16:00:40 <adamw> #startmeeting F39-blocker-review
16:00:40 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Sep  4 16:00:40 2023 UTC.
16:00:40 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:00:40 <zodbot> The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions.
16:00:40 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:40 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f39-blocker-review'
16:00:43 <adamw> #meetingname F39-blocker-review
16:00:43 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f39-blocker-review'
16:00:46 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
16:01:40 * kparal is partially here
16:02:01 <lruzicka> Same here
16:02:15 <lruzicka> .hello lruzicka
16:02:16 <zodbot> lruzicka: lruzicka 'Lukáš Růžička' <lruzicka@redhat.com>
16:03:04 <geraldosimiao> .hello geraldosimiao
16:03:05 <zodbot> geraldosimiao: geraldosimiao 'Geraldo S. Simião Kutz' <geraldo.simiao.kutz@gmail.com>
16:03:09 <adamw> ahoyhoy folks
16:03:17 <adamw> it's everyone's favorite time of the week(*)
16:03:22 <adamw> * not a guarantee
16:03:31 <frantisekz> .hello2
16:03:34 <zodbot> frantisekz: frantisekz 'František Zatloukal' <fzatlouk@redhat.com>
16:04:01 <geraldosimiao> yeah, let's have some blocker bug fun
16:04:03 <lruzicka> Sure, it is indeed.
16:05:58 <adamw> #chair geraldosimiao frantisekz
16:05:58 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw frantisekz geraldosimiao
16:06:03 <adamw> boilerplate alert!
16:06:10 <adamw> #topic Introduction
16:06:10 <adamw> Why are we here?
16:06:10 <adamw> #info Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs.
16:06:10 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:06:10 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:06:12 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:06:14 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:06:16 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:06:18 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
16:06:20 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_39_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:06:24 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_39_Final_Release_Criteria
16:06:26 <adamw> #info for Beta, we have:
16:06:28 <adamw> #info 3 Proposed Blockers
16:06:30 <adamw> #info 7 Accepted Blockers
16:06:32 <adamw> #info 2 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:06:34 <adamw> #info 31 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
16:06:36 <adamw> #info for Final, we have:
16:06:42 <adamw> #info 4 Proposed Blockers
16:06:42 <adamw> #info 2 Accepted Blockers
16:06:49 <adamw> coremodule: are you around?
16:07:24 <frantisekz> (I can be the secretary)
16:07:55 <adamw> alrighty
16:07:56 <adamw> hi aoife
16:08:03 <adamw> #info frantisekz will secretarialize
16:08:11 <adamw> alright, let's get started with:
16:08:15 <adamw> #topic Proposed Beta blockers
16:08:26 <amoloney> Hi all!
16:08:30 <adamw> #topic (2234518) webUI: allows you to enter an encryption passphrase in non-ASCII characters with no warning
16:08:30 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2234518
16:08:30 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1193
16:08:31 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST
16:08:31 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+3,0,-4) (+tflink, +nielsenb, +lruzicka, -geraldosimiao, -imsedgar, -kparal, -bcotton)
16:08:33 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+1,0,-0) (+adamwill)
16:08:55 <frantisekz> -1 BetaBlocker, +1 BetaFE
16:08:58 <adamw> this one came up last week and we generally agreed in the meeting that the missing warning wasn't serious enough to block on, but we still had +1 votes hanging on the ticket, so the vote was split
16:09:53 <adamw> we still have 'old' +1s from tflink, nielsenb and lruzicka who haven't revoted since the discussion
16:09:57 <lruzicka> I can refrain
16:11:00 <adamw> with frantisek's vote and the current ticket votes, we're at +3 / -6...
16:11:12 <adamw> lruzicka, if you mean you can change your vote, what are you changing to?
16:11:29 <lruzicka> -1 bb
16:13:18 <adamw> ok
16:13:26 <adamw> with that we have a clear result: +2 / -7
16:13:46 <geraldosimiao> agree
16:14:14 <adamw> how about BetaFE?
16:14:19 <adamw> i'm +1 for that, adding a warning would be good
16:14:22 <adamw> other votes?
16:14:48 <geraldosimiao> yeah
16:14:51 <geraldosimiao> betaFE +1
16:15:04 <lruzicka> BetaFE +1
16:15:10 <kparal> betafe +1
16:17:27 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2234518 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - we agreed that anaconda not displaying a warning here is not in itself serious enough to be a blocker bug, but fixing it would be useful. The libblockdev crash and gnome-initial-setup keyboard layout selection issues are being addressed separately
16:17:40 <lruzicka> Ack
16:17:59 <kparal> ack
16:18:02 <frantisekz> ack
16:18:07 <geraldosimiao> ack
16:18:29 <adamw> #agreed 2234518 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - we agreed that anaconda not displaying a warning here is not in itself serious enough to be a blocker bug, but fixing it would be useful. The libblockdev crash and gnome-initial-setup keyboard layout selection issues are being addressed separately
16:18:42 <adamw> #topic (2234640) Installer webUI doesn't allow to install system without separate boot partition
16:18:42 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2234640
16:18:42 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1249
16:18:42 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:18:42 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+2,0,-2) (+geraldosimiao, +bcotton, -kparal, -lruzicka)
16:18:44 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+2,0,-0) (+kparal, +lruzicka)
16:19:30 <adamw> i'm with kamil here, I don't really see where this comes under the beta criteria
16:19:53 <frantisekz> -1 BetaBlocker
16:19:57 <frantisekz> yep
16:20:03 <adamw> i'm -1 blocker, +1 fe *if* we decide this is a wrong choice and we want to allow no-separate-boot for final release, it makes sense to do it in beta first
16:20:30 <frantisekz> and +1 FE ofc, if it's really a bug and not a feature
16:20:58 <geraldosimiao> Well, I think at least FinalBlocker it should be
16:21:17 <lruzicka> +1 fe
16:21:39 <kparal> I'd vote about finalblocker once we have more feedback from anaconda and workstation folks
16:21:41 <geraldosimiao> If this pass as "feature" how it diferrentiates from other changes that must pass through a change proposal process?
16:21:42 <frantisekz> I don't think it should be a final blocker either
16:22:16 <lruzicka> Well, it depends what we want to deliver
16:22:23 <geraldosimiao> someone can "pass" a change in partition shceme like this?
16:22:27 <frantisekz> well, we don't have a change process for every change in Fedora (eg. Firefox moves some button/removes funcionality)
16:23:01 <adamw> yeah, that's a really slippery question and not something we can really police via the release blocker process
16:23:16 <geraldosimiao> this may brake the reinstall process from people who doesn't have a separate partition
16:23:20 <adamw> strictly speaking, if you believe a change needs to be a Change the escalation process is to file a fesco ticket, not a blocker bug
16:23:22 <lruzicka> If we want users to have separate boot part, thats valid, too
16:23:47 <frantisekz> also, for now, users can use netinst and install workstation package set, if the separate boot is really a problem
16:24:43 <geraldosimiao> yeah, but do Whe what that? where is the discussion about this?
16:25:10 <geraldosimiao> I mean, its simply forced people to use this way
16:25:15 <adamw> you could argue a fairly creative reading of the beta criteria "the installer must be able to: ... Assign mount points to existing storage volumes", I guess.
16:25:17 <geraldosimiao> withou any reasoning
16:25:20 <lruzicka> There is not, i guess
16:25:35 <adamw> geraldosimiao: i agree you have a point, but the beta blocker process is probably not the way to address it
16:25:56 <lruzicka> We could start one before final
16:26:05 <adamw> if anaconda team decide not to change this initially, then it probably *would* be a good idea to file a fesco ticket
16:26:09 <geraldosimiao> ok, so I vote for a betaFE, because it is a "nice to have feature"
16:27:36 <geraldosimiao> and I'll see how to do the rationale on a fesco ticket for this
16:28:13 <geraldosimiao> bcotton is here?
16:28:20 <adamw> i don't think so
16:28:24 <geraldosimiao> oh
16:28:41 <adamw> no, he's not in the room
16:28:46 <geraldosimiao> ok
16:28:50 <adamw> still, i think counting you and lruzicka as -1 blocker, we have -4 / +1
16:28:54 <adamw> so we can go with:
16:30:06 <geraldosimiao> I'll propose it as FE
16:30:22 <geraldosimiao> BetaFE +1
16:30:38 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2234640 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this does not really violate any Beta criteria, though we see significant concerns with whether it's appropriate for anaconda to suddenly start enforcing a requirement for a separate /boot when it did not previously. Accepted as an FE since, if we're going to change this, it makes sense to do so for Beta, not change it between
16:30:38 <adamw> Beta and Final.
16:30:40 <adamw> grr
16:30:55 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2234640 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this does not really violate any Beta criteria, though we see significant concerns with whether it's appropriate for anaconda to suddenly start enforcing a requirement for a separate /boot when it did not previously. Accepted as an FE - if we do change this, it makes sense to do so for Beta, not change it between Beta and Final.
16:31:08 <kparal> ack
16:31:11 <lruzicka> Ack
16:31:14 <geraldosimiao> ack
16:32:01 <frantisekz> ack
16:32:32 <adamw> #agreed 2234640 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this does not really violate any Beta criteria, though we see significant concerns with whether it's appropriate for anaconda to suddenly start enforcing a requirement for a separate /boot when it did not previously. Accepted as an FE - if we do change this, it makes sense to do so for Beta, not change it between Beta and Final.
16:32:50 <adamw> #topic (2235236) CVE-2023-30079 libeconf: Stack overflow in function read_file at atlibeconf/lib/getfilecontents.c [fedora-all]
16:32:50 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235236
16:32:50 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1253
16:32:50 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, libeconf, MODIFIED
16:32:50 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+2,0,-1) (+geraldosimiao, +lruzicka, -adamwill)
16:32:54 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+2,0,-0) (+bcotton, +adamwill)
16:32:56 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+3,0,-0) (+bcotton, +kparal, +adamwill)
16:32:59 <adamw> as kparal pointed out, i don't think this is a blocker per the criteria.
16:35:39 <adamw> it's not a 'high' severity bug in *functional* terms, which is the requirement for a beta blocker. the *security* criterion is for Final, not Beta.
16:35:59 <frantisekz> mhm, -1 BetaBlocker, +1 BetaFE then
16:36:29 <kparal> -1 BetaBlocker, +1 BetaFE, +1 FinalBlocker
16:36:38 <geraldosimiao> OK I cannot find the criteria Neal pointed
16:36:47 <geraldosimiao> BetaFE +1
16:36:53 <geraldosimiao> FinalBlocker +1
16:36:56 <lruzicka> -1 bb
16:37:02 <geraldosimiao> BetaBlocker -1
16:37:05 <kparal> geraldosimiao: it's not a criterion: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_39_Beta_Release_Criteria#Beta_Blocker_Bugs
16:37:19 <lruzicka> +1 bfe
16:39:12 <geraldosimiao> find it
16:39:15 <geraldosimiao> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_23_Final_Release_Criteria#Final_Blocker_Bugs
16:39:18 <geraldosimiao> fedora 23
16:39:32 <geraldosimiao> final blocker criteria
16:39:35 <lruzicka> Final
16:39:48 <geraldosimiao> yeah
16:39:58 <adamw> we have the same wording in current beta and final pages
16:40:08 <geraldosimiao> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_39_Final_Release_Criteria#Final_Blocker_Bugs
16:40:15 <adamw> but it refers to how severe the bug is in *functional* terms, it is not about CVE ratings of severity in *security* terms
16:40:43 <geraldosimiao> yeah, found it too https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_39_Beta_Release_Criteria#Beta_Blocker_Bugs
16:41:07 <geraldosimiao> ohh sorry, is the same kparal saw
16:41:18 <adamw> okay, so *counts votes*...that's +1 / -5 I think
16:41:47 <adamw> amoloney's having fun with IRC, i see :D
16:41:57 <geraldosimiao> :D
16:42:13 <amoloney> if there is a problem, I am guaranteed to find it :-/
16:42:36 <geraldosimiao> the heart of a true tester
16:42:45 <geraldosimiao> ;)
16:42:46 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2235236 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected as a Beta blocker as it doesn't violate any Beta criterion. It does violate the security criterion for Final so it's accepted as a Final blocker, and a Beta FE as it would be good to fix it for Beta too
16:42:51 <adamw> hehe
16:42:54 <lruzicka> Ack
16:42:58 <amoloney> sorry for the interruptions
16:43:01 <geraldosimiao> ack
16:43:03 <adamw> amoloney: ah you're fine
16:44:23 <frantisekz> ack
16:44:27 <kparal> ack
16:45:55 <adamw> #agreed 2235236 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected as a Beta blocker as it doesn't violate any Beta criterion. It does violate the security criterion for Final so it's accepted as a Final blocker, and a Beta FE as it would be good to fix it for Beta too
16:46:28 <adamw> #info that's all the Beta blocker proposals, moving on to:
16:46:33 <adamw> #topic proposed Beta freeze exceptions
16:46:44 <adamw> #topic (2236321) coreutils-9.4 reverts an undesirable change to the -v option that landed in coreutils-9.3
16:46:44 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236321
16:46:44 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1239
16:46:44 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, coreutils, ON_QA
16:46:59 <adamw> i'm kinda neutral on this. probably wouldn't hurt to take it, but the benefit's pretty small too, as kparal points out
16:47:06 <frantisekz> as I understand it, we currently have 9.2 in the repos?
16:47:22 <kparal> coreutils-9.3-2.fc39.x86_64
16:47:25 <frantisekz> nah, 9.3
16:47:29 <frantisekz> mhm
16:48:29 <frantisekz> I'd say +1 FE, let's et closer to what we had in f <= 38 and what we'd have in the future
16:48:44 * kparal is 0
16:48:49 <lruzicka> +1
16:49:08 <kparal> I'd personally lean more towards -1, but no hard opinion
16:49:18 <frantisekz> so 0 or -1 ? :D
16:49:29 <adamw> i'm -0.01 with kparal. :D
16:49:34 <kparal> that
16:49:46 <adamw> but blocker votes round up (I have just decided)
16:50:04 <adamw> so unless 499 other people vote with us (er, check my math on that) it's not gonna count
16:50:08 <kparal> but maybe just because when we start accepting "cosmetic" things, we won't be doing anything else than dealing with those in the future
16:50:29 <adamw> it's fine, we can capriciously reject a different one in future
16:50:33 <adamw> it's important to keep people on their toes
16:50:38 <kparal> :-D
16:50:38 <frantisekz> but rounding -0.01 up means 0, doesn't it?
16:50:42 <adamw> so right now we appear to be at +1.98
16:51:02 <adamw> frantisekz: i mean, after we total everything, we round up.
16:51:08 <frantisekz> ahh, yeah
16:51:20 <adamw> i guess i mean 49 more people? math is hard!
16:51:21 <kparal> let's include some personal weights
16:51:22 <geraldosimiao> BetaFE +1 for me
16:51:27 <kparal> to make the math more fun
16:51:38 <frantisekz> but pay attention to what float type you're going to use...
16:51:48 <frantisekz> it could easily end up being inf more people for +2...
16:52:37 <adamw> okay, so we're at +2.98 which rounds up to three, in *my* math
16:52:52 <adamw> i love how rigorous this voting system is, it's like american elections!
16:53:10 <frantisekz> hehe
16:53:31 <geraldosimiao> lol
16:53:49 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2236321 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - the benefit here isn't huge (getting the new/old behaviour during live sessions and at first boot, not just on first update) but the risk is also small and we're feeling generous, so...fine
16:54:08 <geraldosimiao> ack
16:54:10 <lruzicka> Ack
16:54:34 <frantisekz> ack
16:55:12 <adamw> #agreed 2236321 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - the benefit here isn't huge (getting the new/old behaviour during live sessions and at first boot, not just on first update) but the risk is also small and we're feeling generous, so...fine
16:55:21 <adamw> #topic (2237039) NeoChat cannot verify its sessions with other Matrix clients
16:55:21 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2237039
16:55:22 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1254
16:55:22 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, neochat, ON_QA
16:55:22 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+2,0,-2) (+nixuser, +lruzicka, -kparal, -adamwill)
16:55:34 <adamw> this one i'm definitely -1 on, with kparal. it's not installed by default anywhere. it can just be an update.
16:55:50 <geraldosimiao> yeah
16:55:53 <lruzicka> Ok
16:56:06 <geraldosimiao> I'm not feel thaaat generous
16:56:09 <geraldosimiao> -1
16:57:11 <frantisekz> yeah, -1, the testing repos aren't enabled on GA though, but it'll be effectively pushed as a 0day
16:57:59 <adamw> testing repos should be enabled rn
16:58:04 <adamw> we're at beta, not ga
16:58:17 <frantisekz> yeah, but on the released beta, they shouldn't be, no?
16:58:21 <adamw> yes they are
16:58:26 <frantisekz> oh, okay
16:58:27 <adamw> we disable them shortly before final
16:58:38 <frantisekz> mhm, I though we do that for beta rc/tc too
16:58:43 <adamw> nope
16:58:48 <adamw> beta has testing enabled by intent
16:59:06 <adamw> okay, we're at +1 / -5
16:59:36 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2237039 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - as neochat is not preinstalled in any image we know of, there doesn't seem to be any reason to give this an FE, it is fine being a regular update
16:59:45 <lruzicka> Ack
17:00:07 <geraldosimiao> ack
17:00:40 <frantisekz> ack
17:00:47 <adamw> #agreed 2237039 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - as neochat is not preinstalled in any image we know of, there doesn't seem to be any reason to give this an FE, it is fine being a regular update
17:01:24 <adamw> #info that's all the proposed Beta FEs, let's move onto:
17:01:28 <adamw> #topic Proposed Final blockers
17:01:39 <adamw> #info two can be decided with ticket votes, so we only have two to handle
17:01:56 <adamw> oh hey, someone's been voting during the meeting...
17:02:08 <adamw> #topic (2236438) Anaconda is very slow to show a window after clicking install in gnome-initial-setup
17:02:08 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236438
17:02:08 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1242
17:02:08 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED
17:02:08 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+3,0,-0) (+kparal, +lruzicka, +adamwill)
17:02:19 <adamw> so we have +3 here now, anyone opposed?
17:02:40 <frantisekz> is that betafe?
17:02:41 <geraldosimiao> FinalBlocker +1
17:03:09 <adamw> oh jeez, i pasted the wrong linew
17:03:19 <adamw> oh no i didn't, you're right
17:03:23 <adamw> i'm *reading* it wrong :D
17:03:26 <frantisekz> :D
17:03:34 <adamw> so we don't have votes here yet.
17:03:54 <frantisekz> I would incline to -1 FinalBlocker, +1 FinalFE
17:04:03 <frantisekz> it's not *that slow
17:04:39 <adamw> yeah, it's kinda a close call...I don't love the behaviour, but ultimately is it a blocker? what's the criterion?
17:04:43 <adamw> i'm probably -1 blocker +1 FE too
17:05:19 <lruzicka> Ok, I dont need to be strict either
17:06:25 <lruzicka> -1 fb 1ffe
17:07:35 <geraldosimiao> hummm
17:08:28 <adamw> kparal, wdyt?
17:09:24 <geraldosimiao> we're talking about the slow window bug at GIS correct?
17:09:43 <adamw> well, the way anaconda takes a while to start after g-i-s with no visual feedback
17:09:50 <geraldosimiao> ok
17:09:55 <geraldosimiao> so changing to Final FE +1
17:10:12 <adamw> anaconda has always taken a while to start, in fact, but the experience just feels different on this workflow compared to before, when you first saw a desktop and the welcome screen, then got some visual feedback while anaconda loaded
17:10:59 <adamw> now you just see the g-i-s 'install or go to a desktop?' screen then if you pick install you kinda get no feedback for a while, and are at an otherwise non-functional screen while you wait
17:12:19 <geraldosimiao> I think this is not a good user experience for a final (stable) release
17:13:27 <geraldosimiao> imagine the bad PR on this... "oh, just wait some more time..."
17:14:58 <geraldosimiao> just when we're releasing a new installer user experience
17:16:08 * kparal is back
17:17:23 <kparal> so for me, it took 11 seconds
17:17:27 <adamw> i mean, it's ten seconds. i dunno.
17:17:34 <kparal> it was a bit long, but not that long
17:17:46 <kparal> and you can't break it, there's nothing to do (except power off)
17:17:50 <kparal> -1 final blocker for me
17:17:53 <adamw> i just can't really see it as a blocker. it'd be nice if we provide some feedback or something, obviously
17:18:21 <lruzicka> I am not sure how much it took but i could still wait it out
17:18:22 <kparal> also, when running from a flash drive, people expect things to be slower
17:18:30 <adamw> ok, i think that's enough -1s
17:19:28 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2236438 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - we agree that ideally anaconda should start faster and/or the user should get some feedback indicating it's loading, but this really doesn't take long enough to plausibly constitute a release blocker. note it's already accepted as Beta FE
17:20:13 <geraldosimiao> ack
17:20:29 <kparal> ack
17:20:34 <lruzicka> Ack
17:20:58 <frantisekz> ack
17:21:19 <adamw> #agreed 2236438 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - we agree that ideally anaconda should start faster and/or the user should get some feedback indicating it's loading, but this really doesn't take long enough to plausibly constitute a release blocker. note it's already accepted as Beta FE
17:21:39 <adamw> #topic (2189899) Blivet-GUI: A btrfs partition can't be reformatted
17:21:39 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2189899
17:21:39 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1157
17:21:39 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, blivet-gui, NEW
17:21:39 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-0) (+nielsenb)
17:21:48 <frantisekz> lruzicka, your capital A in ack autistically annoys me... :D
17:22:13 <kparal> frantisekz: now I know what to do... ;-D
17:22:29 <kparal> whAt to do...
17:22:30 <frantisekz> I mean, if it's all the same, I don't care
17:22:37 <lruzicka> You will be annoyed then, it annoys me to correct the autocorrection all the time
17:22:38 <frantisekz> that's fine, nice try
17:22:51 <frantisekz> IRC has autocorrect? :O
17:23:04 <adamw> so, last week we delayed this and said we'd ask the devs for input
17:23:08 <kparal> you probably want to read my summary in the ticket
17:23:20 <lruzicka> The web one does
17:23:27 <frantisekz> which ticket?
17:23:33 <kparal> the vote ticket
17:23:34 <adamw> the voting ticket
17:23:41 <adamw> looks like kparal provided info from vtrefny there
17:24:16 <frantisekz> yeah
17:24:28 <adamw> on that basis, i think i'm ok with -1 blocker. i'll also note the *practical* consequence here isn't really that bad - you can do what you want to do, it's just an annoying extra step (wipe and recreate the btrfs filesystem)
17:24:31 <frantisekz> good intel, sounds like -1 FinalBlocker then
17:24:48 <lruzicka> -1 fb
17:24:50 <adamw> -1 fb
17:25:29 <kparal> well the partition might not be exactly at the same place as before
17:25:37 <kparal> so it depends on your use case
17:26:01 <kparal> but you can reformat it outside of anaconda, of course, as a workaround
17:26:07 <geraldosimiao> -1 fb
17:26:08 <adamw> dangit let me rationalize things here :D
17:26:12 <kparal> with something else then blivet-gui
17:26:48 <adamw> true
17:26:49 <kparal> I should probably add it to common bugs, after we reject it
17:26:55 <adamw> yes, that sounds like a good ida
17:27:18 <adamw> tagged
17:27:45 <kparal> -1 blocker from me as well
17:28:05 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2189899 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - based on feedback from vtrefny at https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1157#comment-872594 , we agree it doesn't make sense to take too strict of an interpretation and make this a blocker. we will document how to handle it as a common bug
17:28:22 <geraldosimiao> ack
17:28:39 <lruzicka> Ack
17:28:40 <frantisekz> patch
17:28:50 <frantisekz> feedback from vtrefny relayed by kparal?
17:29:09 <adamw> yes
17:29:12 <adamw> sure
17:29:19 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2189899 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - based on feedback from vtrefny via kparal at https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1157#comment-872594 , we agree it doesn't make sense to take too strict of an interpretation and make this a blocker. we will document how to handle it as a common bug
17:29:25 <frantisekz> ack, thanks
17:29:28 <lruzicka> Rack
17:29:31 <frantisekz> -_-
17:29:48 <geraldosimiao> ack
17:30:54 <adamw> #agreed 2189899 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - based on feedback from vtrefny via kparal at https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1157#comment-872594 , we agree it doesn't make sense to take too strict of an interpretation and make this a blocker. we will document how to handle it as a common bug
17:31:08 <adamw> ok, we also actually need to discuss this one
17:31:09 <adamw> #topic (2187858) sddm-wayland-plasma does not respect keyboard layout variant
17:31:09 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187858
17:31:09 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1158
17:31:09 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, sddm, NEW
17:31:09 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+1,0,-1) (+geraldosimiao, -catanzaro)
17:31:11 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+3,0,-0) (+geraldosimiao, +nielsenb, +catanzaro)
17:31:46 <adamw> so last week we agreed we need to re-test this carefully, but...I don't think anyone did yet. i just didn't have time :|
17:31:51 <adamw> we might need to punt it again.
17:32:14 <lruzicka> Sure, time is plentyful
17:32:16 <frantisekz> +1 punt then
17:32:23 <geraldosimiao> yeah, I didn't test it again
17:32:27 <geraldosimiao> +1 punt
17:32:28 <adamw> okay, let's repunt
17:32:54 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2187858 - punt (delay decision) - we did not yet get around to the re-testing that we agreed last week is needed for this bug
17:32:58 <frantisekz> ack
17:33:03 <kparal> ack
17:33:09 <lruzicka> Ack
17:33:27 <geraldosimiao> acK
17:33:48 <geraldosimiao> capital K for balance...
17:33:59 <frantisekz> that's better this way, thanks :D
17:34:06 <geraldosimiao> ;)
17:34:33 <adamw> #agreed 2187858 - punt (delay decision) - we did not yet get around to the re-testing that we agreed last week is needed for this bug
17:34:48 <adamw> #info that's all the proposals, let's do a quick run through:
17:34:54 <adamw> #topic Accepted Beta blockers
17:35:50 <adamw> #info 2236398 - needs to be evaluated by anaconda team now we've accepted it
17:36:30 <adamw> #info 2230720 , 2234928 , 2231680 are addressed, just waiting push to stable
17:37:10 <adamw> #info 2232711 - we've attempted a fix, but lruzicka said he still saw some kind of automatic suspend happen in testing, I am asking for more details from him about that
17:37:36 <adamw> #info 2235100 is waiting for upstream acceptance according to pbrobinson, 2113005 we will likely need to waive again
17:37:43 <adamw> any further notes on those?
17:37:49 <adamw> has anyone else tested the KDE suspend thing?
17:37:59 <frantisekz> 2235100
17:38:03 <adamw> i booted my test VM before this meeting and it's still alive
17:38:06 <frantisekz> this can take a long time, can't it?
17:38:29 <adamw> well, we're not waiting for it to come all the way downstream
17:38:31 <frantisekz> I mean, in other components, we do ocasionally backport before upstream acceptance
17:38:46 <adamw> the idea is that once it gets accepted and pulled upstream, we immediately backport it to the fedora kernel
17:38:46 <lruzicka> I ran that before the EOD, it happened when vm was in the background
17:39:17 <lruzicka> It was Ok when i was playing attention
17:39:36 <lruzicka> But when i stopped, it went to sleep
17:41:50 <geraldosimiao> I tested the KDE suspension
17:42:01 <geraldosimiao> the fix works
17:42:12 <geraldosimiao> on VM, just like it suposed to be
17:42:46 <lruzicka> Not for me
17:43:15 <adamw> geraldosimiao: how long did you wait?
17:43:26 <geraldosimiao> it supposed to not set 15 min suspension time, whe must create new user for that
17:43:43 <geraldosimiao> after upgrading the package
17:44:37 <geraldosimiao> I think we do not have a new iso with the fixed package in it, rith?
17:44:40 <geraldosimiao> right
17:44:49 <adamw> yeah, but it's also good to test actually leaving the system idle in a VM for a long time and seeing what happens
17:44:55 <adamw> geraldosimiao: not yet, no
17:45:03 <geraldosimiao> this
17:45:04 <geraldosimiao> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232711
17:45:10 <adamw> lruzicka: you created a new user, right?
17:45:20 <geraldosimiao> must create a new user
17:45:28 <geraldosimiao> and login with the new user
17:46:29 <adamw> lruzicka: and did you see anything in the logs?
17:46:40 <lruzicka> No, I created a user during install
17:47:00 <geraldosimiao> but during install it uses the old package
17:47:06 <adamw> ah, yeah.
17:47:08 <lruzicka> Did not have time for logs, had to to catch the train from Brno
17:47:23 <adamw> you need to install, update powerdevil , probably reboot, create a new user, log in as that user
17:47:32 <geraldosimiao> yeah
17:47:35 <adamw> i *did* explain this in the update notes. :D
17:47:40 <geraldosimiao> this is what I have done
17:47:54 <geraldosimiao> and on the new user, after new login, it works as expected
17:48:02 <lruzicka> Ok, but how fixy is that?
17:48:08 <adamw> lruzicka: it's as fixy as we can
17:48:22 <adamw> we can't start messing with the settings that already got written into user's home directories, we don't do that...
17:48:41 <geraldosimiao> I supose if the new version is on the new ise, it will work out of t box
17:48:52 <adamw> yes, it will
17:48:57 <geraldosimiao> :)
17:49:17 <lruzicka> I can try tomorrow again, but it seems that my point was irrelevant then
17:49:35 <adamw> kde doesn't use a gsettings-like setup where the user config can just be 'use the default setting' and we can change the default post-install, it kinda 'templates' all the default settings into the user profile at the time the user first logs into KDE (aiui)
17:49:47 <adamw> so we really can't 'fix' stuff in user config once a user has logged into kde once, we're stuck with it
17:50:30 <adamw> alright, so lruzicka will test again but probably that one is OK
17:50:31 <adamw> any other notes?
17:50:33 <adamw> #topic Open floor
17:52:54 <adamw> i guess not! thanks for coming, everyone
17:52:58 <adamw> #endmeeting