everything else worked when you set up your stuff in custom. If *that* didn't work, it'd be a different issue
17:53:00 <kparal> no harm done in punting, I guess. our opinions vary wildly anyway
17:53:09 <roshi> wfm
17:53:27 * nirik is fine with punting...
17:53:47 <Corey84-> fine with a punt to, i guess
17:54:17 <kparal> at least something we can agree on :)
17:54:23 <Corey84-> :)
17:54:27 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1167658 - Punt - More information is needed to decide FE status. A proposed fix to look at would be really helpful.
17:54:37 <Corey84-> ack
17:55:10 <kparal> ack
17:55:20 <nirik> ack
17:55:21 <satellit> ack
17:55:26 <roshi> #agreed - 1167658 - Punt - More information is needed to decide FE status. A proposed fix to look at would be really helpful.
17:55:33 <roshi> #topic (1167507) CVE-2014-6408 CVE-2014-6407 docker-io: various flaws [fedora-all]
17:55:36 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167507
17:55:38 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, docker-io, ON_QA
17:55:39 <danofsatx-work> whew...I didn't miss the whole thing
17:55:47 <roshi> there he is
17:55:59 <Corey84-> im not familar enough with docker to speak wisely on this one
17:55:59 <roshi> we've #actioned you all the things danofsatx-work
17:56:14 <jzb> I'm +1 FE on this
17:56:16 <roshi> FE policy says severity has to be high for FEs
17:56:20 <danofsatx-work> no problem, I can ignore them as well as I can my $dayjob
17:56:27 <jzb> it shouldn't impact anything else, so risk is low
17:56:27 <roshi> er, CVE
17:56:41 <kparal> roshi: for blockers, you mean?
17:56:42 <jzb> roshi: so - normally that's fine with a zero day update
17:56:58 <roshi> is it just for blockers?
17:57:28 <adamw> roshi: high is for blockers
17:57:42 <roshi> ah
17:57:44 <roshi> nvm then
17:57:47 <roshi> +1
17:57:48 <adamw> the FE 'principles' don't say anything specific about security issues
17:58:00 <adamw> +1, yeah
17:58:08 <nirik> +1 sure.
17:58:45 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1167507 - AcceptedFreezeException - A fix for this would be considered during freeze.
17:58:53 <Corey84-> ack
17:58:53 * roshi can also do some testing of this
17:58:58 <nirik> ack
17:59:04 <jzb> ack
17:59:09 <roshi> #agreed - 1167507 - AcceptedFreezeException - A fix for this would be considered during freeze.
17:59:12 <jzb> I'll be testing docker docker docker
17:59:23 <roshi> good good
17:59:24 <roshi> #topic (1167857) gofer has broken dependencies in the F21 tree
17:59:24 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167857
17:59:24 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gofer, ON_QA
17:59:32 * Corey84- should really look into that more
17:59:49 * nirik already voted +1 in bug
18:00:03 <danofsatx-work> wtf is gofer?
18:00:08 <Corey84-> +1
18:00:19 <roshi> +1, doesn't touch anything really
18:00:40 <nirik> a fringe package with some broken deps. ;)
18:00:46 <Corey84-> so nearly as pointless as i though t
18:00:53 <nirik> it's the last one on x86 anyhow... there's some arm subpackages still with some, but oh well.
18:01:00 <jzb> "A lightweight, extensible python agent"
18:01:06 <jzb> which doesn't tell me a heck of a lot.
18:01:11 <adamw> +1, it's nice to try and clean the frozen tree.
18:01:22 <roshi> see %description : http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/gofer.git/tree/gofer.spec
18:01:51 <adamw> jzb: well, it's a secret agent.
18:01:54 <jzb> oh, this is Ruby
18:02:03 <kparal> I'm getting regularly disconnected, that's just great
18:02:06 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1167857 - AcceptedFreezeException - A fix for this would be considered past freeze.
18:02:09 <nirik> ack
18:02:11 <jzb> ack
18:02:16 <roshi> i thought you were rage quitting kparal :p
18:02:19 <Corey84-> ack
18:02:30 <roshi> #agreed - 1167857 - AcceptedFreezeException - A fix for this would be considered past freeze.
18:02:35 <kparal> I wrote about 10 lines and wondered why no one replies
18:02:47 <roshi> #topic (1041558) Filter out rootpw from anaconda reports
18:02:47 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1041558
18:02:48 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, libreport, POST
18:02:56 <roshi> to which bug?
18:03:00 <roshi> something we need to revisit?
18:03:04 * Corey84- thanks his bouncer for alleviating hom of that joy
18:03:17 <kparal> roshi: the previous one. no, that's OK. I supported +1 FE
18:03:52 <roshi> kk
18:03:57 <roshi> didn't want to leave anything out :)
18:03:58 <jzb> +1 FE on this one.
18:04:02 <kparal> oh, the previous plus one. nevermind :)
18:04:03 <adamw> didn't we fix this before?
18:04:13 <Corey84-> +1
18:04:17 <adamw> oh, no, that was obfuscating it in kickstarts.
18:05:26 <adamw> +1, i guess
18:05:30 <nirik> +1 I suppose.
18:06:09 <roshi> proposed #agreed - AcceptedFreezeException - A fix for this would be considered during freeze.
18:06:39 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1041558 - AcceptedFreezeException - A fix for this would be considered during freeze.
18:07:24 <nirik> ack
18:07:42 <Corey84-> ack
18:07:54 <roshi> #agreed - 1041558 - AcceptedFreezeException - A fix for this would be considered during freeze.
18:07:58 <roshi> #topic (1123635) Nautilus does not start in Gnome Classic.
18:07:58 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123635
18:07:58 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, nautilus, MODIFIED
18:07:59 <jzb> ack
18:09:02 <jzb> I'd be +1 to this as an FE
18:09:09 <roshi> +1
18:09:11 <nirik> +1
18:09:13 <Corey84-> +1Fe
18:09:24 <adamw> +1, it'd be a blocker if we were still blocking on classic...
18:09:28 <danofsatx-work> +1
18:09:39 <roshi> GNOME Classic could almost be considered under the "Default Applications" criteria since it ships with GNOME which is release blocking
18:09:58 <Corey84-> ^ good point
18:10:29 <roshi> it's a stretch, but it's an application and it's "default"
18:10:52 <roshi> I typically test it when doing the default applications work testcase
18:12:06 <Corey84-> dont use gnome as a default myself but can see the argument
18:12:22 <nirik> I don't think this is a blocker, but sure, FE. ;)
18:12:31 <kilted1> +1
18:13:06 <Corey84-> fe +1 here
18:13:16 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1123635 - AcceptedFreezeException - As GNOME Classic ships with all workstation installs it would be great to get a fix in for this.
18:13:33 <jzb> ack
18:13:36 <roshi> I could see arguing for this to be a blocker, honestly. Or get dropped from the default install
18:13:38 <kalev> ack
18:13:45 <adamw> roshi: no, i wouldn't go with that. for criteria purposes we've always considered Classic a separate desktop; for 1-2 releases we listed it as a release-blocking desktop.
18:13:55 <adamw> at present it's considered a non-release-blocking desktop.
18:14:07 <roshi> yeah
18:14:08 <kparal> it's not installed by default, is it?
18:14:11 <roshi> that's how I read it too
18:14:12 <adamw> i think the desktop team is aware of that, so flipping it at this point would be a goalpost change
18:14:16 * kparal lagged again
18:14:27 <roshi> for sure
18:14:36 <roshi> it is installed by default
18:14:50 <kparal> ack to +1 FE
18:15:05 <roshi> #agreed - 1123635 - AcceptedFreezeException - As GNOME Classic ships with all workstation installs it would be great to get a fix in for this.
18:15:06 <danofsatx-work> ack
18:15:24 <roshi> #topic (1167791) Contextual Help not visible on Sugar
18:15:24 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167791
18:15:24 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, sugar, ON_QA
18:15:48 <Corey84-> out of my realm again on this one
18:16:12 <roshi> +1, since they're all sugar only packages
18:16:23 <nirik> +1 sure, secondary non blocking desktop
18:17:00 <adamw> yeah, fix looks restricted, and it's a significant issue for sugar
18:17:02 <danofsatx-work> um, +1 (I think)
18:17:11 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1167791 - AcceptedFreezeException - Getting these fixes into Sugar would be considered during freeze.
18:17:27 * roshi read adamw s 'yeah' as +1
18:17:30 <danofsatx-work> ackish (don't like the wording, but can't repropose)
18:17:37 <adamw> +1
18:17:40 <nirik> ack
18:17:48 <adamw> ack
18:17:54 <roshi> you can repropose danofsatx-work
18:18:11 <roshi> though it has acks now
18:18:15 <danofsatx-work> I *may* repropose. I can't - my brain ain't working
18:18:22 <kparal> ack
18:18:23 <roshi> lol
18:18:24 <roshi> ok
18:18:32 <roshi> #agreed - 1167791 - AcceptedFreezeException - Getting these fixes into Sugar would be considered during freeze.
18:18:41 <roshi> #topic (1167511) HDMI output broken on Radeon with kernels 3.17.3 and 3.17.4
18:18:44 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167511
18:18:46 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, xorg-x11-drv-ati, NEW
18:18:48 <jzb> I have to head out for a bit.
18:18:53 <roshi> sounds good
18:18:58 <roshi> thanks for coming jzb :)
18:18:58 <danofsatx-work> +1
18:19:39 <roshi> how much does the change touch?
18:19:59 <Corey84-> +1
18:20:16 <roshi> I can't pretend to know what's going on in this kernel code, but it *looks* minimal
18:20:20 <adamw> roshi: it initializes some values to null so they can be freed properly if they're never set, it's like three lines
18:20:30 <roshi> yeah, looking at it now
18:20:30 <nirik> +1
18:20:38 <roshi> +1 from what I can tell
18:20:40 * satellit_e it is in gdm in workstation
18:21:05 * satellit_e oops
18:21:24 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1167511 - AcceptedFreezeException - Having HDMI work for radeon cards would be good to get fixed for GA.
18:21:28 <adamw> ack
18:21:38 <danofsatx-work> ack
18:21:45 <nirik> ack
18:21:51 <roshi> #agreed - 1167511 - AcceptedFreezeException - Having HDMI work for radeon cards would be good to get fixed for GA.
18:21:59 <Corey84-> ack
18:22:02 <roshi> that's it for proposed FEs
18:22:11 <roshi> onto checking the currently accepted blockers...
18:22:15 <roshi> there are 4
18:22:21 <roshi> #topic (1162215) partition resize does not check filesystem minimum size
18:22:24 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1162215
18:22:26 <roshi> #info Accepted Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED
18:22:29 <Corey84-> marathon mtg today lol
18:22:40 <roshi> yep - 3 hours of fun
18:22:50 <roshi> 4 if you go to the cloud meeting right after :)
18:23:03 <Corey84-> i will be lol
18:23:07 <kilted1> brb
18:23:19 <roshi> me too Corey84-
18:23:25 <Corey84-> came in late to this one sadly
18:23:28 <roshi> kparal: does that updates img work?
18:23:47 <kparal> a disclaimer: if I don't respond for too long, I'm lagging again
18:23:57 <Corey84-> kparal, k
18:24:08 <roshi> I mean, it's been 3 hours since the needinfo flag was set :p
18:24:09 <kparal> I couldn't test this one yet, it was reopened very recently
18:24:14 <Corey84-> kparal, got znc ?
18:24:41 <kparal> I'll verify today or tomorrow
18:25:02 <Corey84-> i can test on it later too
18:25:07 <roshi> sounds good
18:25:16 <roshi> nothing needed for this from this meeting :)
18:25:18 <roshi> next
18:25:28 <roshi> #topic (1166598) going back to installation destination picker swaps partitions on disks
18:25:31 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166598
18:25:33 <roshi> #info Accepted Blocker, anaconda, POST
18:26:08 <Corey84-> whats with the swap partition bugs today
18:26:21 <adamw> this isn't about swap partitions
18:26:26 <kparal> :)
18:26:27 <adamw> it's about the installer swapping partitions
18:26:35 <Corey84-> i meant swapping partitions lol
18:26:35 <roshi> bah, another cloned bug
18:26:42 <nirik> so this also has a updtes.img to test.
18:27:02 <kparal> vratislav was very active today, again, the patch was posted a few hours ago. will retest tomorrow
18:27:05 <roshi> good to see things moving
18:27:09 <roshi> yep
18:27:14 <adamw> kparal: is this the one where you said the updates.img was bad?
18:27:22 <roshi> nothing needed from us for this meeting
18:27:22 <kparal> adamw: no, we will come to it
18:27:26 <roshi> #topic (1165714) ValueError: new size will not yield an aligned partition
18:27:29 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165714
18:27:31 <roshi> #info Accepted Blocker, python-blivet, ASSIGNED
18:27:41 <kparal> this is the one
18:27:43 <adamw> ah, this one.
18:27:54 <nirik> are we likely to have any anaconda folks who can do builds for us tomorrow/friday?
18:28:05 <Corey84-> ^?
18:28:12 <kparal> oh, the holiday
18:28:15 <kparal> right
18:28:23 <kparal> good question
18:28:43 <kparal> we can definitely ask some of the czech anaconda developers
18:28:48 <Corey84-> its already coming up on turkey day on the far side of the planet lol
18:28:48 <kparal> vpodzime or mkolman
18:28:55 <nirik> ok, cool.
18:29:03 <nirik> so, this needs updates.img fixed most likely...
18:29:29 <kparal> or maybe it can be salvaged and repacked somehow, but I didn't have time to play with it
18:29:49 <kparal> I'm sure Vratislav will fix it tomorrow
18:30:01 <roshi> well, at least it's not being neglected
18:30:12 <adamw> ah, he hasn't posted the actual patch so we can't recreate it :(
18:30:26 <roshi> so we can move to the last accepted blocker, right?
18:30:32 <nirik> sure
18:30:40 <Corey84-> fine with that
18:30:51 <Corey84-> brb
18:31:04 <roshi> #topic (1130794) Missing high contrast icon
18:31:04 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1130794
18:31:04 <roshi> #info Accepted Blocker, setroubleshoot, ASSIGNED
18:31:30 <nirik> this is waiting for a build, which should be today/tomorrow?
18:31:43 <kparal> mgrepl said so
18:31:45 <roshi> I think?
18:31:57 <roshi> looks like it's good to go though
18:32:11 <roshi> anyone care to take a stroll through the accepted FEs?
18:32:12 <adamw> it should've been two freaking days ago
18:32:17 <kparal> not sure what comment 14 means
18:32:36 <adamw> sometimes i wonder if we need to install a large remote-controlled 2x4 next to the desk of each developer who maintains a package with release blocking bugs...
18:32:53 <nirik> kparal: I wonder if it was a miscomment... there was a themes bug recently.
18:32:54 <roshi> haha
18:33:01 <kparal> 2x4?
18:33:19 <nirik> adamw: just a bunch of drones that hover and look at them until they do the build. ;)
18:33:23 <adamw> adding some icons to a package, rebuilding it and submitting an update takes 15 minutes. it's a release blocking bug. there's no good reason why this wasn't done on 11-25 at the latest. sigh.
18:33:44 <kparal> adamw: the reason was rhel, according to mgrepl
18:33:45 <adamw> yeah, I think you're right about c#14
18:33:51 <adamw> there's two bugs with the same title
18:33:58 <adamw> RHEL, pfah, who cares about rhel. :P
18:35:10 <nirik> anyhow...
18:35:24 <roshi> kparal: 2x4 is a measure of a board
18:35:25 <nirik> do we want to look at accepted FE's, or just end and go get lunch? ;)
18:35:34 <roshi> easy to swing and sturdy :p
18:35:44 <kparal> roshi: oh, good to know
18:36:00 <roshi> 2" by 4"
18:36:21 <kparal> we have a whip in our office
18:36:25 <kparal> if that helps
18:36:40 <roshi> haha
18:36:59 <roshi> I'm fine with calling the meeting
18:37:09 <roshi> any opposed?
18:37:14 <kparal> no
18:37:20 <roshi> #topic Open Floor
18:37:24 <roshi> while people think it over
18:37:27 <roshi> :)
18:37:46 <kparal> still no
18:37:53 <roshi> lol
18:37:57 * roshi sets the fuse
18:38:00 <roshi> 3...
18:38:07 <kilted1> what do I need to do to fix whitesboard access
18:38:09 <Corey84-> if i dont reply on return ping me im going afk for a few
18:38:20 <roshi> we got to get you in the right fas group I think kilted1
18:38:32 <roshi> sounds good Corey84-
18:38:35 <roshi> 2...
18:38:55 <Corey84-> some friends in a mint forum having mbp issues lol
18:40:14 <roshi> adamw: could you sponsor kilted1 into fedorabugs?
18:40:21 * roshi can't sponsor people into it
18:41:52 <adamw> oh, sure.
18:42:03 <adamw> he should have it if he's in fedoraqa though?
18:42:10 <roshi> I think?
18:42:37 <kilted1> adamw: I may not be offically in the group
18:42:48 * roshi sponsors you into it
18:42:51 <roshi> I can do that
18:43:08 <kilted1> I have been a lurker and am ramping up my participation
18:43:12 <roshi> kilted1 is your fas id, right?
18:43:15 <kilted1> yes
18:44:09 <adamw> it would be best to put him in qa i think
18:44:23 <roshi> I did
18:44:37 <roshi> how long until it propagates to the other groups?
18:45:07 <roshi> 1...
18:45:15 <roshi> (yay for the longest minute!)
18:45:17 <adamw> he shows up in fedorabugs now.
18:45:49 <adamw> ssuehle? any relation to the famous suehle? :P
18:46:22 <roshi> I think so :)
18:46:33 <kilted1> yes, I am the other half
18:46:59 <kilted1> you can curse me for the hard to pronounce last name
18:47:24 <roshi> pronounced, "sool"?
18:48:34 <kilted1> sealy
18:48:50 <roshi> ah, that was my next guess
18:48:53 <kilted1> "see-lee"
18:49:06 * kilted1 nods
18:49:22 <roshi> well thanks for coming folks!
18:49:26 <roshi> #endmeeting