16:03:01 <adamw> #startmeeting F31-blocker-review
16:03:01 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Sep 23 16:03:01 2019 UTC.
16:03:01 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:03:01 <zodbot> The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:03:01 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:03:01 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f31-blocker-review'
16:03:01 <zodbot> pwhalen: pwhalen 'Paul Whalen' <pwhalen@redhat.com>
16:03:01 <adamw> #meetingname F31-blocker-review
16:03:01 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
16:03:01 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f31-blocker-review'
16:03:07 <frantisekz> .hello2
16:03:08 <zodbot> frantisekz: frantisekz 'František Zatloukal' <fzatlouk@redhat.com>
16:03:11 <bcotton> .hello2
16:03:12 <zodbot> bcotton: bcotton 'Ben Cotton' <bcotton@redhat.com>
16:03:22 <adamw> morning folks, who is around for blocker review pain^H^H^H^Hfun
16:05:18 <adamw> coremodule: you can hello again now
16:06:31 <coremodule> .hello2 coremodule
16:06:32 <zodbot> coremodule: coremodule 'Geoffrey Marr' <gmarr@redhat.com>
16:07:07 <sgallagh> .hello2
16:07:08 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
16:07:14 <sgallagh> I'm still in the FESCo meeting, but I'll try to multi-task
16:07:24 * coremodule be secret, Terry!
16:07:47 <adamw> tflink: ping
16:07:47 <zodbot> adamw: Ping with data, please: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/No_naked_pings
16:07:53 <adamw> shutup zodbot
16:08:15 <adamw> alright, let's see how far we get with this motley crew :)
16:08:19 <adamw> #chair pwhalen coremodule
16:08:19 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw coremodule pwhalen
16:08:38 <coremodule> woot woot
16:08:55 <adamw> impending boilerplate alert!
16:09:03 <adamw> #topic Introduction
16:09:03 <adamw> Why are we here?
16:09:03 <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.
16:09:03 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:09:03 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:09:04 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:09:06 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:09:08 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:09:10 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
16:09:12 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:09:14 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Final_Release_Criteria
16:09:18 <adamw> we have:
16:09:20 <adamw> #info 5 Proposed Blockers
16:09:22 <adamw> #info 9 Accepted Blockers
16:09:24 <adamw> #info 1 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:09:26 <adamw> #info 1 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
16:10:51 <adamw> coremodule: are you up for secretarializing?
16:11:00 <coremodule> Aye, captain!
16:11:15 * satellit_ listening
16:12:19 <adamw> #info coremodule will secretarialize
16:12:28 <adamw> #info Let's start with proposed blockers
16:12:30 <sgallagh> FESCo is now over.
16:12:33 <adamw> #topic (1753985) Gnome-Boxes cannot connect to Virtualization Backend
16:12:34 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1753985
16:12:34 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-boxes, ASSIGNED
16:12:39 <adamw> fesco is cancelled, y'all
16:12:52 <contyk> .hello psabata
16:12:53 <zodbot> contyk: psabata 'Petr Šabata' <psabata@redhat.com>
16:12:58 <coremodule> If this is actually a bug, then I'm +1, otherwise punt for more info?
16:13:09 <coremodule> *punt for more testing
16:13:25 <adamw> well, it seems like it might be a kinda blip
16:13:43 <frantisekz> I am -1 if we don't have a clear reproducer, I didn't see that out in the wild just yet
16:13:46 <adamw> it doesn't look like it was an error in the test or anything, but it also looks like it doesn't always happen, some odd circumstance caused it to come up
16:13:47 <frantisekz> or we can punt for sure
16:14:04 <bcotton> -1 and it can be re-proposed if it can be reliably reproduced
16:14:34 <coremodule> Yes, agreed with bcotton, -1, it can reproposed if necessary.
16:15:01 <adamw> -1 for now also
16:15:06 <pwhalen> agreed, -1
16:15:07 <tflink> same. -1, can be re-proposed
16:15:30 <sgallagh> -1
16:15:58 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1753985 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this only happened once in openQA and no-one has reproduced it manually, so it just seems like a one-off blip for now and that doesn't violate the criteria. It can be re-proposed if we find a way to reproduce it reliably
16:16:06 <frantisekz> ack
16:16:21 <bcotton> ack
16:16:24 <coremodule> ack
16:16:29 <tflink> ack
16:18:02 <contyk> ack
16:18:31 <adamw> #agreed 1753985 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this only happened once in openQA and no-one has reproduced it manually, so it just seems like a one-off blip for now and that doesn't violate the criteria. It can be re-proposed if we find a way to reproduce it reliably
16:18:35 <adamw> sorry, had to go feed cats
16:18:43 <adamw> #topic (1753191) Switching from GNOME Classic to GNOME leaves the shell in classic mode
16:18:43 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1753191
16:18:43 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-session, MODIFIED
16:18:52 <adamw> so, a note on this: the original report has been split into two bugs
16:19:03 <adamw> this is now for the 'can't get back into shell after trying to start classic once' bug, i believe
16:19:33 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754493 is for 'can't start gnome-classic'
16:19:52 <adamw> i think i'm still -1 blocker to both, though obviously it'd be good to fix them
16:20:19 <coremodule> looks like the fix for this one has been submitted
16:20:23 <tflink> -1 blocker, not a blocking DE. would probably be +1 FE if it's on the live image
16:20:44 <coremodule> -1 blocker, +1 FE
16:20:49 <coremodule> comment 12
16:21:22 <frantisekz> -1 Blocker, +1 FE
16:21:29 <pwhalen> -1 blocker, +1 FE
16:21:37 <bcotton> 0 blocker, +1 FE
16:22:06 <bcotton> (i feel like "display manager logs in to the selected desktop" is an implied criterion)
16:23:04 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1754493 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected as a blocker as, Classic being a non-release-blocking desktop and desktop selection in GDM not being part of the GNOME 'panel', it doesn't violate any criteria. Accepted as an FE as it's a visible bug we would like to avoid being seen out-of-the-box for Final
16:23:12 <sgallagh> I'm with bcotton here. 0/+1
16:23:16 <bcotton> ack
16:23:17 <adamw> bcotton: i feel like it's not :P
16:23:31 <adamw> if it were, then wouldn't we have to block if, I dunno, Sugar didn't start up? just in case you installed it?
16:23:55 <bcotton> no, just that sugar should be the DE that gdm tries to start
16:24:16 <adamw> oh, iswym
16:24:29 <adamw> well, anyway
16:24:44 <frantisekz> ack
16:24:48 <bcotton> i don't feel strongly enough about it to swim against the tide here
16:25:02 <bcotton> especially considering there's already a fix
16:25:17 <pwhalen> ack
16:25:33 <coremodule> ack
16:26:17 <adamw> #agreed 1754493 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected as a blocker as, Classic being a non-release-blocking desktop and desktop selection in GDM not being part of the GNOME 'panel', it doesn't violate any criteria. Accepted as an FE as it's a visible bug we would like to avoid being seen out-of-the-box for Final
16:26:26 <adamw> #topic (1749868) GNOME Software doesn't prepare offline updates
16:26:26 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749868
16:26:26 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-software, NEW
16:28:10 <adamw> so this was related to the skip_if_unavailable change
16:28:11 <coremodule> It seems like this is fixed per Kamil's comment 15...?
16:29:04 <bcotton> but comments 17, 18, and 20 suggest it's not (although it's not clear if they have 3rd party repos enabled)
16:29:09 <coremodule> and Daniel's comment 16
16:29:35 <coremodule> hmmm
16:29:49 <adamw> yeah it's all a bit muddy now
16:29:52 <adamw> possibly we have two bugs here
16:30:15 <tflink> yeah, I was wondering if the new reporters had the same issue
16:31:26 <coremodule> .bug 1752249
16:31:27 <zodbot> coremodule: 1752249 – Revert skip_if_unavailable default back to true - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1752249
16:32:18 <coremodule> since this is in the works, but we have more conflicting data from comments 17, 18, and 19, I'm inclined to punt (yet again) for more info and testing
16:32:39 <adamw> i can sorta see how the new bug could happen
16:32:40 <adamw> but yes, that
16:32:55 <coremodule> I can personally test this between now and then and report in bug
16:33:10 <bcotton> +1 punt
16:33:11 <pwhalen> +1 punt
16:33:36 <tflink> +1 punt
16:33:36 <coremodule> +1 punt
16:33:39 <contyk> +1
16:35:15 <adamw> i'll add some info on the new case to the bug
16:35:28 <adamw> do we know if the skip_if_unavailable default got changed again yet?
16:35:49 <frantisekz> +1 punt
16:36:39 <coremodule> adamw, back to true?
16:36:49 <frantisekz> adamw: looking at the dist-git, nothing got changed just yet
16:36:50 <coremodule> or back to true, then again back to false?
16:38:34 <adamw> i meant back to true
16:38:39 <adamw> but it's not too important i guess
16:39:33 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1749868 - punt (delay decision) - we are still waiting to see the impact of the skip_if_unavailable change here, and also it seems that another cause of the same error may have been discovered, and we should look into that a bit too
16:39:46 <tflink> ack
16:39:55 <bcotton> ack
16:39:56 <coremodule> ack
16:40:15 <adamw> #agreed 1749868 - punt (delay decision) - we are still waiting to see the impact of the skip_if_unavailable change here, and also it seems that another cause of the same error may have been discovered, and we should look into that a bit too
16:40:15 <frantisekz> ack
16:40:35 <pwhalen> ack
16:40:46 <adamw> #topic (1754373) Keyboard shortcuts NOT mapped to keyboard layouts
16:40:46 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754373
16:40:47 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, mutter, NEW
16:41:08 <adamw> this actually makes me wonder if it could be the cause of that other bug we rejected as a beta blocker a while back, but anyhoo
16:41:41 <tflink> seems to be a pretty clear blocker
16:41:54 <tflink> +1 blocker, per criteria
16:41:56 <bcotton> +1 blocker
16:42:00 <pwhalen> +1 blocker
16:42:05 <coremodule> +1 blocker
16:43:07 <adamw> for the record, the citing of the criterion is a bit misleading
16:43:27 <tflink> in bug, yeah
16:43:31 <adamw> "for the case of global keyboard shortcuts" is not part of the criterion text, but the citing makes it look that way
16:43:33 <tflink> it does hit "After logging in to a release-blocking desktop, if the user account does not have its own keyboard layout configuration for that desktop (if there is such a user/desktop-specific configuration, it must be used when that user logs in to that desktop)" thought
16:43:39 <adamw> this would be clearer as a proposal:
16:44:04 <coremodule> ahhh
16:44:20 <adamw> "If a particular keyboard layout has been configured for the system, that keyboard layout must be used...After logging in to a release-blocking desktop, if the user account does not have its own keyboard layout configuration for that desktop (if there is such a user/desktop-specific configuration, it must be used when that user logs in to that desktop)" (for the case of global keyboard shortcuts)
16:45:05 <coremodule> yes, that makes more sense
16:45:10 <adamw> still, i think i'd vote +1, this does seem a sufficient violation of that criterion
16:45:58 <Southern_Gentlem> +1
16:45:59 <frantisekz> +1
16:46:31 * tflink was implicitly thinking of that criterion but it's better to make that explicit
16:46:39 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1754373 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of the 'keyboard layout' criterion
16:46:44 <bcotton> ack
16:46:46 <pwhalen> ack
16:46:48 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
16:46:57 <adamw> #agreed 1754373 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of the 'keyboard layout' criterion
16:47:04 <adamw> #topic (1754307) Package paprefs requires KDE component apper
16:47:04 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754307
16:47:04 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, paprefs, NEW
16:47:10 <adamw> -1, this really doesn't look like a blocker at all.
16:47:22 <tflink> agreed
16:47:23 <tflink> -1
16:47:39 <coremodule> -1 blocker
16:47:44 <tflink> it does sound like it should be sorted out but the blocker process isn't the place for that
16:47:46 <pwhalen> -1 blocker
16:48:13 <tflink> I'd probably be +1 FE on a fix, though
16:48:32 <sgallagh> -1 blocker
16:48:46 <tflink> nvm, wasn't thinking of the package
16:48:54 <tflink> probably -1 FE as well
16:48:55 <sgallagh> We're not in Freeze, so I'm not going to vote on FE
16:49:14 <bcotton> -1 blocker, +1 FE
16:49:16 <adamw> yeah, -1/punt on FE for me.
16:49:32 <adamw> FE would only make sense if the package is on any media...
16:49:52 <bcotton> oh yeah, that
16:50:36 <frantisekz> -1 blocker
16:51:04 <Southern_Gentlem> -1 b /punt
16:51:21 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1754307 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected as a blocker as it does not appear to violate any criteria
16:51:27 <adamw> (let's just ignore FE for now)
16:51:30 <tflink> ack
16:51:35 <pwhalen> ack
16:51:41 <bcotton> ack
16:51:51 <sgallagh> ack
16:52:06 <coremodule> ack
16:52:15 <frantisekz> ack
16:52:16 <adamw> #agreed 1754307 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this is rejected as a blocker as it does not appear to violate any criteria
16:52:28 <adamw> ok, we have one more proposed blocker, the split gnome-classic one
16:52:50 <adamw> #topic (1754493) Attempt to start Gnome Classic ends up in an error.
16:52:50 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754493
16:52:50 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell-extensions, NEW
16:52:58 <adamw> i'm also -1 on this one, same rationale.
16:53:01 <frantisekz> -1
16:53:04 <adamw> (classic is not a release-blocking desktop)
16:53:07 <sgallagh> -1
16:53:19 <tflink> -1 blocker, not a release blocking DE
16:53:33 <pwhalen> -1 blocker
16:53:36 <bcotton> -1 blocker
16:53:48 <coremodule> -1 blocker
16:54:55 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1754493 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - as GNOME Classic is not a release-blocking desktop, this doesn't violate the criteria
16:55:03 <tflink> ack
16:55:08 <coremodule> ack
16:55:10 <sgallagh> ack
16:55:15 <bcotton> ack
16:55:19 <pwhalen> ack
16:55:30 <frantisekz> ack
16:55:41 <adamw> #agreed 1754493 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - as GNOME Classic is not a release-blocking desktop, this doesn't violate the criteria
16:56:12 <adamw> #topic Proposed freeze exceptions
16:56:19 <adamw> #topic (1753328) Stop NOTIFY_SOCKET from leaking into the GNOME environment
16:56:19 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1753328
16:56:19 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-session, ASSIGNED
16:56:50 <adamw> so, backdrop here, we suddenly care a lot about podman in general
16:57:49 <adamw> i'm willing to accept the desktop team's caring-a-lot here and say, sure, let's take a tested fix for podman out of the box if it comes to that, so +1
16:58:00 <frantisekz> yeah, +1
16:58:09 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 fe
16:58:09 <bcotton> +1, although it seems like it can get handled in updates just as well
16:58:23 <pwhalen> +1 FE
16:58:32 <tflink> +1 FE
16:59:04 <coremodule> +1 FE
16:59:14 <sgallagh> Hmm, I'm not sure I agree. Give me a minute
17:00:02 <adamw> bcotton: it's included in workstation package set i think
17:00:20 <adamw> so it affects ootb experience and lives (though dunno how much you'd use it on a live image)
17:00:29 <adamw> the other consideration, i believe, is that Silverblue is built out of the stable packages
17:00:32 <sgallagh> adamw: Does flatpak use it?
17:00:34 <bcotton> yeah, that's what i question
17:00:43 <adamw> so if it gets stuck in u-t due to the Final freeze, silverblue stays broken till we unfreeze
17:00:51 <adamw> you can't so easily just install a package from u-t on silverblue
17:00:57 <bcotton> ah, okay
17:01:08 <bcotton> then i'm still +1 but without comment :-)
17:01:20 <adamw> sgallagh: i don't know, but the thing that *does* seem to use it is the developer toolbox
17:01:25 <adamw> which is a v. important thing for silverblue
17:01:47 <sgallagh> OK, in that case I'm +1
17:04:10 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1753328 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this is accepted due to the impact of broken podman on OOTB experience, and also on Silverblue, which is composed from stable packages
17:04:37 <tflink> ack
17:04:43 <pwhalen> ack
17:04:44 <bcotton> ack
17:04:51 <sgallagh> ack
17:04:54 <frantisekz> ack
17:04:57 <coremodule> ack
17:05:02 <adamw> #agreed 1753328 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this is accepted due to the impact of broken podman on OOTB experience, and also on Silverblue, which is composed from stable packages
17:06:09 <adamw> ok, we have one late-breaking proposed FE also
17:06:26 <adamw> #topic (1752550) soas live beta unable to login to liveuser
17:06:30 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752550
17:06:43 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gwebsockets, ON_QA
17:06:59 <adamw> this was proposed as a Beta FE after we signed off on Beta. i just switched it to Final.
17:07:04 <frantisekz> +1 one I guess
17:07:09 <bcotton> +1 FE
17:07:12 <pwhalen> +1 FE
17:07:13 <adamw> it looks like it'll get fixed before we freeze, but just in case, I'm +1 for fixing a non-blocking desktop with a live image
17:07:13 <frantisekz> can't be fixed later
17:07:20 <satellit_> +1
17:07:26 <sgallagh> +1
17:07:29 <coremodule> +!
17:07:32 <coremodule> +1
17:09:11 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1752550 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this is accepted as it fixes a non-release-blocking desktop with a live image; that can't be fixed with an update
17:09:16 <bcotton> ack
17:10:23 <frantisekz> ack
17:10:39 <pwhalen> ack
17:10:45 <adamw> #agreed 1752550 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this is accepted as it fixes a non-release-blocking desktop with a live image; that can't be fixed with an update
17:11:33 <adamw> #topic Accepted blockers
17:11:37 <adamw> just looking through for ones which need review
17:13:04 <adamw> #info all the accepted blockers are in fairly clear states, mostly waiting on developers for fixes
17:13:07 <mkolman> no Anaconda bugs at all, impossible...
17:13:13 <adamw> I don't think we need to check any of them specifically, does anyone see any?
17:13:23 <adamw> kparal: find some anaconda bugs
17:13:31 <adamw> mkolman: don't worry, we have Top Men working on it ;)
17:13:32 <bcotton> .fire adamw
17:13:33 <zodbot> adamw fires adamw
17:13:42 <mkolman> OK :D
17:14:24 <adamw> mkolman: there definitely *is* some kind of difficult-to-debug memory corruption causing anaconda to occasionally crash early again :(
17:14:30 <adamw> but i have not been able to get useful debugging on it yet
17:14:53 <adamw> OK, anyhoo
17:14:55 <adamw> #topic Open floor
17:14:58 <mkolman> yeah, those are hard to debug
17:14:59 <adamw> any other F31-related business, folks?
17:15:09 <tflink> nothing from me
17:16:25 <coremodule> nothing here...
17:18:20 <frantisekz> nothing I guess, thanks for the meeting
17:19:09 <adamw> alrrrighty then
17:19:18 <adamw> thanks for coming out, folks
17:19:28 <adamw> see you next week, same bat-time, same bat-channel
17:20:04 <adamw> #endmeeting