16:01:44 <adamw> #startmeeting F31-blocker-review
16:01:44 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Sep  3 16:01:44 2019 UTC.
16:01:44 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:01:44 <zodbot> The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:01:44 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:01:44 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f31-blocker-review'
16:01:44 <cmurf> summon the bot!
16:01:44 <adamw> #meetingname F31-blocker-review
16:01:44 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
16:01:44 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f31-blocker-review'
16:01:51 <frantisekz> .hello2
16:01:52 <zodbot> frantisekz: frantisekz 'František Zatloukal' <fzatlouk@redhat.com>
16:01:54 <bcotton> .hello2
16:01:56 <sgallagh> .hello2
16:01:57 <zodbot> bcotton: bcotton 'Ben Cotton' <bcotton@redhat.com>
16:01:59 <adamw> hi folks, who's around for blocker reviewin' fun?
16:01:59 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
16:02:00 <cmurf> .hello chrismurphy
16:02:03 <zodbot> cmurf: chrismurphy 'Chris Murphy' <bugzilla@colorremedies.com>
16:02:08 <coremodule> this meeting, again?????
16:02:13 <coremodule> .hello2
16:02:14 <zodbot> coremodule: coremodule 'Geoffrey Marr' <gmarr@redhat.com>
16:02:36 <kparal> .hello2
16:02:38 <zodbot> kparal: kparal 'Kamil Páral' <kparal@redhat.com>
16:03:39 * coremodule willing to secretarialize!
16:03:41 <adamw> coremodule: did you start dreaming about it yet
16:04:01 <coremodule> adamw, ive been trying to drink it away
16:04:09 <coremodule> hasnt worked.... yet.
16:04:24 <kparal> that's a solution certified by adamw, it has to work
16:04:35 <adamw> coremodule: try the emergency liquor cabinet, stocked by wwoods
16:04:35 <kparal> it means you don't drink enough
16:05:54 <adamw> allllrighty
16:06:00 <adamw> impending boilerplate alert!
16:06:10 <adamw> oh wait, first i get to throw chairs
16:06:12 <adamw> #chair cmurf sgallagh
16:06:12 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw cmurf sgallagh
16:06:18 <adamw> #topic Introduction
16:06:18 <adamw> Why are we here?
16:06:18 <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.
16:06:18 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:06:20 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:06:20 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:06:23 * sgallagh ducks
16:06:23 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:06:24 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:06:26 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
16:06:28 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:06:30 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Final_Release_Criteria
16:07:06 <adamw> #info for Beta, we have:
16:07:07 <adamw> #info 6 Proposed Blockers
16:07:08 <adamw> #info 3 Accepted Blockers
16:07:11 <adamw> #info 9 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:07:11 <adamw> #info 2 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
16:07:22 <adamw> #info for Final, we have:
16:07:22 <adamw> #info 2 Proposed Blockers
16:07:32 <adamw> #info let's get started with proposed Beta blockers!
16:07:35 * cmurf got hit by a chair, shoulda ducked faster
16:07:53 <adamw> #topic (1745933) TypeError: Argument 1 does not allow None as a value
16:07:54 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745933
16:07:54 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST
16:08:33 <cmurf> I ran into this and weirdly 'abrt-cli list' doesn't list it
16:08:38 <adamw> soo, which one was this one
16:08:45 <adamw> abrt seems uh. kinda broken.
16:08:54 <adamw> i've been just filing things through coredumpctl, but we should probably check on that.
16:08:54 <cmurf> happens when you're in custom partitioning and choose /
16:09:10 <cmurf> yeah no coredumpctl listed either
16:09:21 <cmurf> I'm not sure python programs crashing end up there anyway
16:09:57 <adamw> oh, yeah, they wouldn't
16:09:59 <adamw> anyhoo
16:10:13 <adamw> this looks like it violates https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Beta_Release_Criteria#Custom_partitioning to me
16:10:14 <adamw> so +1
16:10:17 <coremodule> I am +1 blocker, "...all spokes in anaconda should work like they're supposed to..." or however its worded
16:10:19 <bcotton> +1
16:10:35 <coremodule> that works even better, +1
16:10:36 <sgallagh> +1
16:10:40 <frantisekz> +1
16:10:54 <cmurf> I think the listed criteria is final though
16:10:55 <adamw> release criteria proposal: replace all criteria with a page that says "it's all gotta work, ya heah?"
16:11:10 <adamw> yeah, that one is
16:11:14 <adamw> but i'd say it breaks the beta one, as described
16:11:31 <adamw> "Create mount points backed by ext4 partitions, LVM volumes or btrfs volumes, or software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions"
16:11:36 <cmurf> yep
16:12:10 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1745933 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - as described this appears to break several of the requirements in the Beta "Custom partitioning" criterion, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Beta_Release_Criteria#Custom_partitioning
16:12:26 <cmurf> ackbar
16:12:27 <frantisekz> ack
16:12:30 <kparal> ack
16:13:04 <adamw> #agreed 1745933 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - as described this appears to break several of the requirements in the Beta "Custom partitioning" criterion, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Beta_Release_Criteria#Custom_partitioning
16:13:15 <adamw> #topic (1748003) Epiphany does not render anything on RaspberryPi 2
16:13:15 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748003
16:13:15 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, epiphany, NEW
16:13:50 <adamw> epiphany's still default browser on xfce?
16:13:53 <sgallagh> Is Epiphany the default browser on armv7hl?
16:14:26 <frantisekz> adamw: yes
16:14:42 <frantisekz> it is the default and the only one browser there
16:14:53 <adamw> so
16:14:58 <adamw> pwhalen: ahoy!
16:15:09 * pwhalen is here
16:15:24 <frantisekz> I've been talking about this to mcatanzaro/TingPing/tpopela yestereday
16:15:28 <adamw> pwhalen: so we seem to have a story going where frantisekz has an rpi2 which is having all sorts of problems
16:15:28 <frantisekz> this seems weird:
16:15:29 <frantisekz> connect(3, {sa_family=AF_UNIX, sun_path="/run/user/1000/wayland-0"}, 27) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
16:15:29 <frantisekz> connect(3, {sa_family=AF_UNIX, sun_path=@"/tmp/.X11-unix/X0"}, 20) = -1 ECONNREFUSED (Connection refused)
16:15:29 <frantisekz> connect(3, {sa_family=AF_UNIX, sun_path=@"/tmp/.X11-unix/X0"}, 20) = -1 ECONNREFUSED (Connection refused)
16:15:31 <adamw> but other arm boards aren't
16:15:38 <adamw> how are things going for you?
16:15:39 <pwhalen> I hadnt seen this one, will try to reproduce
16:16:30 <nirik> If it's Xfce, it definitely won't connect to Wayland. :)
16:16:37 <frantisekz> also for rpi2, I see lots of vc4 errors, pwhalen, how can I do something like nomodeset on wayland?
16:16:50 <frantisekz> nirik: yeah, but the second and third is trying to connect to x
16:16:54 <frantisekz> and that fails too
16:17:16 <sgallagh> If this is only happening on one board, I'm -1 blocker
16:17:20 <pwhalen> frantisekz, vc4 errors are likely known issues
16:17:30 <frantisekz> okay
16:17:35 <sgallagh> Do we know if it's *all* RPi2 systems or could frantisekz have fried it?
16:17:41 <adamw> pwhalen: have you run epiphany on your test systems yet?
16:18:30 <pwhalen> adamw, I have but not sure when I did last, arm or aarch64 etc.
16:18:42 <adamw> ok
16:19:06 <adamw> so...i think for now my vote is we punt this and any other issues that so far we only know for sure hit frantisekz, to get some triage from pwhalen and other testers on other 32-bit arm devices
16:19:10 <adamw> just so we know where we're at
16:19:19 <pwhalen> +1 punt
16:19:25 <pwhalen> I'll update it shortly
16:19:28 <coremodule> im okay with punt
16:19:30 <coremodule> +1 punt
16:19:31 <frantisekz> +1 punt
16:19:42 <bcotton> +1 punt
16:20:40 <adamw> ok
16:21:35 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1748003 - punt (delay decision) - this and other bugs frantisekz has encountered on his raspberry pi 2 worry us, but we'd like to delay the decision on them for a bit while we do more triage with other testers and other systems to determine exactly what's going on
16:21:57 <sgallagh> ack
16:22:04 <frantisekz> ack
16:22:16 <coremodule> ack
16:22:24 <bcotton> ack
16:22:26 <pwhalen> ack
16:23:06 <adamw> #agreed 1748003 - punt (delay decision) - this and other bugs frantisekz has encountered on his raspberry pi 2 worry us, but we'd like to delay the decision on them for a bit while we do more triage with other testers and other systems to determine exactly what's going on
16:23:12 <adamw> #topic (1746563) g-i-s fails to run after Workstation and Silverblue installs, even with SELinux permissive or disabled
16:23:12 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1746563
16:23:12 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-initial-setup, NEW
16:23:22 <frantisekz> +1 blocker
16:23:26 <adamw> it does occur to me (somewhat belatedly...) to wonder if this is another consequence of the systemd session issues
16:23:31 <adamw> but regardless, it seems fairly clearly a blocker
16:23:56 <coremodule> +1 blocker
16:23:59 <bcotton> +1 blocker
16:24:04 <frantisekz> can be also gnome related, they started to use systemd for user sessions since 3.33.x
16:24:27 <sgallagh> +1
16:24:31 <pwhalen> +1 blocker
16:24:35 <cmurf> +1 block
16:25:28 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1746563 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - clear violation of Basic criterion "A system installed with a release-blocking desktop must boot to a log in screen where it is possible to log in to a working desktop using a user account created during installation or a 'first boot' utility"
16:25:34 <coremodule> ack
16:25:35 <bcotton> ack
16:25:49 <frantisekz> ack
16:25:50 <kparal> ack
16:26:01 <sgallagh> ack
16:26:10 <adamw> #agreed 1746563 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - clear violation of Basic criterion "A system installed with a release-blocking desktop must boot to a log in screen where it is possible to log in to a working desktop using a user account created during installation or a 'first boot' utility"
16:26:21 <adamw> #topic (1737471) Cannot pull images from registry.fedoraproject.org
16:26:21 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1737471
16:26:21 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, golang, ASSIGNED
16:27:05 <adamw> so, there's a criteria proposal on test@ for this
16:27:11 <adamw> it does not violate any currently-existing criteria
16:27:17 * adamw brb, call of nature
16:28:00 <bcotton> -1 blocker, +1 FE. would consider it for final blocker status if we nail down the proposal in time
16:28:27 * kparal agrees with bcotton
16:28:28 <cmurf> +1 concur wtih bcotton
16:28:42 <sgallagh> Yeah, same. -1/+1
16:28:49 <frantisekz> +1 FE
16:28:55 <bcotton> but the specifics of this are intersting. even though its a fedora service, i'm a little concerned about basing blockers on external services
16:29:17 <jlanda> +1 to bcotton, and I don't like the fact of wording a specific service whose owner wants to shutdown it asap
16:29:34 <bcotton> although i'm also open to the "it's 2019. computers are only useful to the extent that they can talk to other computers" argument
16:30:45 <cmurf> suggests a fallback option is needed?
16:30:55 <cmurf> deploy parachutes!
16:31:32 <kparal> it's a good remark. If the service is down, we can't test functionality and can't cut a new release. Something to consider.
16:32:00 <jlanda> And... Is this due to fedora-toolbox?
16:32:10 <kparal> or the service can became "release blocking"
16:32:16 <jlanda> Then why don't we block on fedora-toolbox insteas of internals?
16:32:49 <jlanda> s/insteas/instead
16:32:50 <kparal> jlanda: I don't think this is because of toolbox, but because of podman, which is currently installed on server at the very least
16:33:10 <jlanda> Yeah but default registry works, registry.fp.o.is not the default one
16:33:31 <jlanda> And the unique tool that pulls directly from registry.fp.o, afaik is the toolbox
16:33:37 <adamw> wait, who wants to shut down what?
16:33:57 <jlanda> adamw: look cverna's reply. Cpe will want to move to quay or whatever
16:34:12 <sgallagh> adamw: registry.fp.o wants to be moved to Quay.io
16:34:16 <adamw> oh, i missed that paragraph
16:34:23 <adamw> well, we can always fudge that with some weasel words
16:34:34 <kparal> or just update the criterion text
16:34:34 <adamw> 'the preferred registry for Fedora system images' blahblah
16:34:54 <adamw> anyhoo, seems like a consensus for -1 blocker / +1 FE at present
16:35:35 <mclasen> having a non-working toolbox in f31 would be sad
16:35:54 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1737471 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - we agreed that while the criterion is still being kicked around we don't think this absolutely needs to block Beta, we will re-consider it for Beta or Final blocker if it's still a problem when the criterion is decided. Accepted as a freeze exception issue, however, as it is a significant problem we should try to avoid
16:36:00 <coremodule> ack
16:36:07 <bcotton> ack
16:36:13 <kparal> ack
16:36:15 <sgallagh> mclasen: Should we consider it as part of the basic functionality of the desktop env?
16:37:49 <mclasen> its pretty essential for silverblue
16:38:13 <adamw> yeah, that was one question i asked in the thread
16:38:25 <adamw> #agreed 1737471 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - we agreed that while the criterion is still being kicked around we don't think this absolutely needs to block Beta, we will re-consider it for Beta or Final blocker if it's still a problem when the criterion is decided. Accepted as a freeze exception issue, however, as it is a significant problem we should try to avoid
16:38:26 <sgallagh> Is Silverblue a blocking desktop in F31? I don't recall if it was promoted.
16:38:32 <adamw> sgallagh: no, it's not
16:38:34 <bcotton> sgallagh: it is not
16:38:35 <sgallagh> ok
16:39:03 <adamw> #topic (1745846) Review Request: f31-backgrounds - Fedora 31 default desktop background
16:39:03 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745846
16:39:03 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, Package Review, POST
16:39:11 <bcotton> +1 blocker
16:39:15 <sgallagh> mclasen: Right, I think it would be bad to ship without that in Beta as well. We'll definitely try to take an FE for it if one comes in
16:39:25 <adamw> we don't really need to review this on its own since accepted blocker 1744266 depends on it, but since it's been proposed, i guess we may as well
16:39:26 <adamw> +1 for me
16:39:34 <sgallagh> adamw: Can we just get this declared an auto-blocker for the future?
16:39:38 <jlanda> The toolbox image can't be pushed to quay or dockerhub?
16:39:55 <adamw> sgallagh: yeah, we should probably do that, i'll have to send a draft revision of the automatic blocker list for review
16:40:03 <sgallagh> ack
16:40:07 <kparal> +1
16:40:19 <coremodule> +1 blocker
16:40:32 <sgallagh> +1
16:40:39 <jlanda> +1b
16:42:09 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1745846 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this kinda comes under the already-accepted #1744266, but as it's been proposed separately, we accept it under "The default desktop background must be different from that of the last two stable releases"
16:42:18 <kparal> ack
16:42:18 <bcotton> ack
16:42:43 <jlanda> ack
16:42:58 <adamw> #agreed 1745846 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this kinda comes under the already-accepted #1744266, but as it's been proposed separately, we accept it under "The default desktop background must be different from that of the last two stable releases"
16:43:11 <adamw> #topic (1748401) systemd: need freeze exception for F31 beta
16:43:11 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748401
16:43:11 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, systemd, MODIFIED
16:44:05 <adamw> the topic here is bad, but this is essentially a blocker proposal for the vt switch issue we were previously considering part of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745554
16:44:11 <sgallagh> So this is a dependency of a blocker
16:44:15 <adamw> turns out they are separate (but related) issues
16:44:19 <adamw> yeah, which technically means it's a blocker already
16:44:27 <sgallagh> yeah. +1blocker
16:44:30 <adamw> though that policy is slightly wonky and also not implemented in blockerbugs
16:44:31 <kparal> +1 for 1745554
16:44:32 <bcotton> +1 blocker, +1 changing the title
16:44:54 <cmurf> haha
16:46:07 <cmurf> i just made a bug with pretty much that same title, that's why i'm laughing
16:46:44 <bcotton> cmurf: did you propose it as a blocker or an FE, though? :-)
16:46:53 <cmurf> yes FE
16:47:27 <frantisekz> +1 B
16:49:22 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1748401 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this needs to be fixed as part of the fix for already-accepted #1744266
16:49:27 <bcotton> ack
16:49:36 <frantisekz> ack
16:50:12 <coremodule> ack
16:50:15 <sgallagh> ack
16:50:33 <adamw> #agreed 1748401 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this needs to be fixed as part of the fix for already-accepted #1744266
16:50:50 <adamw> #topic proposed Beta freeze exceptions
16:50:57 <adamw> #info let's do the proposed Beta FEs next, as we're in the Beta freeze
16:51:02 <adamw> #topic (1718430) RPM 4.15
16:51:02 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1718430
16:51:02 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, Changes Tracking, ON_QA
16:51:54 <adamw> i'd say +1 for this as it's a Change and this did actually get submitted before the *original* freeze date (which was moved up two days at very short notice for some mysterious reason)
16:52:04 <bcotton> (no it didn't)
16:52:13 <bcotton> but yes, +1 FE
16:52:18 <cmurf> +1 FE
16:52:23 <coremodule> +1FE
16:52:33 <frantisekz> +1FE
16:52:33 <sgallagh> I'm a bit hesitant, given the fundamental nature of this package.
16:52:46 <sgallagh> I'd probably not accept it if we were already in a slip.
16:53:13 <adamw> yeah, if this was later i'd be more strict
16:53:16 <adamw> but given the timing i'm +1
16:53:19 <kparal> +1 fe
16:53:25 * adamw checks the test results...
16:53:25 <bcotton> i nominated it because i'd rather it go in now instead of between beta and final
16:53:36 <sgallagh> Yeah, given that we have the beta currently, I suppose it's okay
16:53:45 <bcotton> alternately, FESCo can kick it to f32
16:54:05 <sgallagh> bcotton: I understand the reasoning, but my default position is "don't rock the boat once we're in Freeze"
16:54:22 <bcotton> sgallagh: that's a good default :-)
16:55:31 <sgallagh> I'm going to vote 0 on this, thus reserving my right to say "I told you so" next week :)
16:55:38 <bcotton> sgallagh++
16:55:38 <adamw> the installer image build test and install tests passed for the update, which is a good sign
16:56:01 <adamw> #agreed the meeting hereby recognizes that sgallagh has invoked the sacred Right To Say I Told You So and will follow the traditional protocols
16:56:26 * sgallagh grins
16:56:55 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1718430 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is obviously a major and potentially disruptive change, but we're willing to accept it as a) it's a Change, b) it's still quite early in Beta freeze and c) the update was submitted before the initial freeze date (but after the suddenly-changed one)
16:57:15 <bcotton> drop c) and i'll ack it :p
16:57:34 <adamw> MAKE ME, PUNK
16:57:46 <bcotton> brb, driving to canada
16:57:58 <cmurf> :D
16:58:29 <kparal> ack
16:58:36 <sgallagh> ack
16:59:17 <frantisekz> ack
17:01:03 <adamw> #agreed 1718430 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is obviously a major and potentially disruptive change, but we're willing to accept it as a) it's a Change, b) it's still quite early in Beta freeze and c) the update was submitted before the initial freeze date (but after the suddenly-changed one)
17:01:23 <adamw> #topic (1737530) python2-fedmsg fails to install due to missing Python 2 dependencies
17:01:24 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1737530
17:01:24 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, fedmsg, ON_QA
17:01:25 <adamw> hmmm
17:01:35 <adamw> i believe the package got retired in fact
17:02:13 <adamw> oh, no it didn't
17:02:18 <adamw> but i think moksha did...
17:02:21 <adamw> which would make this uninstallable...
17:02:54 <sgallagh> adamw: The latest version in F31 contains no python2-fedmsg
17:03:05 <sgallagh> I assume that's how they intend to resolve this.
17:03:09 <kparal> +1 FE in general
17:03:15 <adamw> yeah, but moksha got retired all around i think
17:03:22 <sgallagh> Yes
17:03:25 <adamw> python3-fedmsg still requires python3-moksha-hub
17:03:30 <adamw> so it's still not gonna work
17:03:33 <sgallagh> ... yuck
17:03:56 <jlanda> m, are this packages that were going to be retired but freeze caught them due to the 29th thing?
17:04:02 <sgallagh> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1347980 looks alive...
17:04:23 <bcotton> i'm not really sure that this can't wait until after the freeze, but it seems harmless enough
17:04:24 <adamw> jlanda: no, the freeze didn't stop the retirements. retirements still happened
17:04:25 <bcotton> +1 FE
17:04:36 <adamw> hmm. current compose does still contain a python3-moksha-hub
17:04:43 <jlanda> ah, ok
17:04:55 <sgallagh> adamw: I think "moksha" may be retired though
17:04:56 <adamw> aha
17:04:58 <sgallagh> Which is probably a dep
17:05:01 <adamw> python-moksha-hub is a separate package
17:05:03 <adamw> and that hasn't been retired
17:05:11 <adamw> but it does require python2/3-moksha-common
17:05:44 <sgallagh> Is fedmsg on any of the media?
17:05:51 <sgallagh> That seems... unlikely
17:05:53 <adamw> which is another bloody package...
17:05:54 <adamw> sgallagh: no
17:05:58 <adamw> (i'm gonna wildly guess)
17:06:05 <sgallagh> Then what value is there to an FE?
17:07:00 <adamw> not much, i guess
17:07:06 <adamw> i think churchyard just mass-filed them
17:07:41 <adamw> so i guess -1 FE and let the update process take care of this
17:07:52 <sgallagh> -1 from me
17:07:56 <frantisekz> -1
17:07:57 <adamw> somehow there doesn't actually seem to be a dependency from python3-moksha-hub to moksha
17:07:59 <adamw> which seems...oddd
17:08:03 <adamw> but whateves
17:08:38 * kparal shrugs
17:10:18 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1737530 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - so far as we can tell this is not on any of the release media, so we can just leave the update process to handle it
17:10:22 <bcotton> ack
17:10:26 <adamw> oh, i guess there's the 'help upgrades' argument...
17:10:29 <coremodule> ack
17:10:31 <frantisekz> ack
17:11:51 <sgallagh> upgrades have other problems wrt python2 at this point
17:11:52 <sgallagh> ack
17:11:54 <adamw> true
17:12:08 <adamw> #agreed 1737530 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - so far as we can tell this is not on any of the release media, so we can just leave the update process to handle it
17:12:19 <adamw> #topic (1747436) lots of python2 packages should be obsoleted
17:12:19 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747436
17:12:19 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, fedora-obsolete-packages, MODIFIED
17:12:21 <adamw> speaking of which!
17:12:40 <adamw> ok, +1 FE on this one for upgrade reasons.
17:13:00 <frantisekz> +1 FE
17:13:03 <kparal> +1 fe
17:13:19 <coremodule> +1FE
17:13:21 <jlanda> +1 fe
17:13:36 <bcotton> +1 FE
17:14:46 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1747436 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - pushing this will solve a lot of problems on upgrade to Fedora 31 Beta, so it's worth an FE
17:14:53 <frantisekz> ack
17:15:00 <jlanda> ack
17:15:07 <bcotton> ack
17:15:48 <adamw> #agreed 1747436 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - pushing this will solve a lot of problems on upgrade to Fedora 31 Beta, so it's worth an FE
17:16:05 <adamw> #topic (1747415) mu cannot be installed: nothing provides python3.7dist(matplotlib) < 3.1 needed by mu-1.0.2-3.fc31
17:16:05 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747415
17:16:05 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, mu, ON_QA
17:16:25 <adamw> "as this makes Python Classroom Lab broken"
17:16:29 <adamw> affects a deliverable, so sure, +1
17:16:34 <bcotton> +1 FE
17:16:42 <frantisekz> +1 FE
17:16:46 <sgallagh> ok +1
17:16:48 <kparal> +1 fe
17:16:55 <coremodule> +1 FE
17:17:22 <jlanda> +1 fe
17:17:48 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1747415 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as it prevents the creation of a deliverable (the Python Classroom Lab)
17:18:02 <frantisekz> ack
17:18:10 <cmurf> ack
17:18:13 <coremodule> ack
17:18:14 <jlanda> ack
17:18:34 <bcotton> ack
17:18:38 <kparal> ack
17:18:55 <adamw> #agreed 1747415 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as it prevents the creation of a deliverable (the Python Classroom Lab)
17:19:05 <adamw> #topic (1746364) applying cgroup configuration for process caused \"mountpoint for devices not found\"": OCI runtime error
17:19:05 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1746364
17:19:05 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, podman, MODIFIED
17:19:28 <bcotton> +1 FE since it blocks the implementation of an approved Change proposal
17:19:49 <coremodule> sure, +1 FE
17:19:52 <bcotton> err, not the implementation exactly, i guess, but the usefulness
17:19:58 <cmurf> don't we need podman to work?
17:20:05 <cmurf> for sure in beta? or not
17:20:26 <cmurf> i'm +1 FE but i wonder if it should be a blocker
17:20:39 <bcotton> cmurf: based on what criterion?
17:20:47 <cmurf> right well that is always the next question
17:21:11 <coremodule> are there any deliverables that rely on podman that we block on?
17:21:12 <cmurf> reduces test coverage (catch all) if it's not going to work at all
17:21:41 <coremodule> think i saw an email about this recently...
17:21:45 <cmurf> cloudy things?
17:21:48 <adamw> yeah, there's a proposed criterion
17:21:49 <kparal> +1 FE
17:21:51 <adamw> but for now we don't block on it at all
17:21:57 <cmurf> ok gotcha
17:22:34 <adamw> +1 FE i guess
17:23:17 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1746364 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is a significant problem in a component that is important these days (though not yet release-blocking), and affects implementation of an approved Change
17:23:25 <bcotton> ack
17:23:27 <kparal> ack
17:23:41 <cmurf> there are two cloud images that are release blocking, don't they depend on podman working or you can't do much of anything?
17:24:17 <cmurf> ack
17:24:40 <coremodule> ack
17:24:58 <adamw> #agreed 1746364 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is a significant problem in a component that is important these days (though not yet release-blocking), and affects implementation of an approved Change
17:25:13 <adamw> #topic (1739922) python2-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure fails to install in Fedora rawhide
17:25:13 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739922
17:25:13 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, python-fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure, ON_QA
17:26:17 <bcotton> so ignore the "rawhide" part
17:26:29 <coremodule> +1 FE
17:26:43 <kparal> isn't this the same situation as with bz 1737530 ?
17:26:52 <adamw> on the face of it this seems like the fedmsg one
17:26:53 <adamw> yeah
17:27:05 <frantisekz> -1
17:27:07 <bcotton> yeah, i was thinking the same thing
17:27:09 <bcotton> -1
17:27:29 <sgallagh> -1
17:30:26 <cmurf> -1
17:31:30 <adamw> there seems to be a question about whether packages will get retired if we don't give them FEs
17:31:36 <adamw> but i can ask churchyard about that separately i guess
17:32:00 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1739922 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - so far as we can tell this is not on any of the release media, so we can just leave the update process to handle it
17:32:05 <sgallagh> The retirement process says “before Final Freeze”, doesn’t it?
17:32:06 <kparal> ack
17:32:21 <coremodule> ack
17:32:24 <frantisekz> ack
17:32:25 <bcotton> ack
17:32:41 <bcotton> yeah "The package maintainer may postpone this retirement to the Final Freeze by promising to fix it until then."
17:33:45 <adamw> #agreed 1739922 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - so far as we can tell this is not on any of the release media, so we can just leave the update process to handle it
17:36:26 <adamw> #topic (1739928) python2-tw2-jqplugins-ui fails to install in Fedora rawhide
17:36:27 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739928
17:36:27 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, python-tw2-jqplugins-ui, ON_QA
17:36:57 <frantisekz> doesn't seem to be part of any default package set
17:37:00 <cmurf> -1 FE
17:37:05 <bcotton> -1 FE
17:37:06 <frantisekz> -1 FE
17:37:19 <cmurf> btw, a new proposed FE has appeared in the list
17:37:58 <adamw> ahhh it never ends
17:38:37 <jlanda> We're getting proposals duting meetings.. are you training for the waving thing? :D
17:38:40 <adamw> yeah, even with the "we'll accept FEs for things submitted stable before the old deadline" thing...this wasn't submitted stable, only submitted to testing
17:39:30 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1739928 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - so far as we can tell this is not on any of the release media, so we can just leave the update process to handle it. Note it was not submitted for stable before the old freeze date
17:39:46 <cmurf> (technically i proposed it minutes before the meeting)
17:40:07 <bcotton> ack
17:40:09 <jlanda> ack
17:40:11 <frantisekz> ack
17:40:14 <adamw> #agreed 1739928 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - so far as we can tell this is not on any of the release media, so we can just leave the update process to handle it. Note it was not submitted for stable before the old freeze date
17:40:20 <adamw> #topic (1739929) python2-tw2-jquery fails to install in Fedora 31
17:40:21 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739929
17:40:21 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, python-tw2-jquery, ON_QA
17:40:22 <adamw> ditto?
17:40:27 <cmurf> -1 FE
17:40:40 <frantisekz> -1 FE
17:40:46 <jlanda> -1
17:40:50 <bcotton> -1 FE
17:41:57 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1739929 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - so far as we can tell this is not on any of the release media, so we can just leave the update process to handle it. Note it was not submitted for stable before the old freeze date
17:42:09 <frantisekz> ack
17:42:15 <bcotton> ack
17:42:22 <cmurf> ack
17:42:45 <kparal> ack
17:42:51 <adamw> #agreed 1739929 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - so far as we can tell this is not on any of the release media, so we can just leave the update process to handle it. Note it was not submitted for stable before the old freeze date
17:43:07 <adamw> #topic (1746584) GNOME systemd session start fails due to SELinux denial: denied  { start } for auid=n/a uid=XXX gid=XXX path="/usr/lib/systemd/user/gnome-session-wayland@.target"
17:43:08 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1746584
17:43:08 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, selinux-policy, POST
17:43:16 <cmurf> +1 FE
17:43:22 <adamw> ok, this one is a clear FE for me
17:43:27 <jlanda> +1ge
17:43:30 <bcotton> +1 FE
17:43:32 <frantisekz> +1 FE
17:43:39 <cmurf> it's causing enough problems it's approaching block worthy
17:43:50 <adamw> cmurf: it's not entirely clear what problems it causes
17:43:56 <adamw> because g-i-s still doesn't run even if you turn selinux off
17:43:58 <adamw> but it's clearly wrong
17:44:05 <cmurf> ok
17:44:37 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1746584 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - it is not entirely clear what the consequences of this failing are due to the other g-i-s bug, but it is clearly a case of the default Workstation install path not behaving as intended so we ought to fix it
17:44:41 <jlanda> ack
17:44:46 <frantisekz> ack
17:44:53 <bcotton> ack
17:44:53 <kparal> ack
17:45:01 <adamw> #agreed 1746584 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - it is not entirely clear what the consequences of this failing are due to the other g-i-s bug, but it is clearly a case of the default Workstation install path not behaving as intended so we ought to fix it
17:45:13 <adamw> OK, now for cmurf's newly-proposed one
17:45:15 <adamw> #topic (1748463) GNOME 3.33.92 megaupdate should go in beta
17:45:15 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748463
17:45:15 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-shell, NEW
17:45:22 <cmurf> i guess i fibbed, submitted at 1617, but i gave adamw a heads up on #fedora-qa before the meeting
17:45:46 <adamw> .fire cmurf
17:45:46 <zodbot> adamw fires cmurf
17:45:53 <cmurf> how did i know that was coming?
17:45:55 <adamw> sooo...desktop team isn't actually pushing this
17:46:01 <cmurf> they floated it
17:46:06 <frantisekz> hmm, I'd say +1 FE, but maybe it's worth it to have some deadline in place here?
17:46:07 <adamw> kalev said:
17:46:07 <adamw> <kalev> adamw: I haven't filed one at least. If you guys want to get 3.33.92 in beta, I wouldn't mind but I don't think I want to fight for it
17:46:08 <cmurf> but right, aren't pushing
17:46:29 <adamw> kalev: anything to add to that?
17:46:49 <cmurf> last year at this time we were debating putting 3.30.0 into the beta
17:46:50 <bcotton> +1 FE
17:46:58 <jlanda> +1 fe
17:47:37 <jlanda> We'll go with it on final, let's start testing asap
17:47:52 <jlanda> And live are affected ofc
17:48:42 <cmurf> +1 FE for me anyway, assuming it lands before QA considers it too last minute
17:49:07 <kparal> +1 FE
17:49:29 <frantisekz> if it's not ready by next monday, we can re-evaluate
17:50:11 <jlanda> And we have a wks member here who can bring first hand info =)
17:51:42 <adamw> okay then
17:52:13 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1748463 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - we accept 3.33.92 as an FE for Beta in principle, so long as an update arrives in reasonable time and passes sufficient tests prior to landing
17:52:19 <frantisekz> ack
17:52:22 <cmurf> ack
17:52:32 <kparal> ack
17:53:19 <adamw> #agreed 1748463 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - we accept 3.33.92 as an FE for Beta in principle, so long as an update arrives in reasonable time and passes sufficient tests prior to landing
17:54:14 <adamw> ok, i believe that's all the proposed FEs
17:55:36 <adamw> #topic proposed Final blockers
17:55:42 <adamw> finally, let's get to proposed final blockers!
17:56:33 <adamw> #topic (1747404) nomodeset is missing on installed system even if installed with basic video driver
17:56:33 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747404
17:56:33 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
17:56:43 <adamw> so, this is nomodeset not being passed through by the installer?
17:56:48 <frantisekz> yep
17:57:18 <cmurf> so it's not making it into the grubenv's kernelopts line?
17:57:36 <cmurf> 'grub2-editenv list'
17:58:04 <cmurf> is it in /etc/default/grub ?
17:58:15 <frantisekz> it's not it /etc/default/grub
17:58:16 <adamw> we don't need to debug it here
17:58:20 <adamw> just decide if it's a blocker...
17:58:22 <frantisekz> it/in
17:58:33 <kparal> the criterion is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Final_Release_Criteria#.27Basic_graphics_mode.27_boot_mode_behavior
17:58:43 <cmurf> ok yeah it's definitely installer then
17:58:50 <kparal> frantisekz mentioned just a test case wording in the bug
17:59:08 <cmurf> and it violates the criterion
17:59:15 <frantisekz> kparal yep
17:59:26 <coremodule> +1 blocker
17:59:45 <kparal> I just realized that if the user later resolves his gpu issues (updated kernel, drivers), he is still quite screwed unless he knows how to edit grub config
17:59:51 <adamw> yeah
17:59:51 <adamw> +1
17:59:54 <frantisekz> +1 B (if it counts from reporter..)
17:59:58 <kparal> but that's just a side note
18:00:09 <kparal> +1 blocker per criteria
18:00:24 <cmurf> well wait the criterion applies to the image
18:00:27 <frantisekz> kparal: yeah, Lukas was helping somebody with nVidia optimus today and the guy had nomodeset in kernel opts
18:00:28 <cmurf> not post installed
18:00:56 <kparal> well it says "installer or desktop"
18:01:25 <kparal> I assume desktop means post-install
18:01:43 <cmurf> there is no "basic graphics mode" option in an installed system though
18:01:46 <adamw> yeah, i'm pretty sure the intent here is the installed system should also try to boot nomodeset
18:01:50 <adamw> that has always been how it has behavedf
18:02:01 <cmurf> i agree it's a regression
18:02:23 <cmurf> if you pick nomodeset to boot the installer, it should insert that boot parameter on the installed system
18:02:42 <adamw> i'd say this comes under 'function as intended'
18:02:47 <adamw> though perhaps we should clarify the criterion a bit more
18:02:51 <cmurf> yeah
18:02:54 <cmurf> I'd be +1 blocker for final
18:02:58 <cmurf> I'm more +1 FE for beta
18:03:13 <cmurf> so yeah +1 blocker for final
18:03:13 <bcotton> +1 blocker
18:05:48 <adamw> this is proposed for final
18:05:56 <adamw> do we want to do +1 FE for beta too? i'd support that
18:06:20 <bcotton> +1 FE (beta)
18:06:25 <frantisekz> yes, there is no harm in doing that I guess
18:06:34 <frantisekz> +1 FE (Beta)
18:06:36 <kparal> +1 FE Beta
18:06:39 <cmurf> +1 beta fe
18:06:43 <cmurf> get it fixed if possible
18:06:44 <coremodule> sure, +1 FE
18:07:06 <adamw> ok
18:07:58 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1747404 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as a Final blocker as a violation of "The generic video driver option ('basic graphics mode' - as described in the Basic criteria) on all release-blocking installer and live images must function as intended (launching the installer or desktop and attempting to use a generic driver)...", and as a Beta freeze exception as a significant installer
18:07:58 <adamw> issue worth fixing
18:08:17 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1747404 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as a Final blocker as a violation of "The generic video driver option ('basic graphics mode'...) on all release-blocking installer and live images must function as intended (launching the installer or desktop and attempting to use a generic driver)...", and as a Beta freeze exception as a significant installer issue worth fixing
18:08:24 <frantisekz> ack
18:08:30 <cmurf> ack
18:09:06 <kparal> ack
18:09:21 <bcotton> ack
18:09:51 <adamw> #agreed 1747404 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as a Final blocker as a violation of "The generic video driver option ('basic graphics mode'...) on all release-blocking installer and live images must function as intended (launching the installer or desktop and attempting to use a generic driver)...", and as a Beta freeze exception as a significant installer issue worth fixing
18:10:01 <adamw> #topic (1747845) failure to resume gdm after blanking (when backlight goes off)
18:10:01 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747845
18:10:01 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gdm, NEW
18:10:07 <cmurf> better title might be "once login screen blanks (powersave), it can't be resumed"
18:10:26 <frantisekz> +1 here I guess
18:10:31 <cmurf> summary as i understand it now: gnome-shell is what show the login screen, and it's either hanging or crashing
18:11:16 <cmurf> so actually this is probably worth a beta FE if it can be tracked down and fixed
18:12:00 <cmurf> it's complicated by the depends on bug, which is somehow gnome-shell and systemd aren't on the same page to setup coredump captures when the crash does happen
18:12:12 <bcotton> +1 blocker (final), +1 GE (beta)
18:12:33 <cmurf> +1 final block, +1 beta FE
18:12:54 <cmurf> maybe someone more clever than me can make a case that this is a bad bug for beta and worth blocking on...
18:13:15 <adamw> has anyone else reproduced this, fwiw?
18:13:23 <cmurf> dunno
18:13:46 <cmurf> reproduces for me 100%, either hang or crash
18:13:50 <frantisekz> didn't try/I can tomorrow
18:13:59 <cmurf> on baremetal and in qemu-kvm (qxl)
18:14:33 <adamw> okay
18:14:37 <adamw> +1/+1 for now at least
18:14:46 <cmurf> i think you're right to suggest we shouldn't block on it unless it's widespread
18:14:58 <cmurf> the ugly but plausible work around for beta is, don't let it blank :D
18:15:01 <adamw> i think we can take it for now
18:15:08 <adamw> we can adjust later if it turns out to be hardware-specific
18:15:08 <kparal> +1
18:16:50 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1747845 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - as currently described we accept this as a Final blocker under criterion cited in comment #2, and as a Beta freeze exception as a significant bug that can be encountered immediately after install and so not fully fixable with an update
18:16:58 <frantisekz> ack
18:17:03 <cmurf> ack
18:17:26 <kparal> ack
18:17:50 <adamw> #agreed 1747845 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - as currently described we accept this as a Final blocker under criterion cited in comment #2, and as a Beta freeze exception as a significant bug that can be encountered immediately after install and so not fully fixable with an update
18:18:53 <adamw> alrighty
18:18:56 <adamw> i believe that's everything!
18:18:59 <adamw> thanks for sticking with it, folks
18:19:01 <adamw> #topic Open floor
18:19:06 <adamw> any other business related to F31 Beta?
18:19:11 <frantisekz> thanks for leading this adamw
18:19:11 <adamw> or missed proposed bugs etc.?
18:19:25 <frantisekz> gotta go now, see you on monday for next round I guess :)
18:19:39 <kparal> bye frantisekz
18:19:41 <kparal> enjoy the pub
18:20:03 <frantisekz> damn... reading minds should be banned
18:21:06 <cmurf> okkkk i just discovered something new with that last bug
18:21:10 <kparal> it's hard to get it wrong, even without reading minds :)
18:21:24 <cmurf> if i set screen to blank while logged into gnome-shell, and it blanks, I can't wake it up either
18:21:25 <cmurf> same effect
18:21:38 <adamw> frantisekz: you're czech, no-one needs to be a mind reader
18:21:45 <adamw> if you're not at work or in bed, you're at the pub :D
18:22:01 <coremodule> nothing here, im gonna go to lunch, then ill do the secretarializing
18:22:31 <adamw> thanks coremodule++
18:22:31 <zodbot> adamw: Karma for coremodule changed to 1 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
18:22:44 <adamw> #info belated note: coremodule is secretarializing
18:22:47 <kparal> adamw: and sometimes some of those can be combined
18:23:01 <adamw> kparal: shocking behaviour
18:23:32 <kparal> hmm, a pub with beds, that's a business opportunity
18:24:16 <adamw> you should look INNto that
18:24:23 <bcotton> the kind of bed that sits up, so you can work while you're in Pub Bed
18:24:36 <adamw> (thanks folks, i'm here all week)
18:24:48 <coremodule> this is getting so hostel in here
18:24:59 <adamw> .fire everyone, including himself
18:24:59 <zodbot> adamw fires everyone, including himself
18:25:10 <coremodule> hey, you started it
18:25:12 <adamw> alright, thanks everyone! see you next time
18:25:19 <coremodule> thanks for hosting adamw
18:25:29 <adamw> #endmeeting