16:01:13 <roshi> #startmeeting F23-blocker-review
16:01:13 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Oct 12 16:01:13 2015 UTC.  The chair is roshi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:01:13 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:01:13 <roshi> #meetingname F23-blocker-review
16:01:13 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f23-blocker-review'
16:01:13 <roshi> #topic Roll Call
16:01:20 <roshi> who's around?
16:01:54 * kparal is here
16:04:05 <roshi> well, might have enough people kparal
16:04:13 <roshi> danofsatx: tflink ?
16:04:27 <danofsatx> what?
16:04:36 <roshi> you around for the blocker review?
16:04:37 <tflink> why are you asking danofsatx about me?
16:04:37 <kparal> let's attach moustaches and pretend to have a few alter-egos
16:05:05 <roshi> works for me
16:05:13 * danofsatx is writing an email cover letter for a job. Keep it down over here.
16:05:14 <roshi> tflink: just seemed like hte thing to do
16:05:41 <tflink-with-mous> I am totally not just tflink with a moustache
16:05:53 <roshi> we've only got 4 proposed blocker to go through
16:05:56 <kparal> I already noticed there's a character limit on nicknames
16:05:58 <kparal> too bad
16:05:59 <roshi> and 3 FEs
16:06:02 <roshi> yeah
16:06:59 <roshi> well, we have the minimum number of people... so might as well get on with it
16:07:09 <roshi> #topic Introduction
16:07:09 <roshi> Why are we here?
16:07:09 <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.
16:07:13 <roshi> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:07:15 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:07:18 <roshi> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:07:20 <roshi> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:07:23 <roshi> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:07:25 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_23_Alpha_Release_Criteria
16:07:28 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_23_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:07:31 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_23_Final_Release_Criteria
16:07:38 <roshi> #topic (1224048) anaconda does not include package download and filesystem metadata size in minimal partition size computation and hard reboots during installation
16:07:41 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224048
16:07:44 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED
16:08:36 <kparal> it was proposed before, I think we can reject it now. it was mostly fixed, and you need to get very unlucky to hit this bug now
16:08:50 <kparal> s/proposed/accepted
16:09:14 <tflink> yay! firefox just crashed
16:09:27 <kparal> now, otoh, that might be a blocker :)
16:09:39 <kparal> if you're using f23
16:10:26 <tflink> this machine is f21
16:12:11 <kparal> so, do you want some longer tl;dr version of this bug?
16:12:33 <roshi> sure
16:12:42 * roshi was reading
16:12:57 <kparal> anaconda netinst requires certain minimum disk space, based on the package set
16:13:07 <kparal> but if you use netinst, you need to store the packages somewhere
16:13:10 <tflink> yeah, not sure it passes the 'last blocker' test now
16:13:27 <kparal> anaconda "forgot" about this use case, so you could easily run out of disk space on the root partition during installation
16:13:32 <kparal> now it's fixed
16:13:46 <kparal> but there's still some very small margin when you run out of disk space
16:13:54 <kparal> it seems to about around 100MB or so
16:14:19 <kparal> I guess it could be something like filesystem metadata, or bad rounding, or something else
16:14:27 <kparal> but it's no longer very easy to hit this
16:14:55 <kparal> now you need to try hard to absolutely minimize the root partition, or get very unlucky in your part size choice
16:17:46 <roshi> if it sticks around, document in common bugs?
16:17:52 <kparal> sure. and -1/+1
16:17:59 <roshi> I'm -1/+1 as well
16:18:02 <tflink> -1/+1/commonbugs
16:18:08 <kparal> it's already documented
16:18:22 <kparal> but I'll need to adjust the description
16:19:03 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1224048 - RejectedBlocker Final - This bug isn't common, or easy enough to hit so it's not considered severe enough to be a blocker. It's documented and easy to work around.
16:20:00 <roshi> who wants to secretarializ
16:20:02 <roshi> ?
16:20:38 * tflink will
16:20:50 <kparal> oh sorry, slow fingers
16:20:56 <kparal> but that's ok :)
16:21:08 <kparal> ack
16:21:13 * tflink really wouldn't fight you for it :)
16:21:22 <tflink> ack
16:21:25 <roshi> lol
16:21:35 <roshi> #agreed - 1224048 - RejectedBlocker Final - This bug isn't common, or easy enough to hit so it's not considered severe enough to be a blocker. It's documented and easy to work around.
16:21:43 <roshi> #topic (1269581) GNOME autologin makes boot and shutdown last 90 seconds more
16:21:45 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269581
16:21:48 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, gdm, NEW
16:22:03 <kparal> this is going to be a much more interesting debate
16:22:08 <kparal> SSIA
16:22:26 <kparal> on shutdown, Xorg crashes, that's probably the cause
16:22:44 <kparal> on boot, I don't know what's wrong but the delay is random on bare metal (but consistent on VM for me)
16:22:51 <kparal> probably a race condition somewhere
16:23:09 <kparal> might be two different bugs, actually
16:23:50 <kparal> it's unfortunate that quite often you see just a black screen for 90 seconds, so you think the computer is stuck/frozen
16:24:10 <kparal> or non-reactive plymouth screen, during boot
16:24:50 <kparal> I'm sorry I haven't managed to ping halfline to at least evaluate this a bit
16:24:58 <kparal> but lbrabec reproduced this easily
16:28:04 <roshi> +1 under default application functionality
16:28:19 <kparal> it seems to me that autologin is quite important system part, and easily reachable part of the settings. I assume it is mostly used for home use, possibly even used by parents of the particular fedora geek :)
16:28:52 <kparal> my parents don't use autologin, but I can easily imagine they could want to
16:29:09 <kparal> yeah, I also incline to +1
16:29:09 <roshi> lol
16:29:39 <kparal> the criterion is not totally fitting, but I haven't found anything better
16:29:42 <tflink> does this affect the livecd?
16:29:55 <tflink> workstation live, rather
16:30:00 <kparal> no, for some reason
16:30:17 <kparal> I haven't seen it with Live
16:31:02 <tflink> if not, I'm not sure this is a blocker ... just don't use autologin if the lag is too much
16:31:17 <tflink> it can be fixed with an update, no?
16:31:45 <kparal> sure. it's just that autologin is something you set after install, so you'll get affected even before you have chance to install updates
16:31:54 <kparal> and it hits you every start and reboot
16:32:07 <kparal> a bit more inconvenient than some app broken
16:32:16 <tflink> can you set autologin during install?
16:32:20 * tflink forgets
16:32:21 <kparal> which are even covered by our criteria quite strictly
16:32:25 <kparal> not during
16:32:34 <kparal> on first boot
16:32:47 <kparal> so yeah, technically you can get updates, if you get them on first boot
16:33:00 <kparal> that would have to be fixed, though :)
16:33:50 <roshi> I think it fails the "withstand a basic functionality test"
16:34:00 <kparal> the question is whether people realize that their system starts and restarts several minutes because of autologin
16:34:06 <roshi> I mean it technically *works*
16:34:19 <kparal> it's quite obvious for apps, but quite opaque for system settings
16:34:24 <tflink> if it's presented as an option @ first boot, it's harder to justify having this issue
16:34:29 <roshi> but a raw potato is still technically food, I still won't eat it unless it's cooked
16:34:45 <tflink> if a user had to go dig for it, I'd be ok with it in this state @ release
16:34:54 <kparal> it's in gnome-control-center
16:35:08 <kparal> I don't think it's even more prominent somewhere
16:35:15 <tflink> i really need to do some install testing :-/
16:35:53 <tflink> i thought you meant it was in g-i-s
16:36:09 <kparal> no, I don't think it's there
16:36:10 <roshi> it's in gcc
16:36:15 * roshi ducks
16:36:25 <kparal> you have to go to gnome settings to toggle it
16:37:24 <kparal> we can give +1 blocker to the reboot issue under "Shutting down, logging out and rebooting must work using standard console commands and the mechanisms offered (if any) by all release-blocking desktops. ". and we can punt the boot issue. if you think it's better
16:37:34 <kparal> I can try to consult with halfline this week
16:38:13 <tflink> I'm probably -.5/+1 on this
16:38:24 <kparal> also, Xorg crashing is probably violating our "basic functionality" criterion, even though it's targetted at apps. so we have multiple ways to mark this as blocker
16:39:51 <kparal> ok, so since there's just 3 of us and we don't have a consensus, let's punt this and hope for more info or more people next time?
16:40:28 <roshi> yeah, that works
16:40:32 <tflink> wfm
16:41:10 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1269581 - Punt Final - We'd like to get some more input on this from other members of QA before deciding. Pushing to next week.
16:41:53 <kparal> patch: and/or developers :)
16:41:54 <kparal> ack
16:41:57 <tflink> ack
16:42:29 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1269581 - Punt Final - We'd like to get some more input on this from other members of QA and or developers before deciding. Pushing to next week.
16:42:44 <roshi> #agreed - 1269581 - Punt Final - We'd like to get some more input on this from other members of QA and or developers before deciding. Pushing to next week.
16:42:48 <roshi> #topic (1264012) liveusb-creator doesn't create bootable Live i686 image in default cp mode
16:42:51 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264012
16:42:54 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, liveusb-creator, NEW
16:43:13 <kparal> hmm, so we punted this last time
16:43:18 <kparal> and I don't think we have any new info
16:44:11 <kparal> and we haven't agreed whether our usb criteria should cover only FN, or also FN+1
16:44:19 <roshi> yeah
16:44:30 <roshi> punt again so we have more people to discuss
16:44:56 <kparal> probably. we could also stop slacking off and ping syslinux maintainers and/or starting discussion those criteria on test list :)
16:45:10 <kparal> in any case, punt
16:45:28 <roshi> lol, yeah we could do that I suppose...
16:45:36 <kparal> the same applies for the next bug
16:45:37 <danofsatx> nah, why bother?
16:45:49 <danofsatx> it's more fun to whine and complain
16:46:03 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1264012 - Punt Final - It doesn't seem like there's any new information on this bug. Punting for the same reason as last time.
16:46:08 <kparal> ack
16:46:11 <tflink> ack
16:46:36 <roshi> #agreed - 1264012 - Punt Final - It doesn't seem like there's any new information on this bug. Punting for the same reason as last time.
16:46:43 <roshi> #topic (1263988) livecd-iso-to-disk doesn't create bootable usb drive
16:46:45 * adamw woke up, is kinda here if needed
16:46:46 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263988
16:46:48 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, syslinux, NEW
16:46:58 <roshi> we're punting all the bugs
16:47:15 <kparal> adamw: morning, do you have any new info to the syslinux bug?
16:47:21 <roshi> it's like a regular rugby practice today... working on field goals...
16:47:44 <adamw> kparal: nothing very useful
16:47:58 <kparal> ok, so it's punt again
16:48:08 <adamw> kparal: i tested the litd case and it is definitely syslinux
16:48:16 <adamw> haven't confirmed that luc is but i'm pretty sure it will b
16:48:42 <adamw> it works with the f22 syslinux package. it does not work with current syslinux git master, so it's not something they fixed between last stable and current git
16:49:03 <adamw> it's most likely an issue between syslinux and GCC 5, just like the other syslinux issue we had turned out to be.
16:50:15 <roshi> so it's going to be around for a bit, regardless then
16:51:40 <kparal> adamw: if you wanted to read the scrollback regarding 1269581, we can vote on it again if you prefer
16:51:49 <kparal> in the meantime, punt and go to the next one?
16:52:50 <roshi> kparal: punt on 1263988?
16:52:56 <roshi> this is the last one
16:53:13 <kparal> yes, I think
16:53:21 <kparal> it's the same reason as the previous one
16:53:32 <kparal> we still have some FEs to go through
16:53:38 <roshi> yeah, we do
16:54:14 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1263988 - Punt Final - It doesn't seem like there's any new information on this bug. Punting for the same reason as last time.
16:54:27 <kparal> ack
16:54:29 <tflink> ack
16:54:35 <roshi> #agreed - 1263988 - Punt Final - It doesn't seem like there's any new information on this bug. Punting for the same reason as last time.
16:54:52 <roshi> #topic (1224048) anaconda does not include package download and filesystem metadata size in minimal partition size computation and hard reboots during installation
16:54:55 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1224048
16:54:57 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, ASSIGNED
16:54:58 <roshi> ^^ is a FE
16:55:04 <roshi> so we're looking at FEs now
16:55:05 <kparal> we already gave +1 FE here I think
16:55:08 <kparal> no?
16:55:21 <kparal> oh, no we didn't
16:55:24 <kparal> +1 FE then
16:55:47 <roshi> I think we did, from tim's comment
16:56:06 <kparal> not in #agreed
16:56:36 <roshi> oh yeah
16:56:48 <tflink> did i mess up?
16:57:02 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1224048 - AcceptedFreezeException Final - We'd consider a fix for this after freeze.
16:57:05 <roshi> no, I did :)
16:57:13 <tflink> ack
16:57:18 <roshi> #agreed - 1224048 - AcceptedFreezeException Final - We'd consider a fix for this after freeze.
16:57:38 <roshi> just have to add the keyword to the whiteboard field
16:57:40 <roshi> #topic (1269581) GNOME autologin makes boot and shutdown last 90 seconds more
16:57:44 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269581
16:57:46 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gdm, NEW
16:58:03 <roshi> this was a punt, so I say we just leave it
16:59:14 <kparal> I'd we can give it at least +1 FE right away
16:59:19 <kparal> *think
17:00:35 <roshi> yeah, I suppose so
17:00:41 <roshi> +1 FE for sure on this
17:00:52 <roshi> and I don't see a lot of argument about it coming later
17:02:09 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1269581 - AcceptedFreezeException Final - We'd love to test a fix for this bug during freeze as it could be really annoying for users to run into it.
17:02:16 <kparal> ack
17:03:30 <tflink> ack
17:03:32 <roshi> #agreed - 1269581 - AcceptedFreezeException Final - We'd love to test a fix for this bug during freeze as it could be really annoying for users to run into it.
17:03:38 <roshi> #topic (1268495) Huge cursor in Wayland desktop and login screen on HiDPI device (MacBook Pro Retina)
17:03:41 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268495
17:03:44 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, mutter, NEW
17:04:07 <kalev> I think this one might already be fixed in 3.18.1
17:04:44 <kalev> or sorry, correction, might be already fixed in git, but 3.18.1 release isn't out yet
17:05:19 <kparal> +1 fe
17:05:32 <tflink> is there a blocker or FE for 3.18.1?
17:06:09 <kalev> no ticket yet
17:06:13 <roshi> I don't think so
17:06:15 * tflink saw the call for builds to be added to the megaupdate but freeze is tomorrow
17:06:16 <kalev> but I talked with adamw a week or two ago and he seemed to be leaning towards FE'ing it
17:06:23 <kalev> yeah, it won't make it in for freeze
17:06:29 <kalev> yeah, it won't make it in before freeze
17:07:10 <kalev> let's see how the release shapes up, if it looks safe enough, I'd like to try and pull it in through FE
17:07:30 <roshi> +1 FE
17:07:47 <roshi> it'll get tested before we pull it in, so having this as an FE is fine I think
17:07:59 <danofsatx> +1
17:08:10 <tflink> +1 FE
17:09:01 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1268495 - AcceptedFreezeException Final - It would be good to get a fix tested for this during freeze.
17:09:30 <tflink> a little lean on the details there?
17:09:35 <tflink> :)
17:09:43 <danofsatx> ack
17:09:58 <kparal> ack
17:09:59 <kalev> ack
17:10:11 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1268495 - AcceptedFreezeException Final - It would be good to get a fix tested for this during freeze to smooth out the user experience on HiDPI screens.
17:10:22 <roshi> that better?
17:10:33 <tflink> ack
17:10:34 <danofsatx> ack again
17:10:36 <kalev> sure
17:10:50 <kparal> ack
17:11:14 <roshi> #agreed - 1268495 - AcceptedFreezeException Final - It would be good to get a fix tested for this during freeze to smooth out the user experience on HiDPI screens.
17:11:19 <roshi> ok, that's all the FE's
17:11:24 <roshi> #topic open floor
17:11:48 <roshi> my thought is that we skip going over the accepted blockers for now, and get back to work on other stuff
17:12:14 <roshi> I think it's better to have more people to go over them, since the 3 of us aren't likely to have all the info on all of them
17:12:19 <roshi> any objections?
17:13:02 <tflink> none here
17:13:06 <kparal> nope
17:13:13 * tflink has no shortage of other stuff to do today :)
17:13:37 * danofsatx is muy buzy
17:14:00 <roshi> I kinda figured :)
17:14:06 <roshi> thanks for coming folks!
17:14:11 * roshi sets fuse...
17:14:13 <roshi> 3...
17:16:06 <roshi> 2...
17:16:09 <roshi> 1...
17:16:12 <roshi> #endmeeting