16:00:49 <adamw> #startmeeting F34-blocker-review
16:00:49 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Mar 15 16:00:49 2021 UTC.
16:00:49 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:00:49 <zodbot> The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:49 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:49 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f34-blocker-review'
16:00:54 <adamw> #meetingname F34-blocker-review
16:00:54 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f34-blocker-review'
16:01:00 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
16:01:02 <bcotton> .hello2
16:01:03 <zodbot> bcotton: bcotton 'Ben Cotton' <bcotton@redhat.com>
16:01:05 <adamw> ahoy to the oy, folks
16:01:09 <adamw> how's everyone doing?
16:01:33 <bcotton> it's a monday!
16:02:00 <coremodule> .hello2
16:02:01 <zodbot> coremodule: coremodule 'Geoffrey Marr' <gmarr@redhat.com>
16:02:11 <coremodule> good morning! its a snowy one here in colorado
16:02:34 <frantisekz> .hello2
16:02:35 <zodbot> frantisekz: frantisekz 'František Zatloukal' <fzatlouk@redhat.com>
16:02:37 <bcotton> "wintry mix" in Indiana
16:02:42 <Southern_Gentlem> .hello jbwillia
16:02:43 <zodbot> Southern_Gentlem: jbwillia 'Ben Williams' <vaioof@gmail.com>
16:03:08 <coremodule> bcotton, that makes me think of a delicious blend of trail mix
16:03:45 <geraldosimiao> .hello geraldosimiao
16:03:46 <zodbot> geraldosimiao: geraldosimiao 'Geraldo S. Simião Kutz' <geraldo.simiao.kutz@gmail.com>
16:04:43 <adamw> it's sunny here, something must be wrong
16:05:32 <geraldosimiao> Cloudy and hot here in Curitiba Brazil
16:07:08 <pwhalen> .hello pwhalen
16:07:09 <zodbot> pwhalen: pwhalen 'Paul Whalen' <pwhalen@redhat.com>
16:07:32 <lruzicka[m]> .hello lruzicka
16:07:35 <zodbot> lruzicka[m]: lruzicka 'Lukáš Růžička' <lruzicka@redhat.com>
16:07:45 * coremodule willing to act as secretary
16:07:52 <adamw> thanks coremodule!
16:08:52 <adamw> impending boilerplate alert
16:09:34 <adamw> oh, well, first
16:09:37 <adamw> #chair coremodule lruzicka
16:09:37 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw coremodule lruzicka
16:09:42 <adamw> #topic Introduction
16:09:47 <adamw> Why are we here?
16:09:52 <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.
16:09:56 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:10:00 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:10:04 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:10:07 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:10:12 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:10:17 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
16:10:21 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:10:27 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Final_Release_Criteria
16:13:06 <adamw> okay, and
16:13:10 <adamw> #info for Beta, we have:
16:13:20 <adamw> #info 1 Proposed Blockers
16:13:20 <adamw> #info 1 Accepted Blockers
16:13:25 <adamw> #info 4 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:13:25 <adamw> #info 12 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
16:13:29 <adamw> #info for Final, we have:
16:13:38 <adamw> #info 5 Proposed Blockers
16:13:38 <adamw> #info 6 Accepted Blockers
16:13:44 <adamw> #info 1 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:14:59 <adamw> #info coremodule will secretarialize
16:15:02 <adamw> let's get started with:
16:15:04 <adamw> #topic proposed Beta blocker
16:15:18 <adamw> #topic (1921924) Raspberry Pi 3B+ boots incredibly slow after CPU failed to come online errors
16:15:23 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921924
16:15:28 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/308
16:15:32 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, uboot-tools, MODIFIED
16:15:56 <adamw> this is on our list of supported arm platforms
16:16:02 <adamw> was this broken in rc1, or did we break it in rc2?
16:16:36 <pwhalen> adamw: its been broken for a while, we didnt know the issue until recently.
16:17:01 <pwhalen> pbrobinson was able to work it out, and do the revert for a new build
16:17:09 <coremodule> as far as I recall, it started with the 20210124 compose
16:17:23 <coremodule> or that's as far back as I tested
16:17:37 <lruzicka[m]> a bit of time it seems
16:19:04 <adamw> how slow is "incredibly slow"?
16:19:12 <coremodule> 5 minutes to boot
16:19:29 <adamw> how long does it normally take?
16:19:36 <frantisekz> seems like our g-i-s issue but a bit worse...
16:19:37 <coremodule> 5 minute or longer
16:19:53 <coremodule> not that long... 30 seconds maybe? on a 3b+
16:19:57 <coremodule> pwhalen, ^^?
16:20:09 <frantisekz> yeah, depends on your sd card speeds I'd say
16:20:26 <pwhalen> coremodule: sounds about right
16:20:29 <frantisekz> something in range of 30-60 seconds afaik, on Pi 4
16:21:30 <cmurf> it's been slow for a while so i'm not sure if it could have been reverted a while ago
16:21:46 <cmurf> well the bug says more than 1 hour
16:21:47 <adamw> yeah, i'm a bit fence-y about this one
16:21:56 <adamw> seems a bit hard to take it when we didn't actually take the g-i-s one as a blocker
16:22:14 <bcotton> yeah, i was just thinking the same thing
16:22:18 <cmurf> if it's 5 minutes, CommonBugs and move on - but I'd consider a 0Day which is what I suggested in the blocker-review issue
16:22:43 <lruzicka[m]> +1
16:22:55 <pwhalen> yea, Its never taken an hour to boot for me nor would I have the patience if it did
16:23:02 <cmurf> haha
16:23:55 <adamw> i don't think this is what 0day blockers are meant for
16:24:17 <adamw> a bug's a 0day blocker if it's a blocker, but the fix for it doesn't need to go on media
16:24:23 <adamw> that's not really what this is
16:24:40 <cmurf> ok if it's not a blocker then BetaFE so it can go to stable and upgraders don't hit it
16:24:40 <frantisekz> i think we can give it +1 FE though?
16:25:32 <frantisekz> (I still feel we should do an rc1.3 with new shim/grub so this could get pulled in too, but that can be discussed later ofc)
16:25:33 <Southern_Gentlem> cmurf but installers do
16:25:47 <Eighth_Doctor> -1 Blocker +1 FE
16:25:49 <bcotton> -1 blocker, +1 FE in case there's a new RC
16:25:53 <adamw> -1 blocker +1 FE
16:25:56 <cmurf> yeah but it's just slow, not broken
16:25:58 <lruzicka[m]> frantisekz: is the new shim already registered?
16:26:04 <frantisekz> -1 Blocker, +1 FE
16:26:05 <adamw> hey no spoilers
16:26:07 <cmurf> -1 blocker, +1 FE
16:26:08 <lruzicka[m]> -1 BB +1 FE
16:26:09 <Southern_Gentlem> -1 blocker +fe
16:26:09 <frantisekz> :D
16:26:39 <cmurf> shim/grub is not going to be ready for beta...
16:26:41 <frantisekz> lruzicka: in upstream, yes, not in dist-git yet :/
16:26:58 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1921924 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - as the system does boot eventually this doesn't seem to break the criteria, and there's the precedent of the g-i-s issue we didn't block on either. But accepted as an FE as it's obvious highly inconvenient and can't be fixed entirely with an update
16:27:03 <coremodule> -1 blocker. +1 FE
16:27:04 <cmurf> ack
16:27:07 <lruzicka[m]> ack
16:27:08 <frantisekz> ack
16:27:08 <coremodule> ack
16:27:11 <pwhalen> ack
16:27:14 <geraldosimiao> Ack
16:27:44 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
16:27:45 <bcotton> ack
16:28:26 <adamw> #agreed 1921924 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - as the system does boot eventually this doesn't seem to break the criteria, and there's the precedent of the g-i-s issue we didn't block on either. But accepted as an FE as it's obvious highly inconvenient and can't be fixed entirely with an update
16:28:43 <adamw> so, uh, there are no more proposed Beta blockers. if someone wants to talk about doing another RC, please propose another beta blocker sharpish
16:28:50 <adamw> because there won't be another RC unless there's a blocker :D
16:28:58 <coremodule> we need kparal
16:29:07 <frantisekz> adamw, but those poor FEs!!! :D
16:29:11 <adamw> 1938630 is proposed as a Final blocker, not a Beta blocker
16:29:17 <adamw> does someone think it should block Beta?
16:29:36 <lruzicka[m]> <coremodule "we need kparal"> Vacation time
16:29:57 <frantisekz> no, I don't think we should block beta on this
16:31:09 <adamw> okay then
16:31:17 <adamw> so that means rc2 is still on track for release
16:31:19 <adamw> moving on to:
16:31:24 <adamw> #topic proposed Beta freeze exception issues
16:31:47 <adamw> (we'll vote on these in case a blocker is discovered later)
16:31:53 <adamw> #topic (1936147) bcm283x-firmware update breaks booting on Raspberry Pi 3B+
16:31:58 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936147
16:32:04 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/309
16:32:07 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, bcm283x-firmware, MODIFIED
16:32:30 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 fe
16:32:36 <cmurf> +1FE, seems difficult for it to get worse :P
16:32:52 <lruzicka[m]> +1FE
16:33:16 <frantisekz> oh
16:33:25 <frantisekz> why does it need an FE?
16:33:34 <frantisekz> it never got to stable updates, as adamw said in the ticket
16:34:22 <Southern_Gentlem> and without the fe it wont
16:35:04 <coremodule> +1Fe
16:35:06 <frantisekz> I mean, the issue was caused by something that didn't leave updates-testing
16:35:12 <frantisekz> if I udnerstand it correctly?
16:35:36 <geraldosimiao> +1 FE
16:35:45 <adamw> yeah, that's the question i have
16:35:55 <Southern_Gentlem> something in stable is borked as well in that case
16:35:56 <adamw> i'd be +1 to the issue if it was actually broken in stable, but if it isn't, an FE is pointless
16:36:09 <coremodule> that's a good point
16:36:16 <coremodule> it looks like it's been obsoleted anyway
16:36:21 <coremodule> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-84510c6f65
16:36:44 <Southern_Gentlem> punt and ask for more info
16:36:57 <adamw> i think peter may have just proposed this as a kind of proxy for wanting the 'improvements' pushed, but if so i'd prefer a better proposal :D
16:38:54 <cmurf> have there been more FE's this cycle? or am i on crazy pills?
16:39:04 <bcotton> it does seem like it
16:39:15 <cmurf> both? :D
16:39:21 <bcotton> fewer blockers though, which is nice
16:39:27 <bcotton> cmurf: yes ;-)
16:40:18 <adamw> i don't think it's just you
16:40:21 <adamw> anyhoo, i agree with punt
16:40:29 <cmurf> +1 punt, i change my vote
16:40:56 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 punt
16:41:22 <lruzicka[m]> punt means it will not get into Beta anyway, right?
16:41:27 <frantisekz> +1 punt
16:41:40 <frantisekz> lruzicka, it might, we can vote in ticket before the beta, imo
16:41:42 <Southern_Gentlem> lruzicka[m], it wont if its not in rc2
16:41:52 <adamw> lruzicka: right now it wouldn't anyway since there's no blockers in rc2
16:42:00 <adamw> if we actually do need an rc3 i can check back in on this one before we build it
16:42:13 <lruzicka[m]> ok, so +1 punt
16:42:34 <geraldosimiao> Ok +1 punt
16:44:02 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1936147 - punt (delay decision) - the bug proposed seems to be present only in updates-testing, so an FE is unnecessary. We'll ask Peter if he really wanted an FE for other improvements in the update, and reconsider if so
16:44:40 <lruzicka[m]> ack
16:44:40 <bcotton> ack
16:44:41 <coremodule> ack
16:44:49 <cmurf> ack
16:44:58 <adamw> #agreed 1936147 - punt (delay decision) - the bug proposed seems to be present only in updates-testing, so an FE is unnecessary. We'll ask Peter if he really wanted an FE for other improvements in the update, and reconsider if so
16:45:22 <adamw> #topic (1925571) F34FailsToInstall: gr-hpsdr
16:45:27 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925571
16:45:34 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/291
16:45:36 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gr-hpsdr, ON_QA
16:45:43 <adamw> as noted in the issue, +1 on the precedent from the other similar issues
16:45:58 <frantisekz> +1 FE
16:46:08 <bcotton> sure +1 fe
16:46:17 <lruzicka[m]> +1fe
16:46:31 <pwhalen> +1 FE
16:47:10 <coremodule> +1 Fe
16:47:37 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1925571 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - FE granted on precedent that we allow FEs for failstoinstall bugs to aid upgrade experience, if the fix looks safe
16:47:46 <coremodule> ack
16:47:47 <bcotton> ack
16:47:50 <lruzicka[m]> ack
16:48:01 <frantisekz> ack
16:48:57 <adamw> #agreed 1925571 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - FE granted on precedent that we allow FEs for failstoinstall bugs to aid upgrade experience, if the fix looks safe
16:49:08 <cmurf> ack
16:49:14 <cmurf> late ack
16:49:24 <adamw> #topic (1938598) push grub2-2.04-39.fc34 to stable
16:49:24 <cmurf> unnecessary ack
16:49:30 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938598
16:49:33 <adamw> .fire cmurf excessive ack
16:49:33 <zodbot> adamw fires cmurf excessive ack
16:49:40 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/307
16:49:43 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, grub2, NEW
16:49:49 <cmurf> hurray!
16:49:54 * cmurf leaves
16:49:58 <cmurf> j/k
16:50:42 <cmurf> i do not know why -36 version of grub that had this functionality, and was stable already at the time of freeze, did not make it into any composes
16:51:24 <cmurf> but setting that aside, i think either -37 or -39 should be pushed to stable now for system-upgrades, it doesn't need to be on media
16:52:34 <lruzicka[m]> I am running -39 and have not experienced any issues so far.
16:52:57 <cmurf> the only change between -37 and -39 applies to ppc
16:53:43 <frantisekz> so, does anaconda ensures the exactly same result for -35? I am no grub expert, just curious if we're testing something that would be the part of final
16:54:24 <adamw> i don't think this really needs an FE, if the update's queued for stable it'll get pushed stable shortly before beta release anyhow
16:54:27 <adamw> we should get enough testing
16:54:51 * Southern_Gentlem is now confused if this should be removed per cmurf comment
16:55:18 <Southern_Gentlem> -FE
16:55:49 <Southern_Gentlem> -1 FE
16:57:41 <cmurf> if there's no FE, that means we're testing system-upgrades with the wrong grub version
16:58:17 <Southern_Gentlem> cmurf, but once beta is released it can roll in anyways
16:58:18 <cmurf> when to mirrors show it as stable?
16:58:27 <cmurf> when ^do mirrors
16:58:44 <cmurf> will it be day 1? or could it be delayed/
16:59:07 <cmurf> the intent of the feature was to do the conversion during the offline upgrade, not as an update
16:59:14 <cmurf> it should work as an update but... it's riskier
16:59:19 <Southern_Gentlem> cmurf make up your mind you were argueing against it now you are agruing for it
16:59:37 <adamw> "if the update's queued for stable it'll get pushed stable shortly before beta release anyhow"
16:59:42 <adamw> quoth me
16:59:45 <Southern_Gentlem> at this point it i will not be in rc2
16:59:52 <cmurf> doesn't need to be in rc2
17:00:04 <Southern_Gentlem> then its doesnt need a FE
17:00:26 <cmurf> needed for system-upgrades
17:00:49 <cmurf> like no one is testing -39 for f32/f33 upgrades unless you manually enable u-t when doing dnf system-upgrade
17:01:07 <cmurf> i'm not even sure how to get gnome-software/pk to use u-t on a system upgrade
17:01:51 <Southern_Gentlem> adamw, am I wrong on my thinking ?
17:02:18 <Southern_Gentlem> cmurf,  and it should be there in f34 -release yes
17:02:33 <Southern_Gentlem> it wont be in beta at this point in time
17:02:39 <adamw> cmurf: the point is
17:02:50 <adamw> this does not need an fe for people upgrading around beta release to get it
17:02:57 <adamw> it will be in stable on or around releaes day
17:03:08 <cmurf> Southern_Gentlem: doesn't matter, anaconda is what creates the stub grub.cfg on the ESP on new clean installs; and it's a script in the grub package for upgrades that does it
17:03:11 <adamw> we only need FEs if we really want it stable before Beta release goes out
17:03:23 <adamw> also at this point i'm not going to request stable pushes for anything that's not in RC2 anyway
17:03:29 <adamw> unless we wind up doing an RC3
17:05:14 <cmurf> ok
17:05:16 <adamw> i mean, i could be +1 in principle i guess, it just won't make a whole lot of difference either way :D
17:06:29 <adamw> so in conclusion, i vote ¯_(ツ)_/¯
17:06:41 <frantisekz> +1 ¯_(ツ)_/¯
17:06:42 <bcotton> +1 ¯_(ツ)_/¯
17:07:50 <cmurf> if it doesn't matter at all then just leave it alone, but what if someone doing system-upgrade testing between now and next tuesday finds a problem? :)
17:07:55 <bcotton> -1 FE if i have to mak ea real vot,e i guess
17:08:00 <cmurf> like if we don't want that to happen, -1 FE haha
17:08:44 <Eighth_Doctor> I'm confused what we want here
17:08:51 <cmurf> hey there are missing limbs in those shrugs!
17:08:53 <Eighth_Doctor> but I could go either way, so +1?
17:09:12 <adamw> cmurf: the \ got mysteriously lost when i pasted
17:09:54 <cmurf> everyone is confused what we want so I suggest just leaving it alone if it's not compelling enough to FE
17:10:04 <adamw> okay so in the interests of voting something, i'm gonna say -1 FE i think, because this isn't "we want to fix something in upgrades", it's "we want to change what upgrades do and see if it breaks".
17:11:28 <cmurf> it's both, but ok
17:12:12 <frantisekz> -1 FE then :)
17:12:16 <pwhalen> -1 FE
17:13:13 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1938598 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected as it's not a clear bug fix but more of a "change the behaviour and see what happens". In practice it will likely get pushed stable at the same time either way anyway
17:13:23 <cmurf> ack
17:13:27 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:13:30 <frantisekz> ack
17:13:47 <pwhalen> ack
17:15:40 <adamw> #agreed 1938598 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected as it's not a clear bug fix but more of a "change the behaviour and see what happens". In practice it will likely get pushed stable at the same time either way anyway
17:15:45 <adamw> #topic (1923463) kiwi-boxed-plugin: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f34
17:15:45 <geraldosimiao> Ack
17:15:49 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923463
17:15:50 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/288
17:15:51 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, kiwi-boxed-plugin, ON_QA
17:16:15 <frantisekz> +1 FE
17:16:25 <adamw> meh
17:16:56 <adamw> yeah, whatevs, we usually accept these
17:17:05 <adamw> again it's not going to make much practical difference
17:17:07 <adamw> +1
17:17:33 <pwhalen> +1 FE
17:17:35 <frantisekz> (less mess on https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/ if nothing else :D )
17:18:26 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1923463 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted on the principle we usually grant FEs to FTBFS bugs, though in practice it won't be pushed stable unless there's another RC
17:18:27 <lruzicka[m]> ack
17:18:30 <Eighth_Doctor> yes, crushing my FTBFS and FTIs has been something I"m trying to do
17:18:31 <pwhalen> ack
17:18:58 <Eighth_Doctor> usually I wind up having to do this after freeze because that's when the feature dev is done
17:19:00 <frantisekz> ack
17:19:06 <Eighth_Doctor> it's kind of unfortunate, but ehh
17:19:38 <adamw> #agreed 1923463 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted on the principle we usually grant FEs to FTBFS bugs, though in practice it won't be pushed stable unless there's another RC
17:19:52 <adamw> ok, moving onto:
17:19:55 <adamw> #topic proposed Final blockers
17:20:12 <adamw> #topic (1937783) Abrt does not catch a simulated segfault.
17:20:13 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1937783
17:20:14 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/300
17:20:19 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, abrt, NEW
17:21:25 <lruzicka[m]> No simulated catch, no real catch, I think
17:21:27 <adamw> "Failed to rename ‘/home/lruzicka/.abrt/spool’ to ‘/home/lruzicka/.cache/abrt/spool’" seems like the issue to me...
17:22:28 <lruzicka[m]> ok, I guess it is still not my fault, is it?
17:22:40 <adamw> probably not
17:23:17 <lruzicka[m]> the thing is, I was having quite a lot of catches and now I am not having any :D
17:23:56 <lruzicka[m]> by lot I mean like 3 a day or so
17:24:24 <adamw> would help to know what changed when it broke, i guess
17:24:39 <cmurf> +1 punt, needinfo
17:24:55 <adamw> i'm -1 on the crash notifications criterion, because this bug can't possibly make notifications of crashes more likely to appear :D
17:25:07 <adamw> could possibly buy default application functionality for a dollar, though
17:25:10 <pwhalen> 7
17:25:19 <frantisekz> +1 punt
17:25:25 <adamw> but i would like more data/someone else to confirm
17:25:53 <lruzicka[m]> I just want to say that a fresh install VM did the same
17:26:09 <lruzicka[m]> I would be glad if someone else tried too
17:27:52 <cmurf> same issue with enforcing=0?
17:28:07 <lruzicka[m]> let me check
17:28:09 <cmurf> still have a metric f ton of avc's to sort out
17:28:55 <lruzicka[m]> yes, that with permissive mode it works
17:29:38 <cmurf> i wanna know how you tested that inside of 50 seconds :P i need to start using your process
17:30:39 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 punt
17:31:05 <lruzicka[m]> <cmurf "i wanna know how you tested that"> setenforce 0
17:31:07 <adamw> lruz: aha, so look for an selinux denial, i guess...
17:31:12 <lruzicka[m]> will_segfault
17:31:18 <lruzicka[m]> abrt reported crash
17:32:08 <cmurf> ok so yeah if it turns out it's being blocked by selinux i'll be +1 final blocker because it needs to work, qualifies as "entirely non-functional"
17:34:03 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1937783 - punt (delay decision) - this looks like a potential blocker, but we'd like to gather more data and have other testers confirm before deciding
17:34:21 <frantisekz> ack
17:34:23 <lruzicka[m]> ack
17:34:28 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:34:52 <cmurf> ack
17:35:05 <adamw> #agreed 1937783 - punt (delay decision) - this looks like a potential blocker, but we'd like to gather more data and have other testers confirm before deciding
17:35:11 <adamw> #topic (1937308) First login attempt fails on laptop with fingerprint reader
17:35:17 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1937308
17:35:23 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/296
17:35:28 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gdm, VERIFIED
17:35:43 <adamw> so this is confirmed fixed in beta so i propose we don't waste too much time on it
17:35:56 <adamw> if we don't have a clear consensus right away let's just punt and it'll go away
17:36:27 <lruzicka[m]> ack
17:36:32 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 punt
17:36:42 <frantisekz> +1 punt
17:37:35 <pwhalen> +1 punt
17:38:29 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1937308 - punt (delay decision) - this isn't a completely clear call for Final blocker, so since it's confirmed fixed in Beta anyway we're just going to duck it by waiting for that fix to be pushed stable
17:39:09 <lruzicka[m]> ackingly ack
17:40:36 <adamw> any more acks
17:40:38 <cmurf> ack
17:41:30 <pwhalen> ack
17:41:51 <frantisekz> ack
17:42:16 <adamw> #agreed 1937308 - punt (delay decision) - this isn't a completely clear call for Final blocker, so since it's confirmed fixed in Beta anyway we're just going to duck it by waiting for that fix to be pushed stable
17:42:24 <adamw> #topic (1936935) Gnome Software does not update correctly to the current status.
17:42:28 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936935
17:42:32 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/293
17:42:37 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-software, NEW
17:43:43 <cmurf> -1 blocker, it's a bug but not entirely non-functional
17:43:53 <cmurf> well.. ha if you can't remove things hmm
17:44:20 <lruzicka[m]> you can, it only seems like they are not removed when they actually are
17:44:27 <lruzicka[m]> after reboot, the status is shown correctly
17:44:36 <cmurf> ahh so it's a cosmetic bug
17:44:42 <lruzicka[m]> and it is always just the first packagt
17:44:44 <lruzicka[m]> package
17:44:59 <frantisekz> -1 Blocker, imo
17:44:59 <cmurf> that's cute
17:45:10 <lruzicka[m]> so, basically, you are not very likely to arrive into it, because who uninstalls a package right after it has been installed ....
17:46:03 <lruzicka[m]> a tester does, I think ... or if you are totally disappointed by the application.
17:46:18 <adamw> i think this would fail the last blocker test
17:46:30 <adamw> on the whole the critical functions work
17:46:30 <lruzicka[m]> which does not happe too often ... I proposed it for discussion purposes :D
17:49:08 <adamw> so, -1
17:49:10 <adamw> any other votes?
17:49:40 <bcotton> -1 also
17:49:57 <lruzicka[m]> -1 FB +1 FE
17:50:37 <frantisekz> -1 Blocker, as said above
17:52:24 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1936935 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this doesn't seem to constitute a criterion violation, the essential functions work, and the sync issue is transient (solved with a reboot)
17:52:24 <frantisekz> ack
17:52:25 <lruzicka[m]> ack
17:53:22 <pwhalen> -1/ack
17:53:46 <bcotton> ack
17:54:07 <geraldosimiao> ack
17:54:31 <adamw> #agreed 1936935 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this doesn't seem to constitute a criterion violation, the essential functions work, and the sync issue is transient (solved with a reboot)
17:55:18 <adamw> #topic (1924908) Long delay before GNOME Initial Setup runs on first boot, "Oops, something went wrong" screen visible at times
17:55:22 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1924908
17:55:26 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/240
17:55:31 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, mutter, VERIFIED
17:55:38 <adamw> again, verified fixed in beta so no need to waste too much time on ti
17:56:11 <frantisekz> +1 skip/punt/¯\_(ツ)_/¯
17:58:19 <lruzicka[m]> +1 Final blocker
17:58:23 <lruzicka[m]> ugly
17:58:44 <lruzicka[m]> oh, verified already
17:58:52 <lruzicka[m]> +1 forget
17:59:27 <adamw> to the memory hole!
17:59:55 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1924908 - punt (delay decision) - again this isn't a completely clear call, and the fix is verified in Beta, so we will just punt to avoid having to think too hard about it
18:00:04 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
18:00:05 <frantisekz> ack
18:00:19 <coremodule> ack
18:00:22 <cmurf> and we haven't talked about the proposed release criterion yet
18:00:43 <cmurf> so yea ack punt ack
18:01:14 <adamw> #agreed 1924908 - punt (delay decision) - again this isn't a completely clear call, and the fix is verified in Beta, so we will just punt to avoid having to think too hard about it
18:01:15 <lruzicka[m]> ack
18:01:43 <adamw> alright, looks like that's everything
18:01:46 <adamw> #topic Open floor
18:01:54 <adamw> please test and karma the updates from Beta so we can push them stable, folks
18:02:11 <adamw> all the ones in https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10056#comment-720933
18:04:20 <cmurf> did i miss the shim final blocker proposal?
18:04:51 <cmurf> i don't see it
18:05:09 <adamw> any other business? anyone have concerns about beta or rc2 that weren't captured?
18:05:27 <cmurf> oh i guess it was decided in the blocker-review app
18:07:43 <frantisekz> thanks adamw for leading the meeting and others for attending
18:07:51 <frantisekz> see ya on thursday!
18:10:47 <cmurf> oops
18:11:09 <cmurf> quick assign something to adam!
18:11:25 <cmurf> is anyone else chair and can end the meeting?
18:11:39 <cmurf> #endmeeting
18:11:45 <cmurf> not me
18:11:52 <cmurf> was there a netsplit?
18:11:54 <frantisekz> #endmeeting
18:12:03 <frantisekz> me neither...
18:12:09 <cmurf> coremodule?
18:12:15 <coremodule> i dont think so...
18:12:17 <coremodule> #endmeeting