17:01:12 <adamw> #startmeeting F34-blocker-review
17:01:12 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Mar  1 17:01:12 2021 UTC.
17:01:12 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
17:01:12 <zodbot> The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:01:12 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:01:12 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f34-blocker-review'
17:01:13 <adamw> #meetingname F34-blocker-review
17:01:13 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f34-blocker-review'
17:01:13 <bcotton> .hello2
17:01:14 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
17:01:14 <zodbot> bcotton: bcotton 'Ben Cotton' <bcotton@redhat.com>
17:01:30 <adamw> morning folks, who's around for blocker meeting fun?
17:01:32 * core_module is here, willing to act as secretary.
17:01:47 <lruzicka[m]> .hello lruzicka
17:01:49 <zodbot> lruzicka[m]: lruzicka 'Lukáš Růžička' <lruzicka@redhat.com>
17:03:05 * cmurf runs for a coffee
17:04:36 <adamw> thanks coremodule!
17:04:50 <coremodule> you got it :)
17:04:57 <geraldosimiao> .hello
17:04:57 <zodbot> geraldosimiao: (hello <an alias, 1 argument>) -- Alias for "hellomynameis $1".
17:06:56 <adamw> how's everyone doing this fine blocker-y morning
17:07:15 <bcotton> blockertastic!
17:07:34 <pwhalen> .hello pwhalen
17:07:35 <zodbot> pwhalen: pwhalen 'Paul Whalen' <pwhalen@redhat.com>
17:07:46 <geraldosimiao> Rainy Day here on my town
17:08:08 <adamw> let's see, i live in vancouver, so...doesn't bother looking out the window yup, heretoo
17:08:12 <geraldosimiao> .hello geraldosimiao
17:08:13 <zodbot> geraldosimiao: geraldosimiao 'Geraldo S. Simião Kutz' <geraldo.simiao.kutz@gmail.com>
17:10:50 <adamw> alrighty, let's get rolling...slow impending boilerplate alert (man i need to file an element bug)
17:11:49 <adamw> #chair pwhalen bcotton
17:11:49 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw bcotton pwhalen
17:11:57 <adamw> #topic Introduction
17:12:01 <adamw> Why are we here?
17:12:07 <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.
17:12:14 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
17:12:19 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
17:12:24 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
17:12:28 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
17:12:33 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
17:12:37 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
17:12:42 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Beta_Release_Criteria
17:12:46 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Final_Release_Criteria
17:13:03 <adamw> #info for Beta, we have:
17:13:06 <adamw> #info 4 Proposed Blockers
17:13:06 <adamw> #info 3 Accepted Blockers
17:13:15 <adamw> did that paste properly?
17:13:49 <bcotton> it appears so
17:14:47 <adamw> #info 8 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
17:14:55 <adamw> #info 12 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
17:15:07 <adamw> #info for Final, we hae:
17:15:59 <adamw> #info 3 Proposed Blockers
17:16:00 <adamw> #info 5 Accepted Blockers
17:18:16 <adamw> alrighty, let's get rolling with
17:18:20 <adamw> #topic Proposed Beta blockers
17:18:33 <adamw> #topic (1931345) Version 'fedora-34-x86_64' is not supported by the Retrace server.
17:18:37 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1931345
17:18:40 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/267
17:18:45 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, abrt, ASSIGNED
17:18:56 <adamw> -1 blocker, as kparal said in the ticket i believe last cycle we said it was OK so long as local generation worked
17:19:25 <coremodule> -1 blocker here
17:19:38 <lruzicka[m]> local generation eats up a terrible amount of data it needs to download
17:19:48 <cmurf> upstream ticket has been updated that they think it will be fixed soon
17:19:49 <bcotton> -1 betablocker. ask me later about final :-)
17:19:51 <pwhalen> -1 blocker
17:20:05 <geraldosimiao> -1 blocker
17:20:32 <cmurf> quite a lot of people bail on bug reporting if they have to download debuginfos
17:21:16 <lruzicka[m]> <cmurf "quite a lot of people bail on bu"> I would believe they do, because it is so stupid when you download all the data and Abrt tells you it could not trace it
17:21:54 <geraldosimiao> f33 went so many time without that working...
17:22:14 <adamw> it is annoying, but it doesn't seem blocker worthy
17:22:19 <lruzicka[m]> <geraldosimiao "f33 went so many time without th"> in the end, they fixed it, so the release did not go without it
17:22:51 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1931345 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - as per precedent from last cycle, we only require at least one backtrace generation method (local or remote) to work per the criteria
17:22:52 <geraldosimiao> yes, you're right lruzicka
17:22:57 <adamw> not voting on FE as it doesn't require package changes
17:23:02 <bcotton> ack
17:23:03 <pwhalen> ack
17:23:13 <lruzicka[m]> ack
17:23:24 <coremodule> ack
17:23:32 <geraldosimiao> ack
17:23:36 <lruzicka[m]> however, it sorta seems a new standard -> they take time to make it running
17:24:49 <adamw> new standard?
17:24:58 <adamw> oh, you mean you're worried it's like this because of last cycle?
17:25:04 <adamw> nah, it's been like this forever :(
17:25:17 <lruzicka[m]> <adamw "oh, you mean you're worried it's"> yes
17:25:29 <lruzicka[m]> <adamw "nah, it's been like this forever"> well, that is a little comforting :D
17:25:33 <adamw> for as long as i can remember this has been a pain
17:25:39 <adamw> in a weird way yes :D
17:27:48 <adamw> #agreed 1931345 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - as per precedent from last cycle, we only require at least one backtrace generation method (local or remote) to work per the criteria
17:27:56 <adamw> #topic (1930401) No update notifications shown when updates available (F34, Rawhide)
17:28:01 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1930401
17:28:06 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/234
17:28:10 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-software, NEW
17:28:26 <adamw> sorry, this is on me - same state as last week, i did not yet manage to get around to updating the test
17:28:35 <adamw> had a bunch of other test fixes to do last week and didn't get to it
17:29:54 <bcotton> this is also a final blocker, so we forgive you :-)
17:30:09 <adamw> oh crap
17:30:14 <adamw> i'm on the wrong list :P
17:30:15 <adamw> #undo
17:30:15 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by adamw at 17:28:10 : Proposed Blocker, gnome-software, NEW
17:30:21 <adamw> #undo
17:30:21 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Link object at 0x7fd49db4da90>
17:30:26 <adamw> #undo
17:30:26 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Link object at 0x7fd49f25a890>
17:30:35 <adamw> #undo
17:30:35 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x7fd49da513d0>
17:30:56 <adamw> #topic (1933397) gnome-control-center crashes when adding a new input source
17:31:39 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933397
17:31:39 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/257
17:31:40 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-control-center, NEW
17:31:41 <adamw> oof
17:32:34 <lruzicka[m]> For me, this seems to be a blocker however I could not reproduce it with the latest updates.
17:33:16 <adamw> yeah, i just tried here and it doesn't crash
17:34:08 <adamw> i have the same g-c-c version as the reporter...
17:34:13 <adamw> might be good to test in a fresh install?
17:35:07 <lruzicka[m]> <adamw "i have the same g-c-c version as"> same with me
17:35:36 <bcotton> i don't know what criterion this would violate, but it does seem like blockery behavior... if it were reproducible
17:36:02 <sgallagh> Sounds like it violates the "basic functionality" criterion
17:36:08 <sgallagh> (also, hi)
17:36:51 <adamw> basic functionality or keyboard layout with a bit of a stretch
17:36:51 <cmurf> as reported i think it's a blocker but it's not reproducible, then i guess punt? ask the reporter to update and retest?
17:37:07 <adamw> there's no g-i-s first login mode any more so if you do a netinst or if you're configuring a newly-created user, you can't set up an input method in g-i-s
17:37:17 <adamw> i'm asking in #fedora-desktop if anyone's familiar with the crash there
17:39:16 <sgallagh> I cannot reproduce it here either, so I'm voting to ask the reporter to retest.
17:39:27 <adamw> ok, no reply in #fedora-desktop yet
17:39:52 <bcotton> i'm leaning -1 and repropose if it can be replicated, but i'll accept a punt :-)
17:40:04 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1933397 - punt (delay decision) - we would likely vote to accept this if it was reproducible, but no-one in the meeting can reproduce it. We will ask the reporter to test with latest packages and try to get more info if they can still produce the crash
17:40:19 <bcotton> ack
17:40:21 <pwhalen> ack
17:40:23 <lruzicka[m]> ack
17:40:27 <sgallagh> ack
17:40:39 <geraldosimiao> ack
17:41:25 <cmurf> hmmm
17:41:35 <cmurf> that reporter has the latest, gnome-control-center-40~beta-3.fc34.x86_64
17:41:59 <adamw> yes, but so do we
17:42:03 <adamw> and other packages may be involved
17:42:14 <adamw> #agreed 1933397 - punt (delay decision) - we would likely vote to accept this if it was reproducible, but no-one in the meeting can reproduce it. We will ask the reporter to test with latest packages and try to get more info if they can still produce the crash
17:43:49 <adamw> #topic (1931070) sddm crashes with mesa-21 on VMware
17:43:55 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1931070
17:44:00 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/236
17:44:06 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, mesa, ON_QA
17:44:22 <adamw> so, we do have explicit criteria about virt working, and they cover the 'supported' virt stack, which isn't vmware
17:45:01 <adamw> still, i think there's a reasonable argument that we could consider a bug like this and just treat vmware as a particular type of hardware, just like we'd consider a bug that only affected certain video adapters or whatever
17:45:07 <pwhalen> I wasnt able to reproduce this on aarch64
17:46:04 <bcotton> given we have an accepted FE for this, i'm inclined to not block on this since it's not in the explicitly supported virt stack
17:47:05 <sgallagh> -1 blocker
17:47:38 <pwhalen> -1 blocker
17:47:48 <lruzicka[m]> However, we could suggest that it is important
17:47:53 <geraldosimiao> -1 Blocker
17:48:36 <sgallagh> lruzicka[m]: We have the Prioritized Bugs process for that
17:49:01 <lruzicka[m]> sgallagh: I am not saying we should block on that.
17:49:30 <lruzicka[m]> sgallagh: I meant that it would be a top hit if it worked in VmWare, too :D
17:49:41 <adamw> any +1 votes?
17:49:43 <cmurf> treating vmware as common hardware has merit worth further discussion (not necessarily here right now)
17:49:52 <lruzicka[m]> adamw: not here
17:52:12 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1931070 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - it was generally felt this isn't going to affect enough people to constitute a conditional violation of "must boot to a working desktop", and VMware is not covered by the virtualization criteria
17:52:28 <bcotton> ack
17:52:46 <pwhalen> ack
17:53:04 <lruzicka[m]> ack
17:53:41 <geraldosimiao> ack
17:53:55 <adamw> #agreed 1931070 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - it was generally felt this isn't going to affect enough people to constitute a conditional violation of "must boot to a working desktop", and VMware is not covered by the virtualization criteria
17:54:11 <adamw> #topic (1930978) [abrt] xorg-x11-server-Xorg: System(): Xorg killed by SIGABRT
17:54:13 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1930978
17:54:16 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/242
17:54:21 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, xorg-x11-server, NEW
17:54:46 <pwhalen> ugh, sorry- just checking that today. Will re-propose if not a dupe
17:55:12 <adamw> right, we were waiting to hear back from you on that one
17:56:53 <adamw> so, punt again?
17:57:36 <pwhalen> right, sorry.. I think it is a dupe just didnt get a chance to check
17:57:39 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1930978 - punt (delay decision) - we're still waiting for pwhalen to confirm whether this is a dupe of 1930977
17:57:59 <pwhalen> ack
17:58:03 <lruzicka[m]> ack
17:58:39 <geraldosimiao> ack
17:59:04 <coremodule> ack
18:01:07 <adamw> #agreed 1930978 - punt (delay decision) - we're still waiting for pwhalen to confirm whether this is a dupe of 1930977
18:01:17 <adamw> ok, moving on to:
18:01:23 <adamw> #topic Proposed Beta freeze exceptions
18:01:31 <adamw> #topic (1933628) kernel-modules-5.11.0-0.rc7.20210210gite0756cfc7d7c.150.fc34.x86_64 has depmod ERRORs
18:01:38 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933628
18:01:42 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/268
18:01:47 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, kernel, NEW
18:02:22 <adamw> i'm kinda...-1 on principle
18:02:36 <adamw> just on the basis it's not a good idea to take a new kernel build during freeze just to fix a superficial issue like this
18:04:12 <bcotton> yeah, if it's not causing functional problems, it seems better to save it for the thaw. i'm okay with a beta throwing ignorable errors
18:04:17 <lruzicka[m]> The name however is wrong. This happens with the current kernel that gets updated to the latest one. It happened when being updated to the current kernel.
18:04:45 <lruzicka[m]> but I am fine with it as long as you are fine.
18:05:00 <lruzicka[m]> I just wanted us to consider if it is serious enough.
18:05:51 <cmurf> the images have 5.11.0 in them though is that happening there?
18:05:54 <cmurf> i haven't seen this
18:06:11 * cmurf goes and looks at bug
18:06:16 <cmurf> (watch me be the reporter)
18:06:48 <cmurf> oh
18:07:18 <cmurf> spaceball.ko ?
18:07:28 <lruzicka[m]> cmurf: it happened to me when I was upgrading to the last kernel and again when I updated to the current kernel.
18:07:41 <lruzicka[m]> I have restarted since then so I am with the latest kernel now
18:08:21 <lruzicka[m]> no idea what spaceball.ko is for :D
18:08:30 <cmurf> i don't recognize these modules are that it's expecting to find
18:08:38 <pwhalen> -1 blocker, I havent seen it
18:08:49 <cmurf> i wonder if these are in modules-extras
18:09:12 <pwhalen> extra/drivers/input/joystick/spaceball.ko
18:09:19 <cmurf> yeah so that's part of extras
18:09:25 <pwhalen> cmurf: it looks like they are
18:09:39 <cmurf> i wonder if you get these messages if you decide to update your kernel and only update kernel kernel-core kernel-modules but not extras
18:09:42 <lruzicka[m]> I am using a trackball instead of a mouse, so that's why? pwhalen
18:09:43 <cmurf> in which case it's just noise
18:10:42 <lruzicka[m]> <cmurf "i wonder if you get these messag"> does the `dnf update` not take care of this? it should
18:10:55 <cmurf> are you seeing these in the journal?
18:10:58 <adamw> depends how the dependencies are set up.
18:11:08 <cmurf> or in the shell when you dnf update?
18:11:20 <adamw> i'm even more -1 if this only happens in -extras is installed, since it's not installed by default any more
18:13:28 <adamw> any votes?
18:13:35 <lruzicka[m]> -1 then
18:13:39 <cmurf> -1 blocker
18:14:00 <cmurf> i'd like to understand it better, there might be a bug here but i don't even know what's doing the complaining but it doesn't seem fatal so...
18:14:15 <lruzicka[m]> however, I am experiencing a new issue - to list the journalctl takes ages
18:14:41 <cmurf> lruzicka[m]: talk to me on fedora-qa about that
18:14:51 <adamw> using -b and/or --since can help.
18:16:16 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1933628 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - we judged that this is not a significant enough issue to be worth the risk of a new kernel build on its own
18:16:26 <pwhalen> ack
18:16:36 <lruzicka[m]> ack
18:17:24 <adamw> i need to smarten up and start putting the blockers after the FEs so everyone doesn't leave after the blockers :D
18:17:31 <adamw> any other acks
18:18:23 <geraldosimiao> ack
18:19:07 <cmurf> ack
18:19:17 <coremodule> ack
18:19:48 <adamw> #agreed 1933628 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - we judged that this is not a significant enough issue to be worth the risk of a new kernel build on its own
18:19:56 <adamw> #topic (1923464) libyui-mga-qt: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f34
18:20:03 * cmurf --> moar cafe!
18:20:03 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923464
18:20:09 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/263
18:20:15 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, libyui-mga-qt, ON_QA
18:20:43 <coremodule> +1 FE
18:20:55 <adamw> so in general i am less willing to take FTBFS FEs the more important the library is :P
18:21:03 <adamw> if it's unimportant it can't break anything, if it's important it can
18:21:13 <adamw> this is used in dnfdragora, so - fairly important
18:22:27 <adamw> the update does only disable Werror, so it's less dangerous, i guess
18:23:51 <cmurf> coin toss risk
18:24:27 <cmurf> but +1 beta FE
18:24:42 <lruzicka[m]> +1 BFE
18:24:43 <cmurf> since it's the maintainer asking :)
18:25:08 <pwhalen> +1 BFE
18:25:23 <adamw> thanks, i hate it
18:25:32 <coremodule> you said that last week
18:25:51 <adamw> i say it a lot
18:25:52 <geraldosimiao> +1 FE
18:26:14 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1923464 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - accepted as a freeze exception because fixing FTBFS is good
18:26:25 <pwhalen> ack
18:26:29 <lruzicka[m]> ack
18:26:35 <coremodule> ack
18:27:07 <geraldosimiao> ack
18:27:46 <adamw> #agreed 1923464 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - accepted as a freeze exception because fixing FTBFS is good
18:27:50 <adamw> #topic (1923465) libyui-ncurses: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f34
18:27:56 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923465
18:28:00 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/264
18:28:05 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, libyui-ncurses, ON_QA
18:28:11 <adamw> this is basically exactly the same thing and the same update fixes both
18:28:20 <adamw> ...so I recommend we reject it for the lulz and just to mess with cmurf
18:28:25 <bcotton> so we should be -1 for fun
18:28:28 <bcotton> dang. too slow
18:28:39 <adamw> see I knew ben would be with me
18:29:11 <bcotton> Fedora Trollgram Manager
18:29:41 <lruzicka[m]> Heh, not Ruby Tuesday but Funny Monday
18:30:41 <adamw> just gonna cut to proposed
18:30:44 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1923464 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - accepted as a freeze exception because fixing FTBFS is good
18:30:49 <coremodule> ack
18:31:18 * cmurf is back just in time to appreciate being messed with
18:31:19 <pwhalen> ack
18:31:25 <cmurf> ack
18:31:31 <lruzicka[m]> ack
18:32:06 <adamw> #agreed 1923464 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - accepted as a freeze exception because fixing FTBFS is good
18:32:07 <adamw> #topic (1923467) m2crypto: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f34
18:32:08 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923467
18:32:09 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/253
18:32:09 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, m2crypto, ON_QA
18:32:29 <adamw> so i really would like to reject this
18:32:39 <adamw> the update is not just an FTBFS fix, it's an entire new version
18:32:50 <adamw> i don't see the justification for taking that during freeze just to make it not-FTBFS
18:33:10 <bcotton> -1 FE for what adam said
18:33:33 <adamw> though apparently i was wrong about important things using it
18:33:40 <adamw> at least it's not installed on my system, heh.
18:34:04 <pwhalen> -1 FE
18:34:32 <cmurf> -1 FE
18:34:44 <sgallagh> -1 FE
18:34:50 <sgallagh> (Targeted fixes only, please)
18:35:40 <lruzicka> I missed it, children are crying, what are we voting for?
18:35:48 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1923467 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - the proposed fix here is a version bump, the benefit of fixing FTBFS is minor and doesn't justify the risk of a version bump
18:36:02 <pwhalen> ack
18:36:15 <bcotton> ack
18:36:22 <geraldosimiao> ack
18:36:41 <sgallagh> lruzicka[m]: Making children cry.
18:37:35 <lruzicka> :)
18:37:40 <lruzicka> ack
18:37:50 <adamw> #agreed 1923467 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - the proposed fix here is a version bump, the benefit of fixing FTBFS is minor and doesn't justify the risk of a version bump
18:38:08 <coremodule> ack
18:38:19 <adamw> kparal skipped the meeting to look after his kids, while lruzicka is just letting them cry in piles of their own vomit, probably
18:38:26 <adamw> let's all shame him
18:38:41 <adamw> #topic (1928546) SELinux is preventing gmain from 'watch' accesses on the directory /etc/gdm.
18:38:53 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1928546
18:38:57 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/269
18:39:02 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, selinux-policy, POST
18:39:39 <lruzicka> adamw, heh, you are quite close :D
18:39:49 <sgallagh> tl;dr: SELinux Troubleshooting daemon eats an entire CPU because of a labeling problem.
18:39:49 <lruzicka> Fedora above children :)
18:40:18 <pwhalen> +1 FE
18:40:38 <adamw> sure, +1
18:41:12 <sgallagh> +1
18:41:38 <geraldosimiao> +1 FE
18:42:16 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1928546 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - as noted in the bug, this causes substantial waste of system resources during live sesssion / first login, definitely worth fixing
18:42:26 <cmurf> +1 FE
18:42:29 <pwhalen> ack
18:42:34 <sgallagh> ack
18:42:56 <cmurf> there's quite a lot of avc denials in the journal right now
18:42:59 <cmurf> ack
18:43:17 <sgallagh> cmurf: I won't deny that...
18:43:35 <lruzicka> ack
18:43:47 <adamw> #agreed 1928546 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - as noted in the bug, this causes substantial waste of system resources during live sesssion / first login, definitely worth fixing
18:43:49 <cmurf> i'm counting over 400 from a single boot and login
18:44:21 <adamw> #topic (1933433) systemd-resolved: stub resolver is not following CNAME for resolution
18:44:27 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933433
18:44:37 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/261
18:44:40 <cmurf> oh man this one
18:44:41 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, systemd, NEW
18:45:44 <cmurf> it's a bit new and zbyszek hasn't had time to respond to it yet, but there's an upstream bug
18:46:04 <cmurf> and it's a repeat (this problem has happened before)
18:46:33 <cmurf> i'm also not certain how big of a problem it is because i don't understand network stuff
18:46:42 <cmurf> but it is a regression
18:46:59 <cmurf> so we could punt and come back to it in a week
18:47:12 <cmurf> see if an update comes along to fix it
18:47:39 <cmurf> worked ok in systemd 247 as well as whatever is current in f33
18:48:16 <cmurf> i guess a question i have is if this could be a final blocker?
18:48:47 <cmurf> i just couldn't figure out a reason
18:48:50 <adamw> uh. possibly? like you i'd like the impact unpicked quite a bit more
18:49:36 <adamw> but for now we only really need to bother with beta FE, i guess
18:50:05 <cmurf> well if not knowing anything else a systemd RC3 appears, what are the chances we'd take it?
18:50:20 <sgallagh> If a fix came in, I'd consider it. So +1 FE
18:50:27 <cmurf> i mean that's sorta what we signed up for with a lateish switch to 248 anyway
18:50:27 <sgallagh> Doesn't mean we'd have to take it.
18:50:40 <cmurf> true
18:50:41 <adamw> yeah, if the fix for this is "here's RC3, good luck" I'm not sure i'd take it
18:50:48 <cmurf> haha
18:50:50 <adamw> but we can accept the bug as an FE for now and consider that when/if it happens
18:51:14 <cmurf> ok so +1FE
18:51:30 <lruzicka> ok, +FE
18:51:37 <lruzicka> +1FE
18:51:38 <bcotton> +1 FE
18:51:40 <pwhalen> +1FE
18:52:39 <geraldosimiao> +1 FE
18:52:59 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1933433 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - we're not sure of the details here, but it seems like a serious enough issue to want to fix for lives/installer. However, if the proposed fix is too broad (e.g. an entire RC3 build) we may decide not to take it
18:53:13 <cmurf> ack
18:53:51 <sgallagh> ack
18:54:00 <pwhalen> ack
18:54:03 <cmurf> 248-rc2 is being reasonably well behaved other than that coredump during update from 247 bit...
18:54:05 <lruzicka> ack
18:54:33 <geraldosimiao> ack
18:55:21 <adamw> #agreed 1933433 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - we're not sure of the details here, but it seems like a serious enough issue to want to fix for lives/installer. However, if the proposed fix is too broad (e.g. an entire RC3 build) we may decide not to take it
18:56:32 * cmurf always thinks of Mars Attacks! during every blocker review because of all the ack ack ack ack!
18:57:17 <sgallagh> cmurf: I thought it was just me...
18:57:58 <adamw> #topic (1933454) /etc/resolv.conf is not a symlink
18:58:04 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933454
18:58:09 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/265
18:58:13 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, systemd, NEW
18:58:23 <lruzicka> cmurf, what is the connection to Mars? I am getting images of geese.
18:59:15 <adamw> "mars attacks!", it's a movie
18:59:16 <cmurf> lruzicka: the movie Mars Attacks! the aliens only ever say ack and variations on ack
19:00:47 <lruzicka> cmurf, hah, did not know, is it the old movie? I guess there is more on this topic.
19:00:57 <lruzicka> or with such a name ...
19:01:03 <cmurf> failure at the box office, cult classic, hilarious rip on celebrity culture, very camp
19:01:07 <sgallagh> 1996
19:01:14 <adamw> sure, +1 FE, seems like what we want to do is not happening here
19:01:23 <lruzicka> thanks, I will look around, sgallagh and cmurf
19:01:27 <sgallagh> +1 FE
19:01:31 <lruzicka> +1 FE
19:01:38 <cmurf> +1 FE
19:01:43 <cmurf> still trying to sort this one out
19:02:11 <cmurf> as in, how to fix it, but it needs to be fixed
19:02:14 <cmurf> and ideally for beta
19:02:29 <adamw> and can't be fixed with an update
19:02:44 <cmurf> esp seeing as folks install the beta and would otherwise ... yes exactly
19:02:49 <cmurf> get stuck with this problem
19:03:15 <cmurf> i mean, might even be a beta blocker but i can't find a criterion to argue that case
19:03:33 <geraldosimiao> +1 FE
19:03:41 <cmurf> we don't have a correctness of configuration criterion
19:04:27 <adamw> yeah, if it doesn't actually result in anything breaking, it's hard to argue it as a blocker
19:04:42 <cmurf> well it sorta does break the policy we want
19:05:09 <cmurf> we want resolv.conf mode: stub
19:05:10 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1933454 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - it's clearly the case that the intended result in terms of resolv.conf is not happening, and that can't be fixed with an update and is definitely worth fixing
19:05:29 <lruzicka> ack
19:05:39 <adamw> but it doesn't actually prevent name resolution working or anything.
19:06:05 <cmurf> i can't articulate what it does prevent from working but it does prevent it because the mode is wrong
19:06:21 <cmurf> ack
19:07:28 <cmurf> like if it ships this way it undoes the f33 effort of making systemd-resolved the default resolver
19:08:04 <adamw> #agreed 1933454 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - it's clearly the case that the intended result in terms of resolv.conf is not happening, and that can't be fixed with an update and is definitely worth fixing
19:08:07 <cmurf> but anyway... i think it'll get sorted out
19:08:32 <adamw> OK, and finally:
19:08:36 <cmurf> uh oh
19:08:37 <adamw> #topic Proposed Final blockers
19:08:46 <cmurf> oh yay
19:08:48 <adamw> #topic (1931345) Version 'fedora-34-x86_64' is not supported by the Retrace server.
19:08:53 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1931345
19:08:57 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/267
19:08:58 <cmurf> i thought  you were going to say we were done
19:09:02 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, abrt, ASSIGNED
19:09:05 <adamw> there are only three, hang in there
19:09:15 <cmurf> just messing
19:09:15 <adamw> trying to recall if we decided this doesn't block final either last time
19:09:27 <cmurf> why is this here too?
19:09:30 <cmurf> ohhhh
19:09:52 <cmurf> neal had accidentally proposed it as beta blocker meaning to propose it as final, and when i closed that as a dup for this older one it inherited beta and final blockers
19:09:55 <cmurf> it's the same bug
19:10:36 <geraldosimiao> I though it was decided so adamw:
19:10:40 <cmurf> that is a good question if we expect both local and remote retrace to work for final
19:10:57 <cmurf> yeah for beta we're saying only one needs to work
19:11:08 <cmurf> this is now about whether both should work for final
19:11:10 <adamw> i don't recall last time, let me look it up
19:11:10 <geraldosimiao> ahhh ok
19:14:22 <adamw> sigh having trouble findign all teh bugs
19:16:29 <cmurf> me 2
19:16:32 <lruzicka> so let's punt on Final Blocker
19:16:37 <adamw> best as i can tell, we didn't definitely decide that last cycle
19:16:41 <adamw> so it's kinda up for debate now
19:16:49 <lruzicka> in that case +1 FB
19:18:02 <cmurf> i'm reading https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878317
19:18:08 <cmurf> and we've got mixed opinions
19:18:12 <adamw> it's kind of a close call for me
19:18:22 <adamw> and we're at the end of a long meeting and a lot of folks have checked out
19:18:31 <cmurf> including even 'indefintely block beta' on it
19:18:41 <adamw> so i'd probably prefer to just punt on it until we have a more pressing need to decide it and more folks around
19:18:47 <cmurf> +1 punt
19:19:02 <coremodule> +1 punt
19:19:02 <bcotton> yeah, no need to decide this today
19:19:13 <cmurf> maybe we need a short criterion for this issue since it's come up before
19:19:18 <bcotton> maybe it will get fixed before we have to decide and we can avoid having to set a precedent :-)
19:19:28 <cmurf> and not go on precedent whre we have to go lookup old bugs and read them again
19:19:31 <geraldosimiao> +1 punt
19:19:38 <pwhalen> +1 punt
19:19:42 <lruzicka> +1 punt then, but let's decide next time
19:19:56 <cmurf> lol
19:20:12 <cmurf> all the people come out to punt
19:20:22 <lruzicka> I think that precedent is always better than chaos :)
19:20:43 <lruzicka> any precedent could be questionned, but difficult to stear in chaos
19:20:50 <lruzicka> steer
19:21:19 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1931345 - punt (delay decision) - it's a close call whether remote retrace not working should block final, and we don't have a lot of people around to make it, so we agreed to delay the decision until it's more pressing / more folks are around to consider it
19:21:43 <lruzicka> ack
19:21:51 <pwhalen> ack
19:22:04 <coremodule> ack
19:22:09 <bcotton> ack
19:22:27 <cmurf> ack
19:23:33 <geraldosimiao> ack (not from mars)
19:23:56 <adamw> #agreed 1931345 - punt (delay decision) - it's a close call whether remote retrace not working should block final, and we don't have a lot of people around to make it, so we agreed to delay the decision until it's more pressing / more folks are around to consider it
19:24:04 <adamw> #topic (1930401) No update notifications shown when updates available (F34, Rawhide)
19:24:10 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1930401
19:24:16 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/234
19:24:21 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-software, NEW
19:24:51 <cmurf> hmmm
19:24:57 <adamw> this again?
19:25:02 <adamw> this is still on me to re-check
19:25:09 <adamw> oh right, i pasted it by mistake earlier
19:25:30 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1930401 - punt (delay decision) - we're still waiting on adamw to check the new heuristics and update the openQA test here
19:25:31 <cmurf> Software figures out what is critical from koji
19:25:43 <cmurf> i mean bodhi
19:27:12 <lruzicka> ack
19:27:16 <coremodule> ack
19:27:26 <bcotton> ack
19:27:36 <cmurf> ummm
19:27:42 <cmurf> we aren't acking
19:28:00 <cmurf> oh i'm confused, per usual
19:28:15 <geraldosimiao> ack
19:28:22 <adamw> yeah we're acking
19:28:25 <adamw> i just skipped the votes :P
19:28:31 <adamw> #agreed 1930401 - punt (delay decision) - we're still waiting on adamw to check the new heuristics and update the openQA test here
19:28:38 <adamw> #topic (1930514) Plasma System Monitor don't show neither History nor System Stats
19:28:44 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1930514
19:28:50 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/262
19:28:54 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, plasma-systemmonitor, MODIFIED
19:29:14 <cmurf> +1 blocker
19:29:38 <cmurf> although... weren't we discussing in the last cycle about narrowing the scope of KDE things to apply this criterion to?
19:29:48 <cmurf> because there are so many things? :)
19:30:25 <adamw> i think we did already
19:30:26 <adamw> uh
19:30:39 <adamw> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Final_Release_Criteria#Default_application_functionality
19:31:27 <cmurf> ahhh only to that list of types
19:32:37 <cmurf> ok -1 final blocker, and it looks like the beta FE is sufficient to get it fixed
19:33:21 <adamw> yeah, i'd be -1 unless this is part of system settings (I don't think ti s)
19:34:18 <bcotton> it is not
19:34:39 <bcotton> -1 Final blocker since it's not in the list of blocking applications
19:34:46 <geraldosimiao> it isn't part of system settings, but it have libs conflicts. But Neal and Rex are taking a look at this by now, I think.
19:35:14 <pwhalen> -1 final blocker
19:35:35 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1930514 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - the cited criterion is qualified on KDE to only cover a limited range of application types, and the system monitor is not one of them
19:35:57 <geraldosimiao> ack
19:36:07 <cmurf> ack
19:36:35 <coremodule> ack
19:36:38 <bcotton> ack
19:37:33 <pwhalen> ack
19:37:48 <adamw> #agreed 1930514 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - the cited criterion is qualified on KDE to only cover a limited range of application types, and the system monitor is not one of them
19:37:52 <adamw> ok, and with that we're done!
19:37:55 <adamw> #topic Open floor
19:38:08 <adamw> sorry for the long meeting folks, remember to vote in the voting system so we don't need nearly-3-hour meetings :D
19:38:50 <cmurf> :P
19:38:58 <geraldosimiao> 😅
19:39:07 <adamw> any other business?
19:39:13 <cmurf> negative
19:39:27 <cmurf> lunchtime!
19:40:05 <cmurf> but yeah gnome-software is supposed to trigger on bodhi metadata for importance, i forget what tag it's using
19:40:10 <cmurf> i think it's two tags
19:40:19 <cmurf> kalev will remember
19:40:28 <adamw> the details don't matter
19:41:33 <cmurf> yeah, we need update notifications regardless, there are no automatic updates so people need to be nagged by default
19:42:23 <lruzicka> +1
19:42:52 <cmurf> and for beta or they may never get nagged
19:52:31 <adamw> thanks everyone!
19:52:33 <adamw> #endmeeting