16:00:04 <adamw> #startmeeting F35-blocker-review
16:00:04 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Sep 27 16:00:04 2021 UTC.
16:00:04 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:00:04 <zodbot> The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions.
16:00:04 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:04 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f35-blocker-review'
16:00:07 <adamw> #meetingname F35-blocker-review
16:00:07 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f35-blocker-review'
16:00:11 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
16:00:45 <coremodule> .hello2
16:00:46 <zodbot> coremodule: coremodule 'Geoffrey Marr' <gmarr@redhat.com>
16:00:57 <pwhalen> .hello2
16:00:58 <adamw> hi folks, who's around for blocker review fun?
16:00:58 <zodbot> pwhalen: pwhalen 'Paul Whalen' <pwhalen@redhat.com>
16:01:01 * coremodule is here and willing to act as secretary!
16:02:09 <bcotton> .hello2
16:02:10 <zodbot> bcotton: bcotton 'Ben Cotton' <bcotton@redhat.com>
16:04:47 <adamw> hi folks
16:04:55 <adamw> sorry, i just realized i didn't handle ticket votes, so i'm doing that now
16:04:58 <adamw> plays light muzak
16:05:11 * bcotton makes awkward elevator small talk
16:07:11 <adamw> so, how bout those Mets, huh
16:07:46 <adamw> hi sumantro
16:08:02 <sumantro> Hey Adam!
16:09:48 <adamw> i said you were excused :D
16:10:00 <Southern_Gentlem> i take it the blocker review was a short meeting
16:10:01 <adamw> okay, finished the ticket updates, let's get rollin'
16:10:03 <adamw> #chair bcotton pwhalen
16:10:03 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw bcotton pwhalen
16:10:11 <adamw> impending boilerplate alert!
16:10:29 <adamw> #topic Introduction
16:10:34 <adamw> Why are we here?
16:10:41 <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.
16:10:45 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:10:48 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:10:52 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:10:57 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:11:00 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:11:03 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
16:11:08 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_35_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:11:10 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_35_Final_Release_Criteria
16:11:18 <adamw> #info for Final, we have:
16:11:23 <adamw> #info 7 Proposed Blockers
16:11:28 <adamw> #info 7 Accepted Blockers
16:11:31 <adamw> #info 1 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:11:35 <adamw> #info 1 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
16:12:20 <adamw> #info coremodule will secretarialize
16:13:16 <adamw> let's get started with:
16:13:22 <adamw> #topic Proposed Beta blockers
16:13:26 <adamw> #topic (2007775) Cockpit can not set up a VM on F35 WS
16:13:30 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007775
16:13:34 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/482
16:13:38 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, cockpit-machines, MODIFIED
16:13:41 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+2,0,-0) (+lruzicka, +tablepc)
16:14:25 <sumantro> +1 FinalBlocker
16:14:50 <adamw> -1
16:14:57 <adamw> i don't see a criterion that covers this
16:15:20 <adamw> nor has one been suggested
16:15:53 <bcotton> i guess the question is: is it actually a libvirt problem or is it a cockpit problem? it seems like the latter, which is not covered in the criteria that i can tell
16:15:56 <bcotton> so -1 on that basis
16:16:05 <Southern_Gentlem> -1
16:16:11 <adamw> from the bug, it looks like a cockpit bug
16:16:14 <adamw> since it's fixed in a cockpit update
16:16:45 <pwhalen> -1blocker
16:16:53 <adamw> the beta criterion on virt says "This criterion applies only to the recommended Fedora virtualization tools - the qemu/kvm - libvirt - virt-manager stack. "
16:17:05 <adamw> with a link to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/getting-started-with-virtualization/index.html
16:17:23 <adamw> which still covers virt-manager, and does not mention cockpit.
16:18:22 <adamw> sumantro voted +1 in the ticket, so we're at +3/-3. :D
16:18:40 <adamw> doesn't look like anyone who voted +1 considered the criteria, though
16:19:33 <Southern_Gentlem> sumantro, so do you want to change your vote
16:19:53 <sumantro> adamw tbh, I do. I am turning mine to -1
16:20:37 <adamw> ok, so +2/-4
16:21:02 <bcotton> i suppose we could defer and see if the fix is truly a fix. and if not, make the +1s defend themselves
16:21:07 <adamw> i mean, we could discuss whether the current 'recommended virt stack' should still be what it is, of course. might be worth talking about
16:21:28 <adamw> bcotton: yeah, that's what i was planning, but if we get one more -1 we could rject it, heh
16:21:40 <adamw> coremodule: do you have a vote?
16:21:59 <coremodule> sure, -1 based off the fact that there's not an applicable criterion
16:22:58 <adamw> alrighty
16:24:05 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2007775 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this does not violate any criteria; the cockpit criteria do not cover virtualization, and the virtualization criterion covers the 'recommended virtualization technology', which does not include Cockpit as currentl defined
16:24:13 <bcotton> ack
16:24:14 <adamw> patch to add a y. :D
16:24:17 <sumantro> ack
16:24:48 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
16:24:48 <pwhalen> ack
16:25:23 <coremodule> ack with a y
16:26:04 <adamw> hehe
16:26:14 <adamw> #agreed 2007775 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this does not violate any criteria; the cockpit criteria do not cover virtualization, and the virtualization criterion covers the 'recommended virtualization technology', which does not include Cockpit as currently defined
16:26:25 <adamw> #topic (2007672) Rename failure of Application group text label
16:26:29 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007672
16:26:33 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/483
16:26:41 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, NEW
16:26:42 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-2) (+geraldosimiao, -kparal, -frantisekz)
16:27:26 <geraldosimiao> .hello geraldosimiao
16:27:28 <zodbot> geraldosimiao: geraldosimiao 'Geraldo S. Simião Kutz' <geraldo.simiao.kutz@gmail.com>
16:27:39 <adamw> I think this is user error
16:27:55 <adamw> the way kparal describes it in the latest comment is just...how these input methods work
16:28:20 <bcotton> are application labels "basic functionality"?
16:28:31 <Southern_Gentlem> -1
16:28:35 <adamw> that would also be an argument, but regardless, i don't think there's a bug here
16:28:37 <sumantro> +1 to this, I am unable to put the app group label text in Jp and Chinese. Like I am able to input hindi but not other asian langs
16:28:42 <adamw> so i'm either -1 or "invalid" :D
16:28:55 <adamw> let me try it in japanese...
16:29:43 <bcotton> -1 based on both "not-basic-functionality" and "appears to be how the input methods work"
16:30:06 * Southern_Gentlem agrees with kparel and bcotton
16:30:53 <adamw> sumantro: what exactly did you try typing in Japanese? and did you configure an actual Japanese input method, or just the jp keyboard layout?
16:31:21 <sumantro> I used jp kana kanji keyboard layout
16:31:27 <adamw> anyhow, this works as i'd expect in Japanese for me. if I input japanese text correctly I can rename a group to a japanese word
16:32:11 <sumantro> adamw, -1 for sure then
16:32:14 <pwhalen> -1
16:32:31 <coremodule> -1
16:33:22 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2007672 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - there does not seem to be a real bug here, just a misunderstanding of how input methods work. Even if there was a bug, it's doubtful we would consider this "basic functionality"
16:33:49 <bcotton> ack
16:33:53 <sumantro> ack -y
16:34:00 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
16:34:35 <pwhalen> ack
16:34:50 <adamw> #agreed 2007672 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - there does not seem to be a real bug here, just a misunderstanding of how input methods work. Even if there was a bug, it's doubtful we would consider this "basic functionality"
16:35:14 <geraldosimiao> Ack
16:36:25 <adamw> #topic (2007993) gnome-shell-extension-background-logo is not compatible with GNOME 41
16:36:28 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007993
16:36:32 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/484
16:36:34 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell-extension-background-logo, POST
16:36:52 <bcotton> is this part of the Workstation default package set?
16:37:13 <adamw> yeah
16:37:24 <adamw> it does a branding thing. i forget what branding thing
16:37:31 <adamw> but it puts our logo somewhere it's supposed to be. :D
16:37:56 <adamw> hmm, or is it only for classic mode? sigh, i forget
16:38:01 <adamw> aday: do you remember by chance?
16:38:52 <adamw> oh yeah, i remember
16:39:03 <adamw> it's the little fedora 'watermark' over the desktop background
16:39:13 <adamw> see https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/988230#step/_graphical_wait_login/8 , that's the f34 default desktop
16:39:16 <aday> yes that's it
16:39:20 <adamw> see the translucent fedora logo at bottom right?
16:39:25 <adamw> on f35, we don't have that atm
16:40:03 <adamw> let's see what the criteria say..
16:40:29 <geraldosimiao> Yeah, that's a gnome extension
16:40:29 <bcotton> this one, maybe? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_35_Final_Release_Criteria#Artwork
16:40:30 <geraldosimiao> That puts a logo
16:40:41 <bcotton> specifically "All Fedora artwork visible in critical path actions on release-blocking desktops must be consistent with the proposed final theme."
16:40:54 <bcotton> but if it's just missing, i'm not sure that's a violation?
16:40:54 <adamw> that would be closest, yeah
16:41:01 <adamw> i suspect this might fail the last blocker test
16:41:20 <adamw> if it was the go/no-go and this was the last thing broken, would we say 'let's slip the release a week to get a little fedora logo on the background'?
16:41:53 <bcotton> -1 blocker on a technicality; +1 FE (just in case they don't land the update before tuesday)
16:42:47 <adamw> yeah, i'm happy to give this an FE
16:42:49 <adamw> -1 blocker, +1 FE
16:43:01 <sumantro> -1 blocker, +1 FE
16:43:32 <pwhalen> -1 blocker, +1 FE
16:43:50 <geraldosimiao> -1 blocker, +1FE
16:45:50 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2007993 - RejectedBlocker (Final), AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this does not violate any of the relevant criteria and we think that's correct (it's not significant enough that we should amend the criteria to cover it), but it would definitely be nice to get it right for Final even after freeze, so we grant it an FE
16:46:14 <bcotton> ack
16:46:29 <geraldosimiao> ack
16:46:36 <sumantro> ack =y
16:46:41 <sumantro> ack -y
16:47:00 <pwhalen> ack
16:47:20 <adamw> #agreed 2007993 - RejectedBlocker (Final), AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this does not violate any of the relevant criteria and we think that's correct (it's not significant enough that we should amend the criteria to cover it), but it would definitely be nice to get it right for Final even after freeze, so we grant it an FE
16:47:32 <adamw> #topic (2006632) Abrt doesn't work well
16:47:36 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006632
16:47:39 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/475
16:47:43 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, libreport, ASSIGNED
16:47:47 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+5,0,-0) (+sumantrom, +imsedgar, +lruzicka, +kparal, +frantisekz)
16:47:59 <adamw> so as you can see this has +5, but i'm holding it for the meeting on procedural grounds
16:48:14 <adamw> i distinctly recall we chose not to block on a similar bug for f33 or f34, i'm just gonna see if i can find references
16:48:28 <adamw> we aim for consistent decisions, so i'd want to at least consider that before accepting this
16:49:29 <adamw> yup, there it is
16:49:29 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885154
16:49:48 <adamw> that was basically the same bug - retrace server failed, local retrace worked - and we rejected it for f33
16:50:43 <adamw> #info we rejected the virtually identical https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885154 as a Final blocker for Fedora 33 - log at https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2020-10-05/f33-blocker-review.2020-10-05-16.00.log.txt
16:52:15 <adamw> so for consistency with that decision, i'd vote -1 again.
16:52:19 <bcotton> i'm leaning toward -1, but it concerns me that we're hitting this again
16:52:24 <sumantro> -1
16:53:24 <adamw> Ben Cotton (he/him/his): it's not...uncommon for the retrace stuff to break down, yeah. it seems to be possibly under-resourced. and i don't know for sure, but it feels to me like they don't have anyone whose job is to follow the fedora schedule and make sure things work at key points like branching.
16:53:36 <pwhalen> -1
16:53:37 <adamw> we're now at +4/-3 (since sumantro's vote is a change from ticket)
16:54:37 <Southern_Gentlem> -1
16:55:00 <adamw> okay, +4/-5...
16:55:04 <adamw> so, how about this\
16:55:24 <bcotton> well i suppose i should talk to the retrace folks and see what i can come up with
16:55:46 <geraldosimiao> Ok, - 1
16:55:52 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1885154 - punt (delay decision) - the current vote is not clear on this one; we will note the F33 decision in the ticket and see if anyone who voted +1 wishes to reconsider, or if any other way to resolve this appears
16:56:14 <pwhalen> ack
16:56:32 <sumantro> ack -y
16:56:33 <bcotton> ack
16:56:33 <geraldosimiao> Yeah, I reconsider baswd on that Ben has pointed.
16:56:33 <geraldosimiao> Ack
16:57:00 <adamw> #agreed 1885154 - punt (delay decision) - the current vote is not clear on this one; we will note the F33 decision in the ticket and see if anyone who voted +1 wishes to reconsider, or if any other way to resolve this appears
16:57:02 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
16:57:10 <geraldosimiao> ack
16:57:10 <adamw> #topic (2007697) Encrypted zip exctracts weirdly with wrong passphrase
16:57:14 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007697
16:57:17 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/480
16:57:22 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, nautilus, NEW
16:57:39 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,2,-3) (imsedgar, sumantrom, -lruzicka, -frantisekz, -kparal)
16:57:40 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+4,0,-0) (+lruzicka, +frantisekz, +imsedgar, +sumantrom)
16:57:47 <adamw> i think i'd be -1/+1 on this, just seems a bit outside 'basic functionality
16:59:02 <bcotton> "don't get your password" wrong seems like good advice. if it doesn't cause data loss, though, i'm -1
17:00:09 <adamw> ok, so we're at -5 now
17:00:47 <pwhalen> -1 here too
17:01:42 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2007697 - RejectedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - we agreed that this does not really constitute "basic functionality" for archive management, but it would be desirable to fix it even after freeze if a safe fix is available.
17:04:13 <adamw> tap tap tap
17:04:40 <sumantro> ack -y
17:04:49 <pwhalen> ack
17:06:53 <adamw> any more acks
17:06:55 <adamw> any more acks
17:06:59 <adamw> any any any mor acks
17:08:02 <geraldosimiao> Ack
17:08:16 <bcotton> ack
17:08:18 <adamw> #agreed 2007697 - RejectedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - we agreed that this does not really constitute "basic functionality" for archive management, but it would be desirable to fix it even after freeze if a safe fix is available.
17:08:26 <adamw> #topic (2006746) Mouse cursor position has a horizontal and vertical offset after changing resolution in a VM
17:08:29 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006746
17:08:32 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/476
17:08:37 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, spice-vdagent, NEW
17:08:44 <adamw> oh good someone finally filed a bug report on this
17:08:53 <adamw> i was thinking of smashing my computer, but filing a bug report seemed like too much work
17:10:53 <bcotton> +1 computer smashing
17:11:31 <pwhalen> +1
17:11:53 <bcotton> +1 based on "The release must be able host virtual guest instances of the same release." https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_35_Beta_Release_Criteria#Self_hosting_virtualization
17:12:20 <sumantro> +1
17:12:21 <adamw> still, i'm not sure it's release blocking.
17:12:26 <adamw> for one thing, it was like this in f34 too. for me anyway. :D
17:12:41 <adamw> man, people sure seem +1 happy these days...
17:13:00 <bcotton> hey, i've been free with my -1s :-)
17:13:59 <geraldosimiao> Didn't we have some other bug like this (vm bug) on f33 and decided to not be a blocker?
17:14:45 <adamw> hmm, not sure i recall that
17:14:55 <adamw> do you remember any other details that'd help me find it?
17:15:35 <geraldosimiao> Let's see... It was a bug related to not running something at vm.
17:15:50 <geraldosimiao> Will search here...
17:16:58 <adamw> okay
17:17:04 <adamw> well, i guess we can give this "democracy" nonsense a try for now
17:17:18 <geraldosimiao> 😂👍
17:17:21 <adamw> i'm a 0 on this, i think. it annoys me, but i'm not 100% sure it needs to block the release
17:17:49 <bcotton> actually...call me a 0 too
17:18:06 <pwhalen> sounded frustrating but I'll downgrade too, 0
17:18:09 <bcotton> since a reboot "fixes" it
17:18:17 <adamw> oh well now we have to punt, yay
17:18:18 <adamw> :P
17:18:28 <adamw> i think punt is actually a good choice, though, would be good if we can figure out more details on this
17:18:38 <adamw> it does seem worse than before (i only used to run into it in kde, gnome worked okay)
17:19:05 <bcotton> this behavior on bare metal would be an obvious blocker and this is arguably one, but …
17:20:12 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2006746 - punt (delay decision) - this is definitely an aggravating bug, but whether it's bad enough to consider a violation of the criteria seems like a tight call and the vote is not clear yet. it would be useful to have more details about the bug to make the decision (e.g. whether it's really happening more often/in more circumstances than it used to)
17:20:22 <bcotton> ack
17:20:31 <sumantro> ack
17:21:08 <pwhalen> ack
17:21:24 <geraldosimiao> I found it
17:21:44 <geraldosimiao> Rhbz#1950258
17:21:46 <adamw> ah, thanks geraldo
17:21:59 <geraldosimiao> Usb flash
17:22:05 <geraldosimiao> Didn't mount at vms
17:22:27 <adamw> ah, so a different bug, but it is a comparison point, yeah
17:23:51 <geraldosimiao> Yes
17:25:05 <geraldosimiao> https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/358
17:25:08 <adamw> #agreed 2006746 - punt (delay decision) - this is definitely an aggravating bug, but whether it's bad enough to consider a violation of the criteria seems like a tight call and the vote is not clear yet. it would be useful to have more details about the bug to make the decision (e.g. whether it's really happening more often/in more circumstances than it used to)
17:25:23 <geraldosimiao> ack
17:25:31 <adamw> geraldo: if you could post those links in the review ticket it'd be useful i think
17:25:36 <adamw> just so people can consider the comparison
17:25:37 <adamw> thanks!
17:25:43 <geraldosimiao> ok
17:25:56 <adamw> #topic (2006393) [DNS over TLS] following connection to a wifi AP, internet is not available for ~30s
17:25:59 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006393
17:26:03 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/472
17:26:05 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, systemd, NEW
17:26:10 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-0) (+imsedgar)
17:28:06 <adamw> hmm, interesting one
17:28:23 <adamw> it's not really that terrible, but i can see it being fairly annoying for people who change locations a lot...
17:28:28 <geraldosimiao> adamw: just did it :D
17:29:03 <bcotton> yeah. it technically works, but I don't want to be the one making that argument to users and reviewers :-)
17:29:31 <adamw> i think my vote might depend on whether the previous AP has to be present but weak for the bug to happen
17:29:31 <adamw> because that seems like more of a corner case
17:29:40 <adamw> if it happens any time you switch APs, i can see that being a big issue
17:31:08 <bcotton> it's also not clear to me if every AP does this or just, as zbyszek said, routers "of questionable quality"
17:32:16 <adamw> i think "questionable quality" is the "present but weak" thing
17:32:35 <adamw> i don't think systemd is yet sophisticated enough to run a quick scan of the hardware blogs and judge your router :P
17:32:45 <bcotton> yet
17:33:12 <adamw> "ew, jeez, person, you bought a Linksys? What's wrong with you. I guess I'll connect to this, but maaaaan"
17:33:30 <bcotton> let's punt a week and see if the situation becomes more clear?
17:33:41 <adamw> yeah, i'll ask for clarification on the exact context
17:33:49 <pwhalen> +1 punt
17:34:21 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2006393 - punt (delay decision) - this seems worrying, but we'd like to have a clearer idea of how commonly it is likely to happen in order to make a call on whether it should block the release
17:34:21 <bcotton> i think shortening the timeout is the right approach. if it were a 5 second delay, for example, i'd be a lot less likely to vote for blocking than i am with a 30 second delay
17:34:26 <bcotton> ack
17:34:31 <coremodule> ack
17:34:32 <pwhalen> ack
17:34:51 <adamw> yeah, 5 seconds would be indistinguishable in general "waking up" noise
17:35:03 <adamw> #agreed 2006393 - punt (delay decision) - this seems worrying, but we'd like to have a clearer idea of how commonly it is likely to happen in order to make a call on whether it should block the release
17:35:15 <adamw> ok, that's all the proposed blockers
17:35:17 <adamw> we have one:
17:35:25 <adamw> #topic Proposed Freeze exception issue
17:35:35 <adamw> oh, wait, never mind, it's a dupe
17:35:39 <adamw> #info never mind, we covered it
17:35:47 <bcotton> yippee
17:35:51 <adamw> let's take a quick trip through the:
17:35:55 <adamw> #topic Accepted Final blockers
17:36:03 <adamw> #info as a reminder, we are checking status here, not voting
17:36:09 <adamw> #topic (1997315) abrt-dbus segmentation faulted in abrt_p2_service_dbus when shutting down, rebooting, or logging out of Plasma
17:36:12 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1997315
17:36:18 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, abrt, ASSIGNED
17:37:00 <adamw> this got kicked to ASSIGNED on the 15th, but hasn't moved since
17:37:06 <adamw> i guess we can ping and ask for status
17:37:25 <adamw> #info this got ASSIGNED on Sept 15, but hasn't moved since, we will ask the assignee for status
17:37:56 <adamw> #topic (2006028) Non-root user cannot join an Active Directory domain through Cockpit
17:38:01 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006028
17:38:06 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, cockpit, POST
17:38:15 <adamw> #info this is in POST and should be fixed fairly soon, as cockpit team are efficient with updates
17:38:45 <adamw> #info fix has been confirmed by sgallagh
17:38:54 <adamw> #topic (2007742) Selecting Xorg doesn't work as when you login you still end up with Wayland
17:38:58 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007742
17:39:01 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, gdm, NEW
17:39:54 <adamw> this is fairly freshly reported, we probably need desktop team to look into it
17:40:01 <geraldosimiao> I tested this, and it doesnt work the first time, but second time I can login at x11
17:40:28 <adamw> yep, saw your note on the bug. peter says that doesn't work for him though
17:41:50 <adamw> #info this is a fairly new bug, it has been confirmed partly or fully by several reporters, we need desktop team to see if they can figure what's going on
17:44:48 <adamw> #topic (2007602) gedit crashes when searching for files
17:44:51 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007602
17:44:54 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, gedit, NEW
17:46:33 <adamw> #info this is also fairly newly reported and needs gnome/gedit team to look into it
17:47:09 <adamw> #topic (1989726) [abrt] gnome-shell: cogl_texture_get_gl_texture(): gnome-shell killed by SIGSEGV
17:47:11 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1989726
17:47:16 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, mesa, NEW
17:47:24 <adamw> this is the infamous jetson bug
17:47:56 <adamw> it's an accepted final blocker as waiving it from beta automatically means it gets pushed to final. i guess not much we can do besides hope the devs can come up with a fix by final.
17:48:23 <adamw> #info this is the (in)famous Jetson graphics blocker; nothing much we can do here besides wait on the devs and hope they can come up with something for final. The bug is understood but not easy to fix.
17:49:56 <adamw> #topic (2001837) The switch for Fedora Third Party repositories does not switch them on.
17:50:00 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2001837
17:50:03 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, selinux-policy, ASSIGNED
17:50:52 <adamw> #info this seems to be fairly well described by now (see latest comment by Owen Taylor) and we're waiting for selinux maintainer to come up with a fix, I will check in with him
17:51:43 <adamw> #topic (1991075) time is transiently incorrect when Automatic Time Zone is enabled
17:51:46 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1991075
17:51:50 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, xdg-desktop-portal, NEW
17:53:30 <adamw> #info mcatanzaro assigned this over to David King on Sept 18th, no movement since
17:53:46 <adamw> #info adamw will check in with David
17:54:35 <adamw> okay, that's all the accepted blockers
17:54:38 <adamw> #topic Open floor
17:54:40 <adamw> any other business, folks?
17:55:47 <sumantro> nothing from my end
17:56:01 <pwhalen> nor I
17:56:03 <bcotton> i'm good
17:56:14 <adamw> alrighty
17:56:17 <adamw> thanks for sticking around, everyone :D
17:57:28 * Southern_Gentlem back $dayjob (i hate printers)
17:57:48 <adamw> hah, don't we all
17:58:53 <adamw> #endmeeting