16:00:59 <adamw> #startmeeting F31-blocker-review
16:00:59 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Aug 26 16:00:59 2019 UTC.
16:00:59 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:00:59 <zodbot> The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:59 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:59 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f31-blocker-review'
16:00:59 <adamw> #meetingname F31-blocker-review
16:00:59 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f31-blocker-review'
16:00:59 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
16:01:12 <adamw> morning folks!
16:01:16 <adamw> who's around for some blocker review
16:01:21 <Lailah> Hello! Good evening!
16:01:26 <Lailah> .fas lailah
16:01:27 <zodbot> Lailah: lailah 'Sylvia Sánchez' <BHKohane@gmail.com>
16:01:28 * coremodule is here! How are you adamw?
16:01:33 * kparal is here
16:01:52 <coremodule> Good evening Lailah, kparal
16:01:56 <adamw> good thanks
16:02:15 * kparal pokes lbrabec
16:02:20 * jlinton lurking
16:02:21 * Lailah waves at coremodule and adamw
16:02:34 * Lailah waves at everyone else, not to be rude
16:02:56 <adamw> lots of waving
16:03:00 <adamw> it's like a shoujo anime in here
16:03:14 <Lailah> LOL
16:04:11 <adamw> bcotton: ahoy
16:04:16 <adamw> nirik: ahoy
16:04:21 * pwhalen is here
16:04:57 <kparal> lruzicka: evening
16:06:48 <adamw> alrighty then, let's go with who we got
16:06:51 <adamw> this should be pretty short anyhow!
16:07:00 <adamw> #chair kparal coremodule
16:07:00 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw coremodule kparal
16:07:10 <adamw> boilerplate incoming!
16:07:11 <adamw> #topic Introduction
16:07:11 <adamw> Why are we here?
16:07:11 <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.
16:07:11 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:07:13 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:07:14 <coremodule> adamw, I'll secretarialize after the meeting.
16:07:14 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:07:16 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:07:18 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:07:20 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
16:07:22 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:07:24 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Final_Release_Criteria
16:07:26 <adamw> coremodule: thanks
16:07:28 <adamw> #info coremodule will secretarialize
16:07:29 <coremodule> np
16:07:31 <kparal> in the mean time, lruzicka is trying to log in to irc to be able to say something :)
16:07:43 <adamw> #info for Beta we have:
16:07:43 <adamw> #info 3 Proposed Blockers
16:07:44 <adamw> #info 1 Accepted Blockers
16:07:48 <adamw> #info 2 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:07:51 <adamw> #info for Final we have:
16:07:57 <adamw> #info 1 Proposed Blockers
16:08:13 <adamw> #info let's start with proposed Beta blockers
16:08:20 <adamw> #topic (1727904) Network configuration based on boot option is not passed to installed system.
16:08:20 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1727904
16:08:20 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:08:23 <Lailah> kparal:  Oh! Hope Iruzicka succeeds
16:08:34 <lruzicka> .hello2
16:08:35 <zodbot> lruzicka: lruzicka 'Lukáš Růžička' <lruzicka@redhat.com>
16:08:54 <Lailah> Oh, it's an L !
16:09:11 <kparal> lruzicka: we can hear you now
16:09:12 <Lailah> I've been writing your name wrong all this time  lruzicka
16:09:29 <adamw> *mindblown*
16:10:40 <Lailah> xD
16:11:17 <lruzicka> Lailah, no problem, I can live with that :D
16:11:32 <adamw> hmm
16:11:37 <adamw> so, this is an interesting one i guess
16:12:26 <coremodule> is that the correct criteria for this?
16:12:29 <adamw> there does seem to be an obvious workaround: duplicate the network device config in the kickstart (for a kickstart install) or in the UI (for a manual install)
16:12:40 <coremodule> nvm, now i see the pxe
16:13:07 <adamw> coremodule: it's related in the sense that if you're doing an install where the installer itself is retrieved over the network, you have to specify the network config in this way
16:13:23 <adamw> (if you need anything other than DHCP)
16:13:24 <coremodule> okay, that makes sense
16:13:43 <adamw> also if you're retrieving a kickstart from the network and you need non-DHCP networking, i guess.
16:14:02 <jlanda> coremodule: it sad an additional one, the bug was already proposed as fe because it was discovered on s390 and we don't block on that, but we block om arm64 server., and recommended method there is netboot
16:14:11 <jlanda> Ar, sad/is
16:14:21 <pwhalen> iiuc, its the installed system that doesnt have network configuration?
16:14:29 <adamw> still, i'd say as the criteria stand this doesn't clearly violate them, it's definitely an annoying regression for some specific cases, though
16:14:31 <pwhalen> the install works
16:14:35 <adamw> pwhalen: yeah.
16:14:48 <adamw> pwhalen: but of course that can be a problem if the system getting installed is remote.
16:14:59 <coremodule> sure, i get that. I mean, as it stands based off my interpretation I would be +1 blocker
16:15:23 <coremodule> even if the criteria is not explicit in this case about installing over network
16:15:48 <jlanda> the system installs and there is a workaround
16:15:53 <adamw> my inclination is -1 i think because it only affects cases where DHCP isn't available and we could document the workaround
16:16:01 <pwhalen> and previously, if you use kargs, that sets the network after install?
16:16:07 <jlanda> And its prefered just in a blocker deliverable
16:16:11 <jlanda> -1b, +1fe
16:16:31 <Lailah> I have no idea what all this means, so I'm not voting.
16:16:57 <adamw> pwhalen: yeah, per the bug discussion it did
16:17:02 <pwhalen> ok, thanks
16:17:05 <pwhalen> +1 blocker
16:17:28 <adamw> hmm, so it seems we have a stalemate :P
16:17:30 <Lailah> Oh, now I see it...
16:17:44 <Lailah> Give me a sec to read the bug again...
16:17:52 <coremodule> it only occurs when you have to manually set the network config? but not when a dhcp router assigns all that?
16:18:04 <coremodule> *when you manually set the network config
16:18:08 <adamw> coremodule: yeah. in the DHCP case, we're just, well, using DHCP all the time
16:18:32 <Lailah> I would think +1FE
16:18:38 <coremodule> hmmm....
16:18:40 <adamw> if you don't pass 'net.whatever' on the cmdline the initramfs env will just try and bring up the interface using DHCP...and then in the installed system the same thing will happen automatically too
16:19:01 <coremodule> I'm +1fe
16:19:41 <coremodule> gotcha... I could understand most people probably *do* use dhcp so... I could see this as a fringe case
16:20:08 <lruzicka> I would say -1 blocker, +1 common bugs, +
16:20:13 <lruzicka> +1 fe
16:20:14 <pwhalen> I'll amend to +1fe, just don't like regressions
16:20:47 <Lailah> adamw:  how many votes we have now? I lost count.
16:20:57 <coremodule> as I read that criteria thats stated, in my mind I do see it as a violation, even though not explicit
16:21:04 <adamw> it's now pretty clearly -1 blocker +1 fe, that has i think 4 votes, +1 blocker has 1 vote at this time
16:21:27 <Lailah> Okay
16:21:47 <adamw> coremodule: my take would be that the criterion is *technically* never violated by this bug, because it only talks about the installation process. and even if we read it as "...and the installed system must work as expected" it's only violated in cases where custom network config is required
16:22:30 <adamw> which - assuming it can be worked around as I suggested - doesn't seem like a big enough case to block on for me
16:23:08 <lruzicka> If we document this, anybody will be able to workaround, so I agree with adamw here.
16:24:11 <Lailah> I agree with adamw too
16:24:16 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1727904 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is a regression from previous releases and will be a problem for some users, but it won't be an issue in most cases as DHCP discovery is most common, and for cases where manual network config is needed, can be worked around by adding kickstart or UI configuration
16:24:29 <coremodule> yeah, I can understand that thought. I'm -1 blocker, +1fe based on the fact that you have to manually futz with the network settings, when most will probably let everything be configured automatically
16:24:47 <jlanda> +1 proposal
16:25:03 <coremodule> ack
16:25:07 <pwhalen> ack
16:25:24 <Lailah> ack
16:25:26 <kparal> ack
16:25:32 <adamw> #agreed 1727904 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is a regression from previous releases and will be a problem for some users, but it won't be an issue in most cases as DHCP discovery is most common, and for cases where manual network config is needed, can be worked around by adding kickstart or UI configuration
16:25:55 <adamw> #topic (1744266) Fedora 31 still using Fedora 30 backgrounds
16:25:55 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744266
16:25:55 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, desktop-backgrounds, NEW
16:26:02 <adamw> this one's a pretty obvious blocker under the criteria.
16:26:25 <coremodule> +1 blocker
16:26:26 <adamw> (might even make sense to put it under automatic blockers in future actually)
16:26:26 <lruzicka> blocker +1
16:26:39 * jlanda wonder is this could be autoblocker as missing of a blocker deliverable
16:26:40 <lruzicka> adamw, yes, that definitely makes sense :)
16:26:50 <coremodule> that makes sense to me!
16:26:52 <jlanda> So adamw can directly tag it as blocker
16:26:56 <jlanda> +1b btw
16:27:13 <adamw> s/adamw/anyone/
16:27:22 <jlanda> yeaj :)
16:27:25 * bcotton parachutes in
16:27:29 <bcotton> +1 blocker
16:27:33 <Lailah> +1 blocker
16:27:43 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1744266 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is a clear violation of Basic criterion "The default desktop background must be different from that of the last two stable releases."
16:27:46 * jlanda waves
16:27:49 <adamw> wow, that was a fast parachute
16:27:55 <lruzicka> ack
16:27:56 <adamw> hi jlanda
16:28:05 <bcotton> ack
16:28:07 <kparal> ack
16:28:08 <Lailah> ack
16:28:10 <coremodule> bcotton, sarge, we're surrounded by blocker bugs!
16:28:13 <coremodule> ack
16:28:16 <adamw> #agreed 1744266 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is a clear violation of Basic criterion "The default desktop background must be different from that of the last two stable releases."
16:28:26 <adamw> #topic (1743005) after upgrade gnome-shell from 3.33.2-1.fc31 to 3.33.3-1.fc31 stop working layout switching in X session
16:28:27 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1743005
16:28:27 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, NEW
16:28:31 * Lailah waves back to jlanda
16:28:46 * coremodule waves to Lailah, jlanda, and fired adamw
16:28:53 <coremodule> *fires adamw
16:28:57 <coremodule> .fire adamw
16:28:57 <zodbot> adamw fires adamw
16:29:00 <coremodule> wtf
16:29:07 <jlanda> I was waving the parachuter :D
16:29:19 <Lailah> LOL
16:29:23 <adamw> welp, that's me done
16:29:26 <adamw> who wants to take over the meeting
16:29:26 <adamw> :D
16:29:37 <coremodule> ahaha
16:29:54 <Lailah> adamw:  How can you fire yourself?
16:30:02 <adamw> i'm very skilled in the arts of firing
16:30:07 <bcotton> i don't see any criteria that this bug violates. if "very annoying" were a blocker, we would just get rid of computers
16:30:15 <adamw> +1 get rid of computers
16:30:17 <kparal> so are only those other combos broken, or doesn't super+space work as well?
16:30:19 <coremodule> I don't see any violation of any criterion here. I'
16:30:21 <coremodule> m -2
16:30:27 <coremodule> grr, -1 blocker
16:30:35 <kparal> honestly if super+space didn't work, I think that would be a criterion violation
16:30:41 <coremodule> it sounds like super+space works okay
16:30:47 <Lailah> It's a blocker for me.
16:30:51 <kparal> because it's part of the top bar that's supposed to work
16:31:10 <kparal> I can quickly test
16:31:25 <adamw> layout switching is pretty fundamental to typing in some languages
16:31:34 <coremodule> .info kparal to run a quick test on this
16:31:35 <adamw> and i can see how annoying it would be
16:31:45 <kparal> super+space works
16:31:52 <adamw> but yeah, if the stock key combo works, it works in Wayland, and the panel switcher works, it's hard to argue that this is a blocker
16:31:55 <adamw> +1 FE i'd agree with
16:32:12 <adamw> kparal: did you test in X11?
16:32:15 <jlanda> +1fe since affects lives
16:32:16 <Lailah> Shouldn't be #info  coremodule ?
16:32:26 <coremodule> Lailah, yeah, I don't know what I was thining
16:32:31 <coremodule> cant type this morning either
16:32:37 <adamw> .fire coremodule
16:32:37 <zodbot> adamw fires coremodule
16:32:41 <coremodule> SON OF A
16:32:46 <lruzicka> +1FE, because it might break someone's workflow
16:32:50 <kparal> also, ctrl+shift can't be set using gnome-control-center, so probably it can be done just through tweak tool
16:32:59 <kparal> so this is probably a problem in tweak tool
16:33:09 <kparal> adamw: doh, I tested wayland
16:33:14 <kparal> give me a minute
16:33:25 <adamw> .fire kparal for not reading the reproducer properly
16:33:25 <zodbot> adamw fires kparal for not reading the reproducer properly
16:33:39 <adamw> .fire everyone else just on general principles
16:33:39 <zodbot> adamw fires everyone else just on general principles
16:34:23 <kparal> works the same in X11
16:34:25 <Lailah> What the heck!!!
16:34:29 <Lailah> adamw!
16:34:32 <kparal> so -1 blocker from me
16:34:44 <adamw> kparal: did you try it with tweak tool?
16:34:47 <bcotton> are there two unrelated bugs in this bz or am i just misreading it? numlock switching seems separate from layout switching
16:34:49 <adamw> just curious to find the bounds of the bug now
16:34:54 <adamw> bcotton: yeah, i agree
16:34:59 <kparal> adamw: no, just control center
16:35:06 <adamw> he seems to have only filed them together because they appeared with the same shell update
16:35:08 <kparal> I don't think we want to block on tweak tool issues
16:35:13 <adamw> agreed
16:35:21 <Lailah> Yeah, I agree.
16:35:30 <bcotton> agreed re: tweak tool
16:35:59 <bcotton> kparal: can you repo the numlock switching (without tweak tool)?
16:36:05 <bcotton> repro, too
16:36:25 <kparal> bcotton: not with a VM, I think
16:37:05 <kparal> that can be tested on our bare metal machines tomorrow if needed
16:37:36 <Lailah> They should be two separated bugs. One for numlock switching and one for layout switching.
16:37:38 <Lailah> IMO
16:37:40 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1743005 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - as described both these issues are annoying but do not violate the criteria. We tested in-meeting that configuring the layout switch key combo via the Control Center works in both Wayland and X11. FE is granted to any confirmed layout switching config issue with tweak-tool
16:37:49 <adamw> Lailah: yeah, i agree
16:37:51 <coremodule> ack
16:37:55 <lruzicka> ack
16:37:55 <Lailah> ack
16:37:58 <bcotton> ack
16:38:04 <kparal> ack
16:38:08 <pwhalen> ack
16:38:35 <adamw> #agreed 1743005 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - as described both these issues are annoying but do not violate the criteria. We tested in-meeting that configuring the layout switch key combo via the Control Center works in both Wayland and X11. FE is granted to any confirmed layout switching config issue with tweak-tool
16:39:02 <adamw> #topic Proposed Final blocker
16:39:14 <adamw> #info let's do the proposed Final blocker before circling back to Beta FEs
16:39:21 <adamw> #topic (1743753) blivet.errors.FormatCreateError: (FSError('format failed: 1'), '/dev/mapper/fedora_vm54-00')
16:39:21 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1743753
16:39:22 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, POST
16:40:12 <adamw> basically in some circumstances (it affects openqa 'no swap' and 'software RAID' install tests at least), automatic partitioning fails.
16:40:32 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744354 is my dupe with a bit more detail
16:40:49 <lruzicka> +1 blocker
16:41:14 <Lailah> Give me a moment, I need to read...
16:41:32 <kparal> seems +1
16:41:38 <pwhalen> +1 blocker
16:42:05 <Lailah> +1 blocker
16:42:24 <bcotton> +1 blocker
16:43:30 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1743753 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of Final criterion "The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system and/or container format combination offered in a default installer configuration."
16:43:38 <lruzicka> ack
16:43:45 <jlanda> ack
16:43:56 <Lailah> ack
16:44:02 <pwhalen> ack
16:44:21 <coremodule> ack
16:44:38 <adamw> #agreed 1743753 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of Final criterion "The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system and/or container format combination offered in a default installer configuration."
16:44:46 <adamw> #topic Proposed Beta freeze exceptions
16:44:58 <adamw> #info we're getting close enough to freeze that it's probably worth reviewing these now, so here we go!
16:45:17 <adamw> #info actually scratch that, they were both discussed as proposed blockers already
16:45:21 <adamw> #topic Accepted Final blockers
16:45:23 <adamw> gah
16:45:25 <adamw> #unfo
16:45:26 <adamw> #undo
16:45:26 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x7f939435a610>
16:45:30 <adamw> .fire himself again
16:45:30 <zodbot> adamw fires himself again
16:45:36 <adamw> #topic Accepted Beta blockers
16:45:37 <jlanda> unfo ftw!
16:45:49 <Lailah> unfo?
16:45:54 <adamw> Lailah: typo for undo :)
16:45:55 <Lailah> Is that a new kind of info?
16:45:57 <adamw> #topic (1734179) Cannot be installed due to unsatisfied 'bitfrost' dependency
16:45:58 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734179
16:45:58 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, dracut-modules-olpc, NEW
16:46:38 <adamw> so this is just sorta sitting around
16:47:05 <adamw> we should probably CC more releng-type folks on it to prioritize the idea of changing the pungi config
16:48:14 <adamw> #action adamw to make sure releng folks look at this with an eye to changing the pungi config
16:49:22 <Lailah> adamw: I have something for open floor, it's rather a question than an assesment.
16:49:46 <Lailah> Sorry for being so random, it just came up to my eyes.
16:50:14 <adamw> sure, let's do that
16:50:17 <adamw> #topic Open floor
16:50:28 <adamw> that's all the blockers, what else does anyone have?
16:50:37 <lruzicka> I have one more blocker: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745554
16:51:14 <adamw> oh, sorry
16:51:29 <adamw> #topic Proposed Beta blockers, redux
16:51:37 <jlanda> Uhg, an ugly one
16:51:41 <Lailah> Looks like a blocker to me.
16:51:42 <adamw> #info a wild "new proposed Beta blocker" appeared!
16:51:53 <adamw> #topic (1745554) GDM dies after the user has logged out of Gnome Desktop.
16:51:53 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745554
16:51:53 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gdm, NEW
16:52:05 <adamw> yeah, this would count as logging out not working correctly, for me
16:52:06 <adamw> +1 blocker
16:52:10 <kparal> I just saw it twice in my VM. ctrl+alt+f1 helps, otherwise there's a black screen
16:52:14 <adamw> (assuming it's reproducible)
16:52:20 <Lailah> +1 blocker
16:52:21 <kparal> +1 blocker
16:52:34 <adamw> huh. so is gdm running the whole time but we just don't *switch* to it, or does ctrl-alt-f1 trigger it to restart for some reason?
16:52:47 <pwhalen> +1 blocker
16:52:54 <kparal> adamw: seems so
16:52:58 <bcotton> +1 blocker
16:53:12 <kparal> I think it just doesn't switch consoles correctly
16:53:57 <kparal> note that gdm doesn't run the whole time, it exits after you log in. That functionality has been present for some releases
16:54:04 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1745554 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - as described this is accepted as a violation of Beta criterion "Shutting down, logging out and rebooting must work using standard console commands and the mechanisms offered (if any) by all release-blocking desktops", as this presents to the user as logout not working correctly
16:54:09 <kparal> so once you switch to tty1, it starts itself
16:54:16 <adamw> kparal: oh, right, forgot about that
16:54:23 <kparal> ack
16:54:25 <lruzicka> ack
16:54:28 <pwhalen> ack
16:54:35 <adamw> #agreed 1745554 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - as described this is accepted as a violation of Beta criterion "Shutting down, logging out and rebooting must work using standard console commands and the mechanisms offered (if any) by all release-blocking desktops", as this presents to the user as logout not working correctly
16:54:59 <adamw> ok! let's try again
16:55:03 <adamw> #topic Open floor (take 2)
16:55:26 <lruzicka> kparal, CTRL-ALT-F1 only helps sometimes, some other times the bug sent the system down the drain
16:56:53 <adamw> Lailah: what did you have for open floor?
16:57:01 <Lailah> Oh!
16:57:14 <Lailah> It's mostly a question about a bug I filed.
16:57:52 <Lailah> It's this one:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745099
16:58:09 <Lailah> And I'm trying to add another screenshot, but I can't figure out how.
16:58:20 <Lailah> It would some useful information, I think.
16:58:49 <Lailah> I was asked for logs but I can't see how a log can be generated if it never gets to install.
16:58:54 <Lailah> Also, it's not my computer.
16:59:01 <Lailah> So that's it.
16:59:12 <adamw> you can do ctrl-alt-f2 to get to a console, after the crash happens
16:59:18 <adamw> and from there you can find the log files in /tmp
16:59:29 <adamw> if the internet is working at that point you can use fpaste to get them out
16:59:37 <adamw> otherwise, you can plug in a USB stick, mount it, and copy the files to it
16:59:49 <lruzicka> Lailah, just add another attachment to the bug, there is a link for it
16:59:55 <Lailah> Which files? It doesn't install.
17:00:06 <adamw> Lailah: there will be logs produced by the installer itself, in the installer environment
17:00:10 <adamw> just look under /tmp and you will see them
17:00:17 <adamw> one of them will contain the whole crash traceback, for instance
17:00:19 <lruzicka> Lailah, anaconda produces log files during the install and they can be seen even if it does not install
17:00:59 <Lailah> Okay, I'll tell the computer's owner to try again and see if there are any logs available.
17:01:26 <Lailah> Anyway, how do I add a screenshot to the bug?  I have one but I can't see how to add it.
17:01:38 <lruzicka> Lailah, normally your anaconda runs on one console, but more consoles are accessible for debugging and from there you can access logs
17:02:03 <lruzicka> Lailah, Find this line: Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)  and click on it.
17:02:16 <Lailah> Well, that's the line I can't find.
17:02:31 <lruzicka> Are you logged in? Ctrl-F does not find it?
17:02:50 <adamw> hah. i think i just lost my session to the tty switching bug...
17:02:52 * adamw switched to tty3, cannot get back to tty2 now
17:03:17 <lruzicka> Lailah, also, you can send that attachment to me: lruzicka@redhat.com and I will add it for you, if need be.
17:03:19 <Lailah> lruzicka: Yes, I'm logged in, I can see my name in the upper right corner.
17:03:22 * pwhalen has another question for open floor
17:03:42 <lruzicka> Lailah, I can see the link.
17:04:11 <adamw> pwhalen: fire away
17:04:12 <pwhalen> it was asked in the network bug we discussed earlier - how can one debug the network connection in dracut's initrd with NM configuring the network when tools like "ip" are not present?
17:04:33 <Lailah> lruzicka:  Found it. It's bloody tiny and faint coloured.
17:04:37 <Lailah> But there it is!
17:04:46 <pwhalen> adamw, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1727904#c13
17:04:56 <Lailah> Thanks, lruzicka, the Ctrl+F did the job
17:05:05 <Lailah> Well, it didn't but it helped
17:05:19 <adamw> pwhalen: yeah, i saw that question, but i don't have a good answer!
17:05:21 <pwhalen> just wondering what others are doing, I've hit the same problem as Dan.
17:05:23 <pwhalen> heh, ok
17:05:25 <lruzicka> Lailah, that's great
17:05:29 <adamw> whatever you can get out of nmcli, i guess?
17:05:46 <adamw> if adding ip to the initramfs wouldn't be too much weight, maybe we should do that
17:06:24 <pwhalen> unless someone has a better answer, perhaps we should
17:06:25 <lruzicka> adamw, I believe that it should not do any harm, if one had basic network tools handy in the installed system
17:06:45 <adamw> lruzicka: the tradeoff with putting things in the initramfs is, they get loaded into RAM
17:06:53 <adamw> the bigger the initramfs the more RAM you need to install
17:07:10 <adamw> that's why we don't just throw the kitchen sink in there
17:07:39 <lruzicka> adamw, heh, can't get the machine's IP with sink, can you :D
17:07:48 <adamw> =)
17:08:30 <adamw> alright, so is that everything?
17:09:03 <Lailah> I don't have anything else from my side.
17:09:13 <Lailah> Not that I remember, at least.
17:09:47 <adamw> alrighty then
17:09:50 <adamw> thanks for coming, everyone!
17:09:52 <adamw> see you next time
17:10:03 <kparal> thanks for chairing
17:10:07 <Lailah> Thanks y'all! See ya!
17:10:11 <pwhalen> thanks adamw et al
17:10:27 <coremodule> Thanks for chairing adamw
17:10:36 <adamw> #endmeeting