16:00:41 <adamw> #startmeeting F22-blocker-review
16:00:41 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu May 14 16:00:41 2015 UTC.  The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:41 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:41 <adamw> #meetingname F22-blocker-review
16:00:41 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f22-blocker-review'
16:00:41 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
16:00:51 <adamw> morning folks, who's around to do some special blocker/FE review?
16:00:56 * kparal is here
16:01:05 * kalev is here
16:01:07 * satellit listening
16:01:18 * mcatanzaro present for the GNOME stuff
16:01:33 <kparal> kalev: mcatanzaro: how much time do you have, should we try to prioritize gnome 3.16.2 discussion?
16:01:39 * rdieter lurks
16:01:43 * nirik is lurking if he can assist any.
16:01:54 <mcatanzaro> kparal: I'm in no rush
16:02:08 <kalev> me neither, but if you want to do 3.16.2 first, I don't mind :)
16:02:13 <sgallagh> I'm around; I've commented on most of the blockers
16:02:21 * tflink is around
16:04:14 * danofsatx is here
16:04:37 <adamw> #chair tflink danofsatx
16:04:37 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw danofsatx tflink
16:04:45 <adamw> #topic Introduction
16:04:46 <adamw> Why are we here?
16:04:46 <adamw> #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.
16:04:46 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:04:47 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:04:47 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:04:49 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:04:51 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:04:53 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Alpha_Release_Criteria
16:04:57 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:04:59 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Final_Release_Criteria
16:05:14 <adamw> #info 7 Proposed Blockers
16:05:14 <adamw> #info 5 Accepted Blockers
16:05:15 <adamw> #info 12 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:05:15 <adamw> #info 12 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
16:05:25 <adamw> who wants to be secretary?
16:05:49 <danofsatx> I can't today, sorry
16:05:53 * tflink can
16:05:54 <kparal> if there no other highly motivated volunteers, I'll take it
16:06:17 <sgallagh> tflink and kparal: FIGHT
16:06:35 <kparal> tflink: you complete taskotron in the next 3 hours, I'll do the secretary stuff
16:06:38 <tflink> about who does it or who doesn't? :-D
16:06:46 <tflink> kparal: that sounds like a crappy deal for me
16:06:53 <adamw> i think it sounds like a great plan
16:07:08 <adamw> we'll expect on-the-half-hour status reports
16:07:14 * danofsatx grabs some popcorn
16:07:17 <adamw> #info kparal will secretarialize
16:07:20 * tflink starts changing planning documents to make taskotron "done"
16:07:58 <adamw> OK,  we should have time to cover everything, so if no-one's in a huge hurry we'll just go in the regular order, blockers then FE. expect the big GNOME/KDE FEs to come up in an hour or so.
16:08:10 <adamw> #topic (1220497) Missing Fedora KSplash theme
16:08:10 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220497
16:08:10 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, f22-kde-theme, MODIFIED
16:08:20 <adamw> -1 blocker, +1 FE for me
16:08:36 <adamw> we don't require a Fedora bootsplash theme, but it'd be nice to have one.
16:08:57 <kalev> I concur, -1 blocker, +1 FE
16:09:06 <sgallagh> agreed
16:09:11 <danofsatx> while adamw and I agree to disagree on the wording/intent of the release criteria, I am solidly +1 blocker. but I appear to be the only one.
16:09:44 <tflink> -1/+1
16:10:11 <kparal> -1/+1
16:11:01 <adamw> i claim superior knowledge of the intent of the criterion on the basis that i wrote the durn thing. :P
16:11:37 <sgallagh> danofsatx: Are you "mansplaining" to the author of the criterion? For shame.
16:11:40 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1220497 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - we don't actually require a Fedora splash theme, but it sure would look nicer to include one if we have it, and can't be fixed for lives post-release
16:12:01 <danofsatx> ack
16:12:04 <kalev> ack
16:12:07 <sgallagh> ack
16:12:14 <kparal> which reminds me of this awesome picture: http://www.rouming.cz/upload/game_developers_these_days.jpg
16:12:19 <kparal> danofsatx: ^^
16:12:35 <kparal> ack
16:12:47 * danofsatx sees no picture
16:12:55 <kalev> Stránka nenalezena!
16:13:03 <kparal> interesting, it was there a minute ago :)
16:13:28 <mcatanzaro> Failed to load resource: the server responded with a status of 404 (Not Found) http://www.rouming.cz/upload/style/rouming.css
16:13:36 * jreznik is here, sorry for being a bit late
16:13:42 * kparal will find a new link
16:13:59 <sgallagh> moving on...
16:14:02 <tflink> ack
16:14:11 <adamw> #agreed 1220497 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - we don't actually require a Fedora splash theme, but it sure would look nicer to include one if we have it, and can't be fixed for lives post-release
16:14:22 <adamw> sorry, i'm trying to debug fwraid issues at the same time as running the meeting...
16:14:26 <kparal> there: http://archiv.roumen.cz/a/game_developers_these_days.jpg
16:14:28 <adamw> #topic (1218787) gdm-wayland-session fails to present login screen after successful installation
16:14:28 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218787
16:14:28 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gdm, NEW
16:14:42 <gbcox> listening
16:14:44 <tflink> kparal: that's awesome
16:14:47 <kparal> :)
16:14:50 <mcatanzaro> so true
16:15:04 <adamw> on an entirely unrelated note, is the Kparal Isolation Unit ready for release week yet?
16:15:17 <mcatanzaro> :D
16:15:26 <sgallagh> adamw: The sub is fueled and ready for descent
16:15:26 <adamw> (graphics: "SOMEWHERE IN DEEPEST ANTARCTICA")
16:15:35 <kparal> am I supposed to be isolating bugs or bug reporters?
16:15:40 <jreznik> adamw: kidnapping plans are being finished
16:15:48 <adamw> eeeeeeeexcellent
16:15:56 <adamw> kparal: sure, that's what we meant.
16:16:18 <adamw> ah, this one
16:16:31 <adamw> has anyone tried on any other multi-GPU system?
16:16:45 <adamw> i'd be worried if we had a reproducer on different hardware
16:16:56 * tflink doesn't have one to test on
16:17:13 <sgallagh> Oof, I was going to test that this morning and forgot.
16:17:26 <jreznik> would be just switch from sddm to gdm enough?
16:17:34 * jreznik is fireing his dual gpu machine
16:17:35 <sgallagh> Can we circle around back to this one while I do so?
16:18:07 <danofsatx> +1 circle
16:18:17 <jreznik> or ellipse
16:18:25 <kalev> spiral!?
16:19:37 <adamw> jreznik: so long as you have the default gdm config, i think, yeah
16:19:55 <adamw> #info we will come back to this one after people do a bit of in-meeting testing
16:20:09 <adamw> #topic (1220823) add Obsoletes for retired kde4-only plasmoid pkgs
16:20:10 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220823
16:20:10 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, kde-workspace, MODIFIED
16:20:44 <adamw> so sgallagh bumped this one to blocker
16:20:55 <kalev> I am not sure it needs to be a blocker, since it can be fixed by a 0 day update
16:20:58 <adamw> fedup uses updates repos (usually) so i don't think it really needs to be one
16:21:05 * kalev nods.
16:21:13 <adamw> the only case where you'd be stuck would be if you somehow forced an upgrade without the updates repo enabled
16:21:14 <jreznik> and these are very rare plasmoids
16:21:33 <adamw> so...eh, i'm definitely -1 blocker, kinda wavering on FE
16:21:39 <adamw> the benefit of the freeze break seems minimal
16:21:50 <jreznik> -1 blocker
16:22:00 <kalev> might help test the upgrade path while we are freeze
16:22:08 <adamw> yeah, though we can always tell 'em to enable u-t
16:22:12 <kalev> -1 blocker, +1 FE here
16:22:24 <danofsatx> -1/+1
16:22:28 <adamw> as jreznik said these are pretty rare packages (though that means breaking them is no big deal either, i guess)
16:23:39 <adamw> any other votes?
16:23:40 * jreznik did his homework and already killed that more frequent plasmoids not yet ported to plasma 5
16:24:10 <kparal> I'd like to mark these kind of bugs as blockers as well, just with a note that it is not a compose blocker (but a 0-day update blocker). in this case, it doesn't look that serious, though, so -1/+1
16:25:17 <tflink> -1/+0
16:25:29 * adamw kinda reluctant to expand the 'special blocker' policy as we suck at actually achieving it and have no way to enforce it:/
16:25:30 <jreznik> for FE, I'm 0 too
16:25:39 <adamw> ok, looks like a weak +1
16:26:44 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1220823 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - this doesn't need to be a blocker as fedup uses the repos from the to-be-upgraded release, meaning packages from updates are almost always included, therefore this kind of issue can be fixed with a post-release update. However, accepted as an FE to help people test between now and release
16:26:58 <jreznik> ack
16:27:00 <kalev> ack
16:27:08 <kparal> ack
16:28:05 <danofsatx> uh, ack? I think?
16:29:53 <adamw> #agreed 1220823 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - this doesn't need to be a blocker as fedup uses the repos from the to-be-upgraded release, meaning packages from updates are almost always included, therefore this kind of issue can be fixed with a post-release update. However, accepted as an FE to help people test between now and release
16:30:00 <adamw> #topic (1220950) FSError: mount failed: 32
16:30:00 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220950
16:30:00 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, kernel, NEW
16:30:22 <adamw> so I proposed this one, but it's looking like something specific to my configuration (though we haven't figured out what yet) - sgallagh and tflink both had successful iSCSI installs
16:30:25 <adamw> so i'm -1 at this point
16:30:40 <danofsatx> not familiar with this one...
16:30:52 <kparal> -1
16:30:54 <danofsatx> oh, the iSCSI one, ok...
16:30:54 <tflink> -1, could change if there are more reproducers
16:31:03 <sgallagh> -1 as I noted in the bz
16:31:41 <danofsatx> -1
16:31:42 <kalev> -1
16:31:51 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1220950 - RejectedBlocker - so far this appears to be some kind of configuration-specific issue and may be caused by the NAS, other iSCSI tests have been successful
16:32:13 <danofsatx> ack
16:32:26 <kparal> ack
16:32:28 <kalev> ack
16:32:37 <sgallagh> ack
16:33:07 <adamw> #agreed 1220950 - RejectedBlocker - so far this appears to be some kind of configuration-specific issue and may be caused by the NAS, other iSCSI tests have been successful
16:33:14 <adamw> #topic (1218700) Plasma 5 menu icon is KDE logo, should be Fedora logo
16:33:14 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218700
16:33:14 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, plasma-desktop, MODIFIED
16:33:40 <adamw> -1/+1, as per the ksplash one, i guess
16:33:52 <adamw> (though seems like there's a bit of uncertainty about what we actually want the art to be)
16:33:54 * danofsatx abstains
16:34:20 <jreznik> -1/+1
16:34:33 <kalev> -1 blocker, +1 FE
16:34:50 <tflink> -1/+1
16:34:53 <kparal> -1/+1
16:35:16 * satellit_e -1/+1
16:35:31 * jreznik is guilty of these small theming issues, he was usually working on it... but in the end we just reused the previous release theming instead of creating new one but with plasma 5, all fedora specific has to be recreated...
16:36:59 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1218700 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - we don't actually require a Fedora kicker theme, but it sure would look nicer to include one if we have it, and can't be fixed for lives post-release
16:37:26 <kalev> ack
16:37:37 <kparal> kicker theme?
16:37:38 * satellit_e do other DE's use fedora kicker?
16:38:14 <rdieter> satellit_e: no (it's plasma specific)
16:38:24 <satellit_e> k
16:38:30 <adamw> 'kicker' is the name for the KDE launcher button thingy, aiui
16:38:51 <satellit_e> yes that is why I asked
16:39:11 <kparal> adamw: thanks
16:39:12 <tflink> ack
16:39:14 <danofsatx> ack
16:39:17 <kparal> ack
16:39:32 <sgallagh> ack
16:39:36 <adamw> #agreed 1218700 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - we don't actually require a Fedora kicker theme, but it sure would look nicer to include one if we have it, and can't be fixed for lives post-release
16:39:44 <adamw> #topic (1181308) SELinux is preventing /usr/sbin/rngd from 'execmod' accesses on the file /usr/sbin/rngd.
16:39:45 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181308
16:39:45 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy, ASSIGNED
16:39:49 <adamw> oh damn, i meant to test this one
16:39:56 <adamw> seems like it might be i686-specific or something
16:40:16 <adamw> so to give some background, we had https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200161 on the acceptedblocker list for a long time
16:40:29 <adamw> that was a report of two different AVCs, one of which got fixed, the other of which looks like a dupe of this
16:40:45 <adamw> we didn't get many other reports of this one, so i figured it made sense to transfer the nomination to the dupe and re-discuss it
16:42:48 * adamw downloads an i686 ISO, but it ain't going fast
16:43:13 <sgallagh> adamw: Try http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora-alt/stage/
16:43:27 <sgallagh> /me just switched over to it with excellent results
16:44:50 <danofsatx> move on while we wait?
16:46:17 <adamw> i guess
16:46:23 <adamw> #info we will come back to this after a bit of testing
16:46:30 <adamw> #topic (1219986) [abrt] evolution: WebCore::FrameView::removeChild(): evolution killed by SIGSEGV
16:46:30 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219986
16:46:30 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, webkitgtk3, NEW
16:46:46 <adamw> sgallagh couldn't reproduce this and it didn't hit me in a second test, so looks like something unpredictable
16:47:07 <adamw> i can be -1 for now, can always repropose if i come up with a clear reproducer
16:47:15 <sgallagh> Same here. -1
16:47:24 <kalev> -1
16:47:27 <danofsatx> -1
16:49:01 <kparal> -1
16:49:34 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1219986 - RejectedBlocker - this does not appear to be reproducible at present, adam will re-propose if he finds a clear reproducer
16:49:34 <tflink> -1
16:49:37 <tflink> ack
16:49:47 <danofsatx> ack
16:49:48 <kparal> ack
16:50:20 <sgallagh> ack
16:50:36 * jreznik is filling byro blocker proposals right now
16:50:49 <sgallagh> byro?
16:51:23 <kparal> I believe he means bureaucracy or whatever the spelling is
16:52:16 <adamw> #agreed 1219986 - RejectedBlocker - this does not appear to be reproducible at present, adam will re-propose if he finds a clear reproducer
16:52:42 <adamw> OK, as we need to get through them, we're gonna move onto proposed FE (not accepted blocker) next
16:52:58 <adamw> i'll kick the two big ones to the top of the running order
16:53:09 <adamw> #info moving onto proposed freeze exceptions
16:53:09 <adamw> #topic (1221384) Include GNOME 3.16.2 in Fedora 22
16:53:10 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221384
16:53:10 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, distribution, MODIFIED
16:53:38 <adamw> so, i've gotta say i think sgallagh makes a strong case. it might be good to know if there's anything fixed by 3.16.2 which is really significant to users of F22 live images
16:54:04 <mcatanzaro> adamw: symbolic icons
16:54:14 <adamw> what about 'em?
16:54:24 <kparal> I think the question is whether we ask for a new TC today. if we do, we could test it and revert if needed
16:54:31 <mcatanzaro> We are going to get bad reviews if we don't get the symbolic icons out in time. We can do them without 3.16.2 but it will be more work.
16:54:43 <kalev> can I try and explain my case in a few sentences?
16:54:45 <kparal> mcatanzaro: the few apps with new symbolic icons could be pushed individually as FEs
16:54:59 <kparal> kalev: please do
16:55:11 <kalev> ok, so first of all, I am a bit torn myself too :)
16:55:19 <danofsatx> -1
16:55:26 <kalev> it's a big update, considering the number of packages involved
16:55:50 <kalev> and it can be scary to pull in a large number of changed packages
16:56:07 <kalev> at the same time, we haven't yet started the RC / TC validation, as in none have been made after entering the freeze
16:56:14 <kalev> so things need validating anyway
16:56:26 <jreznik> mcatanzaro: are symbolic icons default icons? I guess these are only accessibility icons
16:56:32 <kalev> and we've got the big gnome update in the works that is strictly bug fix / translation update only
16:56:44 <kalev> so what I was thinking was that it might make sense to piggyback on the validation testing here
16:56:53 <mcatanzaro> jreznik: No, they are displayed to all users in the app menu in F22. It looks really bad when some apps lack symbolics.
16:57:00 <kalev> and instead of going through all the test cases on the old gnome version, try and do the same with the new one
16:57:23 <mcatanzaro> The color icon gets shrunken down to a size that only looks good for scalable monochrome icons.
16:57:23 <adamw> kparal: i'm planning to request a new TC after this meeting, but there's always the possibility of less-obvious issues we don't detect immediately
16:57:24 <jreznik> mcatanzaro: ok, I'm not that familiar with gnome
16:57:30 <kalev> as for what's in the update, there's 3 classes of things fixed:
16:57:46 <kalev> 1) lots of translation updates - I'd say 3/4 of the packages have only translations updated and no code changes
16:57:56 <adamw> kalev: i already did a large chunk of the validation testing on TC3, almost all of it
16:57:57 <kparal> mcatanzaro: I think you're mildly overreacting :) people usually don't even notice whether there is a colorful icon or a grayscale one
16:57:59 <adamw> (and it passed)
16:58:14 <kalev> most of these could be applied as a 0 day update, but it would be a bit of a churn
16:58:20 <kalev> 2) there's the symbolic icons
16:58:46 <kalev> gnome-shell in 3.16 changed the style of icons shown in the top bar
16:59:03 <kalev> and they are all monochrome now; for apps to look nice and integrated they need the new, so-called "symbolic" icons
16:59:16 <kalev> 3) bug fixes
16:59:28 <kalev> it's the last of the 3.16.x releases and thus the code changes here are pretty minimal
16:59:36 <kalev> basically just issues discovered during F22 beta testing
16:59:46 <jreznik> kalev: heh, seems like everyone these days is moving to monochrome symbolic icons :)
16:59:55 <kalev> so in conclusion, I think it's a gut call - there can definitely be some regressions
17:00:16 <tflink> kalev: is there a list of the translation issues fixed?
17:00:21 <kalev> but I personally am a little bit leaning towards trying to include the 3.16.2 update, so that it gets proper testing
17:00:21 <kparal> jreznik: it's the new hotness - oh, wait, that name is already taken by infra
17:00:31 <kalev> tflink: no, but I could compile a list I guess
17:00:49 <mcatanzaro> tflink: I wouldn't call them "issues" -- it's normal that some translations lag behind
17:00:49 <kalev> also, I'll note that we have a team of hackers in house who knows pretty much all of the code
17:01:00 <sgallagh> I'd prefer that we deal with individual bug-fixes if any of them are blocker/FE worthy. I'm not hearing anything that changes my mind on a blanket approval of this megaupdate.
17:01:01 <kalev> and I'm confident issues could be fixed timely
17:01:06 <tflink> that's the bit of this that could make me more +1 - if the translations on the workstation live were decently impacted
17:01:14 <jreznik> I'm more inclined to include it in final as it's better to found big regressions before release than as 0 day updates
17:01:16 <kalev> but that means that it needs testing _early_ so that we discover the issues and have a day or two to fix them :)
17:01:17 <mcatanzaro> My primary concern is the icons. It's pretty noticeable when half our apps have one style of icon, and the other a completely different style. That's not something that would happen in a serious OS. Upstream screwed up by making this change too late and not getting icons finished in time
17:01:33 <kparal> kalev: do you know about some really important bug fixes that are included?
17:01:35 <sgallagh> kalev: How quickly is "timely"? We would need any bugs fixed by no later than Tuesday to have any hope of shipping on time
17:01:37 <kalev> so what I'd propose is that if, and only if there's going to be a TC today
17:01:43 <sgallagh> The risk of regression makes me concerned.
17:01:46 <kalev> then include 3.16.2 in there, so that it gets maximum testing
17:02:08 <kalev> if there's no TC this week and there's only one next week, then leave it out - no time for us to fix any possible fallout
17:02:11 <kalev> EOF :)
17:02:13 <mcatanzaro> Most apps have updated translations, but there's not some horrible problem with translations without this update. It's just routine that translations are constantly updated.
17:02:39 <kparal> we'd also some people some 0-day bandwidth
17:02:41 <kalev> sgallagh: sure, before Tuesday sounds reasonable
17:02:44 <kparal> *save
17:02:56 <sgallagh> side-note: I can't get my dual-gpu system to install off the TC3 live. I'm hitting a blivet bug that crashes anaconda.
17:03:02 <mcatanzaro> FWIW I've been running this megaupdate for a day or two now. I caught a problem in WebKit which we pulled, but WebKit is always the riskiest update.
17:03:09 <jreznik> kalev: yep, if we will have TC today, let's do it - lower chance to screw anything than in 0 day update
17:03:26 <kalev> also, kparal found 3 bugs in the gnome-software stack earlier
17:03:35 <kalev> and 2 of those were already fixed in this update :)
17:04:06 <kparal> one of that is also proposed as an individual FE, fwiw
17:04:10 <kparal> *them
17:04:12 <kalev> ahh, right
17:05:01 <kparal> I'm mildly inclined to try to include it in TC4, without actually pushing stable, and see what happens
17:05:08 * adamw goes for a call of nature, keep on discussing :)
17:05:19 <jreznik> yep, I'm +1 FE
17:05:59 <kparal> but if people are -1 in general, I won't be offended either
17:06:33 * tflink is +1 to kparal's proposal
17:06:37 <jreznik> kparal: I feel people tend to be more +1 FE from reading the discussion
17:07:20 <sgallagh> I'm still a weak -1. I *really* don't like letting in mass-changes during Freeze.
17:07:57 <jreznik> sgallagh: but it's better than having huge 0 day update with something like default desktop...
17:08:41 <adamw> that's a reasonable point, people do tend to complain about big 0-day updates
17:08:43 <sgallagh> If we hadn't slipped Beta by a week, we wouldn't even be discussing htis
17:08:44 * adamw is kinda on the fence
17:08:49 <jreznik> and in worst case it's better to slip now than broke freshly installed system (but I don't think there could be such issue with point release)
17:10:24 * kalev is deferring from voting.
17:11:07 <adamw> ok, seems like we discussed it to death - can people please re-vote now for clarity?
17:11:12 <adamw> the votes are kinda buried and i don't want to miscount
17:11:19 <jreznik> +1 FE (with kparal's proposal)
17:11:37 <jreznik> kalev: well, vote - from you, it's something we should stick with :)
17:11:59 <nirik> +1 FE
17:11:59 * kparal more to +1, don't push stable yet
17:12:00 <kalev> jreznik: ok, +1 FE in that case
17:12:01 <tflink> +1 for kparal's proposal
17:12:04 <danofsatx> -1
17:12:24 <tflink> to be more specific: +1 to including it in next TC but not pushing stable yet
17:12:33 <jreznik> yep
17:12:36 <kparal> if we don't push it stable, we can revert it in the next TC if needed
17:12:36 <kalev> yep
17:12:39 <sgallagh> I'll change my vote to +1 if we declare the slip this will cause pre-emptively.
17:12:59 <sgallagh> Past experience has shown that it's impossible to make a change this big without consequences.
17:13:24 <sgallagh> Otherwise, I'm sticking with -1
17:13:24 <adamw> i think that's excessively pessimistic, we've done post-freeze GNOME updates without causing a slip before.
17:13:59 <adamw> i certainly agree with your argument that this on balance increases the chance of unknown problems, but it doesn't make it a *certainty*.
17:14:11 <jreznik> adamw: yep, we did it several times
17:14:25 <adamw> so far we have +5 / -2 (counting sgallagh as -1)
17:14:32 <sgallagh> /me nods
17:14:37 <adamw> any other votes?
17:14:46 <sgallagh> I'm outvoted, but I'm reserving an "I told you so" for next week ;-)
17:14:59 * danofsatx is sticking with sgallagh
17:15:02 <nirik> sgallagh: thats old, use "I informed you thusly"
17:15:28 <sgallagh> Verily, I did thus spake
17:15:28 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1221384 - AcceptedFreezeException - this fixes some visible issues on the live image (symbolic icons and translations, mainly) and we would prefer to try and land it in the final images over having a large 0-day update
17:15:37 <sgallagh> ack
17:15:47 <adamw> #info sgallagh's account is credited to the tune of one "I told you so"
17:16:04 <kparal> ack
17:16:12 <tflink> adamw: does that mean push the updates stable now?
17:16:23 <adamw> ah, good point
17:16:32 <adamw> i personally agree with the idea of holding the stable push pending tc4 testing
17:16:46 <jreznik> so patch
17:16:47 <kalev> I have deliberately set the karma threshold to 7 too
17:16:51 <tflink> I would almost say punt, then. include it in TC4 but keep the FE voting for monday
17:16:56 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1221384 - AcceptedFreezeException - this fixes some visible issues on the live image (symbolic icons and translations, mainly) and we would prefer to try and land it in the final images over having a large 0-day update. The update will not be pushed stable unless TC4 desktop validation succeeds
17:17:05 <jreznik> ack
17:17:06 <adamw> tflink: it has to be an accepted FE to be included in TC4.
17:17:18 <kalev> ack
17:17:26 <tflink> fair enough. I'm less worried about the formalities than the result :)
17:17:26 <tflink> ack
17:17:33 <danofsatx> axe
17:17:59 <kalev> ...
17:18:38 <adamw> agreed 1221384 - AcceptedFreezeException - this fixes some visible issues on the live image (symbolic icons and translations, mainly) and we would prefer to try and land it in the final images over having a large 0-day update. The update will not be pushed stable unless TC4 desktop validation succeeds
17:18:39 <adamw> grr.
17:18:41 <adamw> #agreed 1221384 - AcceptedFreezeException - this fixes some visible issues on the live image (symbolic icons and translations, mainly) and we would prefer to try and land it in the final images over having a large 0-day update. The update will not be pushed stable unless TC4 desktop validation succeeds
17:19:07 <kalev> I have a quick followup question
17:19:10 <adamw> sure
17:19:33 <kalev> fmuellner just said that he put out a new gnome-shell stack release too, which wasn't originally part of the megaupdate
17:19:44 <mcatanzaro> https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-shell/log/?h=gnome-3-16
17:19:51 <kalev> and it's gotten no testing so far from me / adamw / mclasen / mcatanzaro
17:19:55 <mcatanzaro> https://git.gnome.org/browse/mutter/log/?h=gnome-3-16
17:20:04 <kalev> but might be good to include that too, should I edit the megaupdate to add this?
17:20:13 <kalev> or put it in a separate update?
17:21:14 <kparal> if we're going to take it, I'd say put it in the megaupdate to make it easier
17:21:33 <kparal> but if it is completely untested, maybe we should just avoid it
17:21:33 * adamw goes ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
17:21:42 <adamw> the fixes look like...fixes...
17:22:00 <mcatanzaro> Stable releases are always just fixes
17:22:41 <adamw> yeah, i know, i'm just saying it's hard to see an obvious call either way. maybe be safe and not include it, i don't see any symbolic icon stuff and only two updated translations
17:22:53 <mcatanzaro> We shouldn't be pushing these changes so late, but the schedule just worked out so badly :(
17:23:13 <jreznik> can we try smoke compose just to see how it looks like before it's in TC? we did it this way several times
17:24:08 <adamw> well, sure, i can churn out live images like there's no tomorrow. but they still have to be tested, and there's a lot of subtlety to shell behaviour, i guess
17:24:08 <kparal> I think there's no time for that. if we do it, let's do it with TC right away
17:24:45 <jreznik> it's more sanity testing in style - it composes, it boots, nothing more but yeah, TC seems to be easier
17:25:52 <kalev> OK, proposal:
17:25:58 <kalev> I'll go give it a quick spin on two machines
17:26:04 <kalev> and maybe mcatanzaro can do that too
17:26:14 <kalev> when that's done and everything looks good, I'll go look in bodhi
17:26:31 <jreznik> kalev: sounds good to me
17:26:33 <kalev> if releng has already started a push, I won't edit the megaupdate - it always blows up if we edit it during a push
17:26:47 <kalev> and put it in separately in that case
17:27:01 <kalev> and communicate the result to adamw who can then decide whether to take gnome-shell too or not :)
17:27:21 <adamw> ok, sure. let's move on
17:27:23 <adamw> #topic (1211015) Saved session does NOT appear the same at kde restart
17:27:24 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1211015
17:27:24 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, kf5-kxmlgui, ON_QA
17:27:24 <kparal> if it something blows up, let's blame adamw. deal
17:27:27 <kalev> ok, thanks
17:27:38 * adamw will be on vacation and doesn't care, so blame me all ya like!
17:28:05 <kparal> that's actually a good strategy
17:28:33 <adamw> so this is a similar KDE situation, i guess
17:28:52 <adamw> rdieter: around?
17:29:33 <adamw> i'm not sure how big the update really is
17:29:52 <adamw> the specific bug proposed as an FE doesn't feel like an awesome candidate to me, since i think people rarely use session management in lives
17:31:07 <jreznik> it's just another big update of core desktop
17:31:17 * jreznik is updating it right now
17:31:32 <sgallagh> /me suspects you know where he stands on this
17:31:56 <jreznik> :)
17:32:13 <kparal> jreznik: can you tell us how big this update is feature-wise? are those just small bugfixes, or even larger changes?
17:32:24 <jreznik> kparal: let me take a look
17:32:33 <adamw> based on this specific bug I'm -1, but it'd be good to have an idea if it fixes anything else that might be significant to lives.
17:33:02 <jreznik> kparal: https://www.kde.org/announcements/kde-frameworks-5.10.0.php
17:33:41 * danofsatx has to go hack a Buffalo Terastation, will return soon a victor
17:34:13 <jreznik> it has some new features but library wise
17:34:50 <kparal> yeah, new features are included
17:35:20 <jreznik> kparal: but in library, not user visible (unless it regress anything)
17:36:01 <jreznik> I really don't need this one in final, it would be nice but not the must
17:37:47 <kparal> for the purpose of the proposed FE, I think the answer is -1, because the bug hasn't been fixed anyway
17:38:02 <tflink> yeah, based on the specific bug, -1 as well
17:38:20 <kparal> kde maintainers could propose the whole kde megaupdate as FE, but we would need to hear some guarantees that the changes are very limited
17:38:27 <kparal> similarly to gnome situation
17:38:29 <jreznik> kparal: I agree
17:38:51 <kparal> if there's no one to vouch for that, let's just vote based on the original FE proposal and go on
17:38:52 <jreznik> but if we miss today's compose, I'm not sure it makes much sense
17:38:59 <kparal> yeah, I know
17:39:10 <kparal> but we need something to base our decision on
17:39:16 <adamw> and we did ping rdieter...
17:39:20 <jreznik> or we could consider it as megaupdate?
17:39:31 <adamw> i'm still -1 for that, since we have no apparent reason to include it
17:39:34 <kparal> we can come back to it if rdieter responds before the meeting is over
17:39:40 <jreznik> and Dan seems to be away already
17:39:45 <adamw> k, but for now i'm gonna go with -1.
17:39:48 <jreznik> -1
17:40:00 <kparal> -1 for this particular request
17:40:16 <kparal> comment 4
17:40:58 <sgallagh> -1 as noted in the BZ
17:41:05 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1211015 - RejectedFreezeException - in terms of this specific bug, session management is not commonly used on live images, as there is only one user and use is not usually long-term and persistence is rarely used these days. No other rationale for including this update was provided, but we will consider one if it is submitted soon
17:41:12 <jreznik> kparal: with comment 4 you mean it's blocker? :)
17:41:27 <jreznik> adamw: ack
17:41:39 <sgallagh> jreznik: I would argue that the blocker criterion cited doesn't apply to session save
17:41:59 <sgallagh> It's more "I can use this desktop to launch graphical applications and manage windows", IMHO
17:42:24 <kparal> ack
17:42:31 <tflink> ack
17:42:35 <adamw> yeah, session management is not in the criteria. (it hasn't worked properly in GNOME for years...)
17:42:37 <jreznik> sgallagh: but as it's written there, basic panel is blocker and should work
17:42:45 <adamw> #agreed 1211015 - RejectedFreezeException - in terms of this specific bug, session management is not commonly used on live images, as there is only one user and use is not usually long-term and persistence is rarely used these days. No other rationale for including this update was provided, but we will consider one if it is submitted soon
17:43:09 <adamw> OK, going back through the rest of the list in order
17:43:10 <adamw> #topic (1220896) Include Cockpit advertising banner in Fedora Server installer
17:43:10 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220896
17:43:10 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, fedora-productimg-server, NEW
17:43:18 <adamw> +1, sure, seems simple enough
17:43:27 <kalev> +1
17:43:37 <jreznik> +1
17:44:24 <kparal> +1
17:45:14 <sgallagh> +1
17:45:43 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1220896 - AcceptedFreezeException - this would improve the Server user experience and cannot be fixed with an update
17:46:48 <kalev> ack
17:47:02 <sgallagh> ack
17:47:11 <kparal> ack
17:47:31 <danofsatx> ack
17:47:41 <danofsatx> and +1, fwiw
17:48:16 <tflink> +1 and ack
17:48:21 <adamw> #agreed 1220896 - AcceptedFreezeException - this would improve the Server user experience and cannot be fixed with an update
17:48:28 <adamw> #topic (1211948) Help with packagekit api
17:48:29 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1211948
17:48:29 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-software, MODIFIED
17:48:40 <kalev> skip this, it's included in 3.16.2
17:49:12 <adamw> ok
17:49:35 <kalev> if the 3.16.2 megaupdate should blow up in any way, we can revisit this one and maybe pull in the gnome-software update separately
17:49:54 <kalev> but now that we're taking the whole of 3.16.2, the fix for this is included too
17:50:27 <adamw> #info The fix for this bug is included in the 3.16.2 'megaupdate' that has already been granted FE status as a whole, so we do not currently need to vote on this one
17:50:34 <adamw> #topic (1221158) Offline update failure
17:50:35 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221158
17:50:35 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-software, MODIFIED
17:50:53 <kalev> this is another gnome-software bug, but fixed in a low level library instead
17:51:12 <kparal> kalev: also part of the megaupdate, right?
17:51:12 <adamw> looks like we have 3 +1s in the bug already so it's basically on the way to accepted, anyone want to vote -1?
17:51:18 <kalev> kparal: no, that's a separate update
17:51:23 <kparal> ok
17:51:25 <tflink> +1 from me
17:52:03 <kalev> +1
17:52:12 <jreznik> +
17:52:15 <jreznik> +1
17:52:24 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1221158 - AcceptedFreezeException - this could affect update after initial live install, and is a bad bug if experienced
17:52:40 <jreznik> ack
17:52:40 <kparal> ack
17:52:40 <kalev> ack
17:52:56 <adamw> #agreed 1221158 - AcceptedFreezeException - this could affect update after initial live install, and is a bad bug if experienced
17:52:56 <tflink> ack
17:52:58 <adamw> #topic (1220862) The installer icon (and everything else in ~/Desktop) is not displayed anywhere on the Plasma Desktop 5 desktop
17:52:59 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220862
17:52:59 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, kde-settings, NEW
17:54:09 <kparal> +1 from me, but the patch doesn't seem to be ready
17:54:14 <jreznik> +1 FE, I have some basic code to do the same as Gnome does but seems like upstream is now ok with folder view as default (in kde 4 we did it against upstream's mind)
17:54:14 <kparal> jreznik: is it ready?
17:54:38 <adamw> +1 so long as the change is simple
17:54:39 <jreznik> kparal: as jgrulich said, changing only folder view is super easy
17:54:43 <danofsatx> +1
17:54:44 <kparal> ok
17:54:54 <adamw> when you say 'do the same as GNOME does' what do you mean exactly?
17:54:56 <jreznik> for next release, I might finish my code :D
17:55:03 <kalev> +1
17:55:05 <jreznik> adamw: I mean "try or install" dialog
17:55:48 <adamw> ah, ok. i'm +1 to the simple 'display a folder' change, -1 to 'write a welcome screen for KDE now'
17:55:52 <jreznik> and Kevin was pretty much against it so I got a bit demotivated to finish it
17:56:09 <adamw> eh, kevin's against everything
17:56:22 <danofsatx> you noticed that, eh?
17:57:09 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1220862 - AcceptedFreezeException - a simple change to display a folder (with the icon) on the live desktop will be accepted, it makes the installer more discoverable
17:57:38 <jreznik> ack
17:57:42 <tflink> +1 to the simple change
17:57:43 <tflink> ack
17:57:45 <kparal> ack
17:57:51 <jreznik> I'll ping jgrulich tomorrow to do it on time
17:58:12 <danofsatx> ack
17:58:42 <adamw> #agreed 1220862 - AcceptedFreezeException - a simple change to display a folder (with the icon) on the live desktop will be accepted, it makes the installer more discoverable
17:58:56 <adamw> jreznik: it'd be good if we could get it today to go in TC4, but if not, oh well
17:59:17 <jreznik> adamw: so then it's on rdieter...
17:59:37 <adamw> #info we have already evaluated 1220823 in the blocker review portion of the meeting, moving on to the one after it
17:59:48 <adamw> #topic (1200901) invisible mouse cursor in wayland login-screen when in VM (qxl makes cursor disappear as soon as drmModeSetCrtc is called)
17:59:48 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200901
17:59:49 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, kernel, ASSIGNED
18:00:21 <danofsatx> is that the tablet hardware device being selected by default by virt-manager?
18:00:27 <adamw> oh, this has been un-proposed
18:00:27 <adamw> no,
18:00:32 <adamw> totally other thing.
18:00:37 <danofsatx> oh, k
18:00:40 <adamw> #info this has been un-proposed since the meeting started, moving on
18:00:41 * danofsatx missed that one
18:00:57 <adamw> #topic (1215800) Please install symbolic icons
18:00:57 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215800
18:00:57 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, libreoffice, ASSIGNED
18:01:23 <adamw> +1, this makes things look more consistent on live
18:01:33 <adamw> (and helps people who actually need high-contrast, of course)
18:01:39 <jreznik> this looks like part of gnome megaupdate
18:01:47 <jreznik> ah, no, it's LO
18:01:49 <adamw> no, it's libreoffice.
18:01:57 <jreznik> sorry, listening to call...
18:02:03 <jreznik> +1 FE
18:02:10 <kalev> +1 FE
18:02:14 <kparal> adamw: I'm confused by 1200901. has the mutter fix been accepted as FE?
18:02:18 <sgallagh> +1 FE
18:02:33 <adamw> kparal: it's already stable.
18:02:37 <adamw> (the mutter workaround)
18:03:08 <kparal> adamw: ah, ok then
18:03:29 <tflink> +1 FE
18:03:34 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1215800 - AcceptedFreezeException - this is a low-risk change and would improve the visual consistency of the workstation live environment (and help users who actually need high-contrast icons, too)
18:03:54 <kalev> ack
18:04:19 <kparal> ack
18:04:21 <adamw> kparal: i may have cheated and pushed the mutter update when it was proposed...oops. oh, well
18:04:29 <adamw> #agreed 1215800 - AcceptedFreezeException - this is a low-risk change and would improve the visual consistency of the workstation live environment (and help users who actually need high-contrast icons, too)
18:04:48 <adamw> #topic (1220911) maven-wagon-webdav-jackrabbit has broken dependencies in the F22 tree
18:04:48 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220911
18:04:48 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, maven-wagon, ON_QA
18:05:00 <kparal> adamw: that explains how it got through the freeze
18:05:20 <kparal> no big deal, I'd support it anyways
18:05:26 <adamw> yeah, let's just pretend it never happened!
18:05:36 <adamw> ok, +1 to this, i like when we try to have the frozen tree dep-complete
18:05:43 <jreznik> +1
18:05:45 <kalev> +1
18:05:49 <tflink> +1
18:06:21 <kparal> +1
18:06:38 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1220911 - AcceptedFreezeException - it's good to try and avoid dep issues in the frozen tree
18:06:43 <jreznik> ack
18:06:44 <kparal> ack
18:06:46 <kalev> ack
18:06:49 <adamw> #agreed 1220911 - AcceptedFreezeException - it's good to try and avoid dep issues in the frozen tree
18:06:55 <adamw> #topic (1220948) SELinux is preventing iscsid from 'read' accesses on the semaphore Unknown.
18:06:55 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220948
18:06:56 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, selinux-policy, NEW
18:07:05 <adamw> so, i'm a bit surprised sgallagh/tflink didn't see this in their tests...
18:07:17 <adamw> well, you wouldn't see it in non-live, but i think tflink said he tried live
18:07:28 * tflink tried both
18:07:35 <sgallagh> I was only using non-live
18:08:14 <tflink> you know what, I didn't test right - I used the x86_64 live
18:08:22 <adamw> that's what i used too
18:08:26 <kparal> +1 fe
18:08:35 <tflink> oh, for some reason, I thought you used i686
18:08:39 <adamw> newp.
18:08:56 <tflink> +1
18:09:15 <adamw> i guess i'm +1 but i'd better check with selinux folks if this is at all a questionable change
18:10:38 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1220948 - AcceptedFreezeException - it's good to fix AVCs encountered during installation (even with unusual hardware)
18:11:11 <jreznik> ack
18:11:18 <danofsatx> ack
18:11:28 <kparal> ack
18:11:38 <kalev> ack
18:11:41 <tflink> ack
18:12:17 <sgallagh> ack
18:12:26 <adamw> #agreed 1220948 - AcceptedFreezeException - it's good to fix AVCs encountered during installation (even with unusual hardware)
18:12:35 <adamw> #topic (1221292) Please install symbolic icon
18:12:36 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221292
18:12:36 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, transmission, MODIFIED
18:12:48 <jreznik> +1 as above
18:12:52 <adamw> yup
18:13:12 <kparal> +1
18:13:32 <tflink> +1
18:13:39 <kalev> +1 too, but can someone who uses KDE test the Qt version, please?
18:14:00 <kalev> it got ported to Qt5, but the previous update never made it out to updates-testing
18:14:18 <jreznik> what specificaly you need to test?
18:14:22 <adamw> ah, so this update would involve a transmission-qt port to qt5? that seems undesirable
18:14:30 <kalev> and even though this is basically just a rebuild that adds a symbolic update, it also pulls in the qt5 port
18:14:34 <kalev> adamw: yep :(
18:14:56 <kparal> hmm
18:15:38 <kparal> in that case I'd rather wait post-release
18:16:04 <adamw> is transmission in the KDE spin?
18:16:21 <danofsatx> not by default, no.
18:16:25 <danofsatx> we use ktorrent
18:16:35 <sgallagh> In that case, -1 FE
18:16:50 <adamw> it doesn't look like it
18:16:54 <adamw> sgallagh: eh?
18:16:55 <adamw> that makes me +1
18:17:12 <adamw> because the biggest risk here is we break the qt version, but it's not in the KDE live, so that's not critical
18:17:15 <kparal> let met change my mind for the third time
18:17:18 <kparal> +1 fe
18:17:21 <sgallagh> Oh, maybe I misunderstood
18:17:26 <adamw> the gtk version is in the Workstation image, and that's what we want the symbolic icon for
18:17:35 <sgallagh> Ah, right. Sorry.
18:17:36 <kparal> adamw's reasoning is fine
18:17:36 <adamw> still it'd be good for someone to test the qt build before we push it stable
18:17:41 <danofsatx> +1
18:17:45 <sgallagh> +1
18:18:22 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1221292 - AcceptedFreezeException - this would improve the visual consistency of the workstation live environment (and help users who actually need high-contrast icons, too). the update pulls in more change than is strictly desirable, but the biggest change is to the qt build which is not included in any frozen media
18:18:44 <danofsatx> ackish
18:18:49 <kparal> ack
18:18:52 <kalev> ack
18:19:09 <adamw> #agreed 1221292 - AcceptedFreezeException - this would improve the visual consistency of the workstation live environment (and help users who actually need high-contrast icons, too). the update pulls in more change than is strictly desirable, but the biggest change is to the qt build which is not included in any frozen media
18:19:47 <jreznik> ok, it's really qt 5 based but starts...
18:20:25 <kparal> jreznik: starts... ok?
18:20:27 <adamw> ok, I added one more FE proposal during the meeting
18:20:37 <adamw> #topic (1221736) Environment group sorting (display_order) uses alphabetical not numeric sort
18:20:37 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221736
18:20:37 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, dnf, NEW
18:21:00 <adamw> this is the sorting of the environment groups - left hand side of the SOFTWARE SELECTION spoke in netinst
18:21:15 <adamw> i'm meaning to figure out what's actually broken later, just didn't have time yet
18:21:35 <jreznik> +1
18:21:40 * jreznik trusts adamw :)
18:21:44 <adamw> if the fix is as simple as fixing a variable type or something i think it'd be ok
18:21:49 <tflink> conditional +1 - depends on how bad the fix is
18:21:54 <adamw> anything more complex it may not be worth the risk
18:21:54 <kalev> if the fix is to just change the order of the things in comps, definitely, go for it :)
18:22:09 <adamw> kalev: no, comps has the desired values, the problem is in how they're being used, i think
18:22:14 <kalev> ahh
18:22:19 <adamw> the most likely problem is it's sorting the values alphabetically not numerically
18:22:32 <kparal> +1
18:23:21 <adamw> there's a somewhat less likely scenario where it's somehow stopped using the sort values entirely and is just using the groups in the order they appear in comps - it's a bit difficult to tell because the entries in comps appear exactly in the same order as 'alphabetical sort of the display_order values' :)
18:23:22 <kalev> a workaround might be to change "1" to "100" and "20" to "120" and so on, so that the alphabetical sorting is the same
18:23:31 <kparal> adamw: great find, actually. I wondered why those items are sorted so weirdly
18:23:39 <adamw> urgh, i don't like that, i'd rather just fix the bug.
18:23:40 <adamw> anyhoo
18:23:52 <adamw> i'd humbly propose a conditional +1 as tflink said, and i'll dig into it
18:24:14 <kalev> +1
18:24:43 <kalev> adamw: and thanks for looking after those polish issues!
18:24:53 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1221736 - AcceptedFreezeException - it's desirable to have these sort correctly, so we'll accept a fix if it's sufficiently simple and safe, but if it turns out to be complex we will not take such a fix as the danger is too great
18:24:58 <sgallagh> I'm +1 as well
18:25:04 <jreznik> ack
18:25:16 <sgallagh> ack
18:25:23 <kparal> ack
18:25:38 <tflink> ack
18:25:41 <adamw> #agreed 1221736 - AcceptedFreezeException - it's desirable to have these sort correctly, so we'll accept a fix if it's sufficiently simple and safe, but if it turns out to be complex we will not take such a fix as the danger is too great
18:25:51 <adamw> OK
18:25:57 <adamw> we also have two new proposed blockers, and two to revisit
18:26:06 <adamw> #info returning to proposed blockers, as there are two new ones and two to revisit
18:26:10 <kparal> sigh
18:26:11 <adamw> #topic (1221730) Fedora 22 final release notes required for GA
18:26:11 <jreznik> halfline might propose one more FE see #fedora-qa
18:26:11 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221730
18:26:11 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, fedora-release-notes, NEW
18:26:25 <adamw> we're never going to escape this meeting, are we
18:26:37 <kparal> unless we go on vacation
18:26:39 <jreznik> +1, randomuser will build it later today
18:26:54 <kparal> or into the isolation unit
18:26:55 <adamw> quick, everyone to the Kparal Isolation Unit
18:26:58 <adamw> ...damnit
18:27:14 <adamw> +1, this is a straight criteria requirement
18:27:30 <kparal> +1
18:27:33 <jreznik> hey, one of last blocker review meeting for me, so I have to enjoy it :D
18:28:29 <tflink> +1
18:28:35 <kalev> +1
18:28:41 <danofsatx> +1
18:29:32 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1221730 - AcceptedBlocker - this is a clear violation of "The final branded release notes must be present on release-blocking images and the appropriately versioned generic release notes must be available in the release repository."
18:30:08 <kparal> ack
18:30:19 <tflink> ack
18:30:29 <kalev> ack
18:30:45 <jreznik> ack
18:30:46 <adamw> #agreed 1221730 - AcceptedBlocker - this is a clear violation of "The final branded release notes must be present on release-blocking images and the appropriately versioned generic release notes must be available in the release repository."
18:30:58 <adamw> #topic (1221726) Fedora-repos needs updating for f22 final
18:30:59 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221726
18:30:59 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, fedora-repos, NEW
18:31:29 <adamw> +1
18:31:34 <kparal> +1
18:31:43 <adamw> (i just bet we need to update generic-* as well)
18:32:15 <tflink> +1
18:32:21 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1221726 - AcceptedBlocker - violates "A fedora-release package containing the correct names, information and repository configuration for a final Fedora release must be present on release-blocking images and the appropriately versioned generic-release package must be available in the release repository."
18:32:42 <jreznik> +1, this is usually done for the first RC
18:32:59 <kparal> ack
18:33:02 <kalev> +1
18:33:05 <kalev> ack
18:33:18 <adamw> #agreed 1221726 - AcceptedBlocker - violates "A fedora-release package containing the correct names, information and repository configuration for a final Fedora release must be present on release-blocking images and the appropriately versioned generic-release package must be available in the release repository."
18:33:38 <tflink> ack
18:33:41 <adamw> alrighty, circling back to the two we were gonna circle back to
18:33:48 <adamw> #topic (1218787) gdm-wayland-session fails to present login screen after successful installation
18:33:48 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218787
18:33:48 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gdm, NEW
18:33:58 <adamw> so, did anyone get to test this yet?
18:34:13 <jreznik> with intel/nvidia combo, I can't reproduce it
18:34:14 <sgallagh> I have a different bug and can't get it installed on my dual-gpu machine :(
18:34:25 <adamw> yay, fun
18:34:28 <jreznik> just saw the flickering with intel
18:34:37 <adamw> i have to say i'm at least open to the possibility of going back to X
18:34:57 <jreznik> halfline said, it should be fixed upstream (intel) and jwb seems to be ok to pick it up into kernel as FE - so it might appear later
18:34:59 <adamw> it does seem like kind of egregiously complicated things to require two different display servers to do at least *something* before you get to a desktop (even if it's just failing gracefully)
18:35:11 <adamw> jreznik: flickering is a separate bug, let's not confuse 'em
18:35:23 <adamw> but it's hard to vote without more data
18:35:28 <jreznik> just what I saw - it means it works for me
18:35:30 <adamw> maybe this is one we could send out a call for people to try?
18:35:30 <kalev> I'd like to note that it's a pretty bad bug
18:35:36 <kalev> it can be somewhat okay if the live installer comes up with a black screen
18:35:48 <kalev> as in, in that case one just doens't install fedora
18:35:54 <adamw> yeah, i do take the point that it's bad for live to succeed but installed system to fail
18:36:00 <jreznik> works with intel only, intel/nvidia (both with flickering), and nvidia only (no flickering)
18:36:06 <kalev> but if the live installer works right and then the final system doesn't boot, it's basically screwing up users
18:37:51 <adamw> so, proposal, i'll send a mail to test@, devel@ and desktop@ asking people to test
18:37:56 <adamw> especially on Macs
18:38:11 <adamw> could do forums too i guess
18:38:15 <jreznik> we already talked about dual gpu several times this release... dual gpu is not that common and it happens to subset of dual gpu but I agree with the call
18:39:06 <jreznik> so +1 to proposal
18:39:26 <jreznik> (and I should leave now...)
18:40:06 <kparal> so basically punt now, right?
18:40:27 <adamw> yeah, the decision would be punt
18:40:30 <tflink> wfm
18:40:39 <adamw> oh, i'd vote punt blocker / +1 FE
18:40:49 <adamw> so if we happen to find the actual bug and get a decent fix, we can get it in
18:41:08 <kparal> we still don't know how the fix would look like
18:41:11 <jreznik> same here, punt blocker/+1 FE
18:41:21 <kalev> sure, punt blocker / +1 FE
18:41:21 <kparal> but yeah, punt/+1
18:42:58 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1218787 - punt (delay decision) on blocker, AcceptedFreezeException - this is a bad bug when encountered, but we still don't have sufficient data on its prevalence to make a definite call. We will request more testing on lists and forums. Accepted as a freeze exception, it's certainly  bad enough that we should take a sufficiently safe/tested fix if one appears
18:43:11 <tflink> ack
18:43:13 <kalev> ack
18:43:16 <kparal> ack
18:43:30 <adamw> #agreed 1218787 - punt (delay decision) on blocker, AcceptedFreezeException - this is a bad bug when encountered, but we still don't have sufficient data on its prevalence to make a definite call. We will request more testing on lists and forums. Accepted as a freeze exception, it's certainly  bad enough that we should take a sufficiently safe/tested fix if one appears
18:43:43 <adamw> #topic (1181308) SELinux is preventing /usr/sbin/rngd from 'execmod' accesses on the file /usr/sbin/rngd.
18:43:43 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181308
18:43:44 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy, ASSIGNED
18:43:47 <adamw> so I still can't reproduce this
18:43:50 <adamw> has anyone else managed to?
18:44:48 * kparal hasn't tried
18:46:18 <sgallagh> I've tried and cannot
18:46:35 <adamw> so, with all the testing we've had without apparently hitting many dupes of this, i'm -1/.
18:46:49 <adamw> the criterion is for pretty clear cases where it'll always be hit, or at least always so long as you're doing (fairly common thing)
18:47:11 <kparal> -1
18:47:17 <tflink> -1
18:48:02 <sgallagh> -1
18:48:21 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1181308 - RejectedBlocker - this does not appear to be commonly enough encountered to count as a violation of the criterion, we have tried quite a lot and cannot reproduce it
18:48:40 <kparal> ack
18:48:52 <kalev> ack
18:50:37 <adamw> #agreed 1181308 - RejectedBlocker - this does not appear to be commonly enough encountered to count as a violation of the criterion, we have tried quite a lot and cannot reproduce it
18:51:24 <tflink> late ack
18:51:37 <adamw> welp, halfline's proposal doesn't appear to have arrived
18:51:42 <adamw> so we're all out of proposals, with 8 minutes left
18:51:48 <adamw> not enough time to review acceptedblockers i don't think
18:51:51 <adamw> #topic Open floor
18:51:52 <kalev> one thing I didn't see in the blocker list, but it might be automatic - is there going to be a fedora-repos build for the upcoming TC that disables updates-testing?
18:51:56 <adamw> so, any other business?
18:52:08 <adamw> kalev: that was one of the two late additions we just voted on
18:52:28 <kalev> ahh :)
18:52:31 <adamw> you voted +1 in fact. :)
18:53:27 <kalev> well. I won't say anything before I make it even more embaraccing for myself :)
18:53:59 <kparal> :)
18:58:02 <adamw> OK, last minute proposed FE
18:58:45 <adamw> #topic (1218688) flickering on login
18:58:48 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218688
18:59:00 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exception, kernel, NEW
18:59:11 <adamw> so this is the issue with gdm flickering on certain GPUs
18:59:17 <adamw> fix needs to be in kernel by the looks of things
18:59:33 <adamw> I'm +1 if we can isolate the fix sufficiently
18:59:47 <kparal> +1
18:59:55 <sgallagh> Yeah, it's pretty awful on hardware that hits it.
19:00:02 <adamw> basically if we can get a kernel with a targeted fix say tomorrow or monday, i'm OK
19:00:09 <sgallagh> I can reproduce it here, so I'll happily test a fix
19:00:13 <kalev> +1, sounds like something that would be very good to fix
19:01:56 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1218688 - AcceptedFreezeException - this is a bad bug on affected hardware and would affect first boot after install from live image, would be good to get a sufficiently targeted fix in the next few days
19:02:27 <kalev> ack
19:02:51 <kparal> ack
19:03:34 <adamw> #agreed 1218688 - AcceptedFreezeException - this is a bad bug on affected hardware and would affect first boot after install from live image, would be good to get a sufficiently targeted fix in the next few days
19:03:38 <adamw> alrighty, and that
19:03:41 <adamw> 's really everything
19:03:43 <adamw> #topic Open floor
19:03:53 <adamw> we're 3 minutes over time, so i think we're done here - thanks for coming, folks
19:03:57 <adamw> i'll send out another blocker review mail soon I guess
19:04:02 * adamw sets fuse
19:04:07 <kparal> thanks adamw
19:04:10 <kalev> thanks
19:15:42 <sgallagh> adamw: endmeeting?
19:15:48 <tflink> BOOM!
19:15:51 <tflink> #endmeeting