<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:03:56
!startmeeting F40 Beta Go/No-Go meeting
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:03:56
Meeting started at 2024-03-21 17:03:56 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:03:56
The Meeting name is 'F40 Beta Go/No-Go meeting'
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:03:58
we're all here
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:04:18
Helloky
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:04:31
!info Purpose of this meeting
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:05:01
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:05:03
Geraldo S. Simião Kutz (geraldosimiao) - he / him / his
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:05:10
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:05:12
Fábio Ribeiro (farribeiro) - he / him / his
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:05:18
!info The purpose of this meeting is to check whether or not F40 Beta is ready for shipment, according to the release criteria
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
17:05:25
I am mostly here
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:05:28
!info This is determined in a few ways:
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:05:39
!info info 1. Release candidate compose is available
<@jnsamyak:matrix.org>
17:05:45
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:05:47
Samyak Jain (jnsamyak) - he / him / his
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:06:02
!info 2. No remaining blocker bugs
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:06:11
!info 3. Test matrices are fully competed
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:06:26
!info Fedora CoreOS and IoT are ready
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:06:38
right, thats the level set - roll call time
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:06:42
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:06:44
Aoife Moloney (amoloney)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:06:49
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:06:50
Adam Williamson (adamwill) - he / him / his
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
17:07:08
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:07:09
Paul Whalen (pwhalen)
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:07:14
!hi
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:07:14
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:07:16
Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:07:16
Geraldo S. Simião Kutz (geraldosimiao) - he / him / his
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:07:23
morning
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:07:27
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:07:29
Fábio Ribeiro (farribeiro) - he / him / his
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:07:36
just lunched here
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:07:49
so: good afternoon
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:07:54
now?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:08:06
late
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:08:22
Its tea time for me
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:08:22
little
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:08:59
Righteo, hope everyone is nestled in!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:09:21
!info Topic: Current Status - RC
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:09:43
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:09:44
František Zatloukal (frantisekz)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:09:44
Do we have an RC to discuss today?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:09:54
boy DO we
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:09:54
* keeps fingers crossed
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:04
we felt bad about not having one last time so now we have *LOTS*
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:12
ten of the little monsters
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:10:13
A selection!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:10:39
Like a weird selection box at Christmas time :D
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:43
well, i guess about six of them finished. anyhow, we have 1.9 and 1.10 as kinda-viable candidates, but afaik nobody found anything in 1.10 that's broken compared to 1.9, so we should probably just go with 1.9
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:56
orange creams are mine!
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:11:00
you mean 1.10?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:06
er yes
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:11
well, i guess about six of them finished. anyhow, we have 1.9 and 1.10 as kinda-viable candidates, but afaik nobody found anything in 1.10 that's broken compared to 1.9, so we should probably just go with 1.10
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:30
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/40_Beta-1.10/
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:11:30
😍
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:12:18
🎉
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:12:21
must do last minute (and fast) bloker meeting first don't?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:31
geraldosimiao: this comes first
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:12:37
to waive that last minute blockers?
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:12:37
a beta
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:12:39
So, shall we take 1.10 as our Beta candidate and cycle it through this meetings checkpoints?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:13:12
must do last minute (and fast) blocker meeting first don't?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:13:27
ok, perfect
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:13:37
yes let's do it
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:15:15
!info Release Candidate 1.10 is the proposed F40 Beta release if it satisfies the release criteria, which will be determined in this meeting
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:15:24
Next topic
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:15:35
!info Topic: Current Status - Blockers
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:15:48
adamw: will turn the driving to you for this part
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:53
rgr
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:06
!info let's run through the proposed blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:11
!topic (2270676) ISO boot menu doesn't identify milestone + edition for Server/Everything
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:13
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270676
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:16
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1539
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:18
!info Proposed Blocker, distribution, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:40
the quality team, eyes on the ball as always, has swooped with hawk-like swiftness on this bug from *checks notes* fedora 24
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:17:22
so, i have two ideas here
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:17:28
oh lawd 🙈
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:17:39
i can apply some cunning criteria jutsu and argue that this claims a *release number*, which it does correctly
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:17:47
it does not explicitly claim a milestone. it doesn't say "Final".
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:18:10
if you say that "not specifying a milestone is implicitly claiming milestone Final", i say "fine, then we'll waive it cos nobody complained for the last 16 releases".
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:18:11
:P
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:19:00
I would be fine with either. I am -1 blocker on this one. ;)
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:19:17
yeah
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:19:28
BetaBlocker -1
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:19:32
I think that nobody complains, because there is no way how you could end up with this installed, unless you use the Beta installation media and you get this prerelease note in Anaconda, so you are well informed and you never expect to search for anything like that in About section.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:19:33
I feel the same as Kevin, -1 to blocker on the basis its been 16 releases...
<@jnsamyak:matrix.org>
17:19:39
yep, -1 for this
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:19:39
BetaBlocker -1
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:19:42
BetaBlocker -1, yeah
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:19:52
BetaBlocker -1
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:20:18
this
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:21:00
The critera also seems a bit weird in that 'final' shouldn't be a thing... final releases should just be the release, only beta should perhaps indicate it's a beta...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:21:22
proposed !agreed 2270676 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - this is rejected on the grounds that this screen does not clearly claim that this is a "final" release (it only does not *explicitly* state that it's Beta), and the user will inevitably encounter several later indications of Beta status, so it is not really confusing
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:21:32
ack
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:21:36
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:21:38
ack
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:21:40
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:21:41
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:21:44
nirik: it's a difficult one to write :|
<@copperi:fedora.im>
17:21:48
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:21:58
!agreed 2270676 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - this is rejected on the grounds that this screen does not clearly claim that this is a "final" release (it only does not explicitly state that it's Beta), and the user will inevitably encounter several later indications of Beta status, so it is not really confusing
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:22:06
183034
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:22:09
damn it
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:22:14
that would be the OTP pin
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:22:47
!topic (2270681) "About system" in KDE doesn't identify a pre-release system
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:22:50
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270681
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:22:52
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1540
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:22:54
!info Proposed Blocker, kinfocenter, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:23:04
man, we did a good job with this beta if this was the best kparal could come up with
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:23:33
sadly i could only narrow down that this dates to somewhere between 22 and 28 (I don't have so many KDE Beta ISOs lying around)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:23:57
gonna say -1 on same grounds as the other. it doesn't clearly claim to be final, there are plenty of other places where you get told it's beta, nobody has complained for 12 releases.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:24:16
-1 blocker
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:24:21
in case anyone's wondering, btw, we have this criterion because there were times in ye olde days when people actually did get confused by insufficiently-well-indicated betas
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:24:24
same thing
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:24:25
BetaBlocker -1
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:24:39
I guess gnome about just gets it from fedora-release-whatever
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:24:40
BetaBlocker -1
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:24:46
agree, BetaBlocker -1
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:24:56
Agree, BetaBlocker -1
<@jnsamyak:matrix.org>
17:25:16
BetaBlocker -1
<@copperi:fedora.im>
17:25:17
BetaBlocker -1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:25:17
i'm fairly relaxed that neither of these bugs is really going to cause that kind of confusion
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:25:21
-1 Beta Blocker
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:26:16
proposed !agreed 2270681 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - this is rejected on similar grounds to 2270676: it's been this way for 12 releases without apparently confusing anyone (which is the point of the criterion), it is not clearly claiming to be a final release, and beta status is sufficiently indicated in other ways
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:26:19
BetaBlocker -1
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:26:24
ack
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:26:25
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:26:25
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:26:27
ack
<@copperi:fedora.im>
17:26:31
ack
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:26:41
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:26:44
!agreed 2270681 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - this is rejected on similar grounds to 2270676: it's been this way for 12 releases without apparently confusing anyone (which is the point of the criterion), it is not clearly claiming to be a final release, and beta status is sufficiently indicated in other ways
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:26:56
!topic (2270355) fbx64.efi and mmx64.efi incorrectly signed in 15.8-2 , breaks key management and fallback path boot
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:26:58
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270355
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:27:01
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1537
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:27:03
!info Proposed Blocker, shim, ON_QA
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:27:06
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+3,0,-0) (+kparal, +geraldosimiao, +adamwill)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:27:15
this is in the list so i guess we should make a call, but note it is fixed in Beta-1.10
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:27:22
status should be VERIFIED in fact, the webapp just didn't catch up yet
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:27:43
BetaBlocker +1
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:28:20
BetaBlocker +1
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:28:22
I'm +1 FE, not sure it's a blocker... its only the fallback path right? I guess it doesn't matter...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:28:34
it's really on the fence-y for me
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:28:48
so far we determined it does affect azure, but we don't have azure listed as a blocking cloud environment currently
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:28:58
BetaBlocker -1 and anyhow, its fixed!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:29:05
If theres a fix in 1.10, then I would think its a -1 BetaBlcker? As its not technically blocking?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:29:19
it's also an issue for coreos, but coreos can alter their shim version outside of our 'normal' process, so they don't really need it to be a blocker...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:29:41
Aoife Moloney: nah, in theory the determination of whether it's a blocker is about whether *the problem* is a blocker, not whether it's fixed yet
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:29:42
Aoife Moloney: If it turns out the fix in 1.10 isn't complete, BetaBlocker means it would be required to hold the release to fix
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:29:49
if we accept it, it would just become an 'addressed blocker'
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:29:53
change my vote BetaBlocker 0
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:29:56
and yes, that
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:30:18
i think if anything i'm -1. if we didn't have 1.10, or if it was broken, i'd probably be in favor of shipping 1.9, not waiting a week to fix this
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:30:29
I'm honestly BetaBlocker -1 on this. I'm glad it's fixed, but I don't think we'd want to hold for this if it was the last thing remaining
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:30:33
I see....but there are workaround(s)?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:31:06
Aoife Moloney: well...the workaround would be 'fix the boot path yourself'. but rather, the point is that probably not many people would actually run into this
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:31:13
I understand that thers no need for workarounds since the fix is in the beta 1.10
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:31:30
Im still -1 anyhow
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:31:45
willing to gamble on 1.10 :)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:31:46
Yeah, this doesn't matter unless... we are no go, then if we made it a blocker we would HAVE to fix it.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:31:47
you only hit this if you need (for some reason) the UEFI fallback path to boot your system, *and* you have SB enabled. we just don't think that would practically affect a whole boatload of cases.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:31:56
-1 blocker, +1 FE :)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:32:05
i spent a while thinking about it yesterday and didn't come up with much
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:32:13
-1 blocker, +1 FE for me, too
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:32:19
"I'll have what he's having"
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:32:20
-1 blocker, +1 FE
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:32:34
I assume it already has FE approval, since it's in 1.10
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:32:39
If you order ... then -1 Blocker
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:33:20
proposed !agreed 2270355 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - this is rejected on the grounds that fallback path failing with SB enabled isn't likely to affect *too* many folks, and we consider that level of impact acceptable for Beta. Note however that this is actually fixed in 1.10 so the determination is academic if we decide to ship it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:33:26
yeah, it's already FE
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:33:28
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:33:28
ack
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:33:34
ack
<@copperi:fedora.im>
17:33:39
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:33:53
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:33:58
!agreed 2270355 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - this is rejected on the grounds that fallback path failing with SB enabled isn't likely to affect too many folks, and we consider that level of impact acceptable for Beta. Note however that this is actually fixed in 1.10 so the determination is academic if we decide to ship it
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:34:23
(late ack)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:34:32
!info let's run through accepted blockers that aren't VERIFIED in 1.10
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:34:39
!topic (2247873) U-Boot doesn't find and load the Fedora provided DTBs from /boot/dtb
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:34:41
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247873
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:34:44
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1471
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:34:46
!info Accepted Blocker, uboot-tools, ON_QA
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:34:53
so, we kinda need Peter Robinson 's advice here
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:35:07
there is *some* level of 'fix' for this in Beta 1.10, but Peter did a later build which he says fixes it harder
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:35:23
we kinda need a feel for how badly it's still broken in 1.10 and whether that's sufficient justification to reject it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:35:28
we kinda need a feel for how badly it's still broken in 1.10 and whether that's sufficient justification to reject 1.10
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
17:35:48
so the fix pushed today is a much more robust fix than the last one, others have also actually tested it, unlike the last one which had no karma and from my own testing had some issues
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:35:54
i have tested 1.10 on my jetson nano and it seems no *more* broken than previous releases were, but i've never actually got that thing to light up a monitor, so my testing is not super awesome
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:36:27
i believe we (qa) have at least tested 1.10 on raspberry pi, not sure what else we have tested on? František Zatloukal lruzicka coremodule ?
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
17:36:45
adamwwhich U-Boot?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:37:11
lbrabec did the 1.10 testing on rpi4
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:37:15
1.10 had uboot-tools-2024.04-0.6.rc4.fc40.x86_64.rpm
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
17:37:24
I have tested the latest build on 4 differnet RPi inc 400, the PinebookPro, the Jetson Nano
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:37:25
oh, that's the x86_64 one, but, same version for aarch64 of course :)
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:37:31
just to understand better, this is not a thing that can be fixed with a latter upgrade don't?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:37:51
at least at beta stage
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:38:13
it would depend i guess if the issues in -6 are sufficient to prevent you deploying it?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:38:20
Peter Robinson: what issues specifically did you find in -6?
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
17:39:05
some bugs in patch that affectted loading DTs, it wasn't searching the partitions right
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:39:10
If you hit issues with -6, does that fully prevent you from installing+booting F40, or does it leave you in a bad state that will persist if you upgrade to GA later?
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
17:40:11
I have also tested the new build on devices with a number of storage types (mmc/usb/nvme) as well as multiple storage (think mmc and nvme) and there was a bug with that too I fixed
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:41:48
Peter Robinson: In your expert opinion, do you believe that Fedora 40 should not ship Beta without the fixes in -7?
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
17:42:45
for arm support yes, and the fact that otherrs have actually now tested and confirmed it works for them, I had none of that on the last update
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
17:42:49
updates even
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:43:50
yeah, I wanted to know just this
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
17:43:53
same, believe me I am *REALLY* split here, and this has been *REALLY* stressful for me on top of a lot of other stuff I have going on
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:44:03
well, we have validation tests of 1.10 that at least say it works fine on pi (except the other bug we're gonna come to)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:44:28
Peter Robinson: how can i test the new build on my jetson, btw?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:45:02
yeah, was going to ask how good the coverage of testing was for 0.6 / rc10...
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
17:45:17
adamwhttps://nullr0ute.com/2020/11/installing-fedora-on-the-nvidia-jetson-nano/
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:45:29
Peter Robinson: yeah, many thanks for all your work on this BTW.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:45:41
Agreed, Peter Robinson++
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:45:45
Peter Robinson: yeah, i've been using that as a reference, but how do I update the uboot bits?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:46:05
Peter Robinson: or where do i get a disk image that has the -7 uboot build in it? did today's rawhide have it?
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
17:46:21
cp /usr/share/uboot/p3450-0000/u-boot.bin bootloader/t210ref/p3450-0000/
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:46:30
rgr
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
17:46:53
make sure you have the appropriate rpm installed on your local system
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:46:54
geraldosimiao has already given cookies to pbrobinson during the F39 timeframe
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:47:08
farribeiro has already given cookies to pbrobinson during the F39 timeframe
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:47:15
neil has already given cookies to pbrobinson during the F39 timeframe
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:47:41
Should we discuss the *other* Pi issue and come back to this?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:47:51
must create some tea or coffe to give alongside with these cookies
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:47:53
(Giving adamw some time to tinker as well)
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:48:01
must create some tea or coffee to give alongside with these cookies
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:48:09
LoL
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:48:29
Peter Robinson: so it sounds like you have had testing on the new one and are sure it's good, but don't know on the one in rc10... but we do have coverage that says its ok?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:48:35
Peter Robinson: then i have to redo the flash bit?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:48:50
nirik: well, we don't have great validation testing on the sbcs that would most likely be affected by this (aiui)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:49:11
aiui it's the jetson and pinebook which maybe are affected by this, is that right peter?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:49:12
ok, so we want to try and do that now if we can?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:49:16
we did the validation testing on pi
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:49:31
nirik: i am trying, but i always find it impossible to get this jetson nano to *do* much unfortunately
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:50:01
@adamw you have to sprinkle AI on it first
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:51:43
FWIW, I think i'm +1 BetaBlocker on the issue, but I'm undecided on whether the -6 version is a sufficient fix
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:52:48
I'm sorry, I'll have to stay afk
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:53:50
Stephen Gallagher: yeah.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:54:09
Stephen Gallagher: the issue is already an accepted blocker, the question is whether we consider it sufficiently addressed by -6 (or decide it isn't , but want to waive it, i guess)
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:54:26
Understood
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:55:44
or want to slip or want to hero a rc11.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:56:38
right, a hero 11 is an option, i guess
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:56:39
oh my... fingers crossed
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:56:56
i really kinda don't want to do that, though.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:57:02
🥁
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
17:57:17
So maybe we ship the current .6 and then do a common bugs suggesting using the update for those flashing via external mechanisms
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
17:57:49
so then we don't need to respin but people are aware
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:57:55
That's what I was trying to ask before: can this be resolved with an update or does it have to be on the Beta frozen media?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:58:03
I like that option
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
17:58:16
I feel it's a reasonable compromise
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:58:28
a common bug could also suggest a newer image from a nightly (that has the post beta freeze fixed version)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:00:00
yeah, that too
<@jbwillia:fedora.im>
18:02:59
its beta so things are suppose to be on the rough side
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:04:45
okay
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:05:52
proposed !agreed 2247873 - considered addressed - we are going to consider that the -6 build sufficiently addresses this for Beta. we will write a commonbugs page explaining options in case the bug does cause problems for folks trying to use Beta (flash a newer uboot externally, or use a nightly image with the later uboot)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:06:11
ack
<@jbwillia:fedora.im>
18:06:18
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:06:22
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:06:25
ack
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:06:26
ack
<@copperi:fedora.im>
18:06:32
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:06:39
!agreed 2247873 - considered addressed - we are going to consider that the -6 build sufficiently addresses this for Beta. we will write a commonbugs page explaining options in case the bug does cause problems for folks trying to use Beta (flash a newer uboot externally, or use a nightly image with the later uboot)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:06:48
!topic (2269412) Raspberry Pi 4/400: some GUI assets won't load
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:06:51
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2269412
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:06:54
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1534
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:06:56
!info Accepted Blocker, mesa, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:07:08
so this was discovered late since we could not boot pi with accelerated graphics till recently
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:07:20
it does seem like a clear blocker, but i also think it's a solid candidate for a waiver
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:07:39
it was found late, we cannot fix it quickly (I asked mesa folks about that), and we have workarounds
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:07:47
so can you actually do things it just looks bad? or it's unusable?
<@jbwillia:fedora.im>
18:08:17
and is this a blocking arch
<@jbwillia:fedora.im>
18:08:20
?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:08:22
SouthernG: yes, it is.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:08:30
but yeah, I think a 'last minute' waiver is called for.
<@jbwillia:fedora.im>
18:09:15
👍️
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:09:27
Yeah, I have to agree. Waive on the grounds that it's too late and there's no clear idea how fast it can be addressed.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:09:46
ack for that
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:09:56
+1 for that
<@jbwillia:fedora.im>
18:10:10
so its usable but no accelerated graphics?
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:10:13
+1 to waive
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:10:25
SouthernG: one of the workarounds is 'use the old gtk renderer'
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:10:31
which would also give you acceleration, i believe
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:10:35
my understanding is that gtk4 based things don't work right...
<@pbrobinson:fedora.im>
18:10:48
I think push it out to GA
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:10:59
yeah, that's how waiving works by default
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:11:02
we waive to the next milestone
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:11:20
so, seems like strong support to waive this, does anyone want to argue against?
<@jbwillia:fedora.im>
18:11:49
+1 waive
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:12:25
Nope, waive goodbye....for a little while anyway
<@jbwillia:fedora.im>
18:12:49
how many people are going be running beta on a pi
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:13:44
SouthernG: … and aren’t also attending this meeting.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:14:35
beta pi... this sounds like a fraternity...
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:15:12
Fraternity of the Broken Oss.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:16:02
So where are we ? adamw? vote on waiving? or just proposal?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:16:46
sorry
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:16:50
multitasking
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:16:59
i think we have enough votes
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:18:16
proposed !agreed 2269412 - waive to F40 Final - this is waived under both "Last minute blocker bugs" and "Difficult to fix blocker bugs" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process#Exceptional_cases - it was discovered late (inevitably, due to previous bugs) and is not straightforward to fix, we are reliant on mesa upstream here and they say it's not a quick fix bug
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:18:31
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:18:38
ack
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:18:39
ack
<@jbwillia:fedora.im>
18:18:49
ack
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:18:58
acl
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:19:01
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:19:23
Ackita Inu
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:20:27
!agreed 2269412 - waive to F40 Final - this is waived under both "Last minute blocker bugs" and "Difficult to fix blocker bugs" at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process#Exceptional_cases - it was discovered late (inevitably, due to previous bugs) and is not straightforward to fix, we are reliant on mesa upstream here and they say it's not a quick fix bug
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:20:41
!topic (2242759) dnf system-upgrade fails on some RPi4 due to system boot date that pre-dates gpg key
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:20:45
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242759
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:20:50
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1435
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:20:52
!info Accepted Previous Release Blocker, distribution, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:20:56
so this one is an accepted previous release blocker
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:21:07
we waived it from 39 to 40, full of childish hopes and dreams that we would find a great way to fix it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:21:09
so, here we are. :D
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:21:10
this also falls under 'difficult to fix'
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:21:13
anyone sitting on a great idea?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:21:28
adamw: Invent a new calendar?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:21:56
But seriously: waive under the "difficult to fix" exception.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:22:29
yeah. although, if we do that, when do we *stop* doing it?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:22:38
i don't want this to become a running joke we have to waive every damn milestone
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:22:39
French Republican calendar! :) but yes, wavie for now... would be nice to get something before final tho
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:23:10
i think we either have to assign someone to have a serious go at fixing it as best as possible or somehow just call it WONTFIX or something
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:23:12
CANTFIX
<@bittin:fedora.im>
18:23:13
*lurks*
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:23:17
Cannot people use `timedatectl` to move the time?
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
18:23:22
I know at a whole switching default NTP managers isn't great, but I go back to this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242759#c45
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
18:24:02
either that OR we get systemd to modify itself so it's not a part of timesyncd but part of systemd proper or something
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:24:28
so... i remembered why this is familiar. the same thing was happening with dnf needs-upgrade. https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/dnf-plugins-core/-/blob/c9s/0006-Fix-boot-time-derivation-for-systems-with-no-rtc.patch?ref_type=heads
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:24:36
it could not be that bad... as the SHIM bug was...
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:24:38
or, i think the same thing, at least..
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:24:58
I say, waiving it a few releases
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:25:30
I don't think we are going to solve it here/now... perhaps we open a discussion after beta on what we should do?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:25:52
Neil Hanlon: yes, that sure looks the same from the patch name
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:25:54
nirik: okay.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:26:13
it's just that, we had a big discussion last time, said yes, we'll definitely do something about it for 40, then...everyone went away and forgot about it. :D
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:27:09
last week we talked about doing a retrospective.. perhaps we should create a <thing> that we can keep track of things we Definitely ™️ want to talk about / retrospect upon ?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:27:14
proposed !agreed 2242759 - waive to Fedora 40 Final - this is waived for the same reason we waived it before: it's a complex bug and we still don't really have a great idea for fixing it. Nothing we can commit to landing in a week or two, so it is not appropriate for it to hold up the Beta release. We really need someone to have an idea to fix it soon, or we'll have to declare it unfixable
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:27:26
ack
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:27:31
ack
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:27:34
Im keeping a few private notes on this very subject
<@jbwillia:fedora.im>
18:27:37
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:27:38
ack
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:27:57
ack
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:28:19
ack, but I think we should perhaps have someone commit to opening the discussion...
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:28:22
neil has already given cookies to amoloney during the F39 timeframe
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:28:26
or no one will.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:29:10
Aoife Moloney should absolutely be committed :-P
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:29:25
well thats obvious
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:29:32
!agreed 2242759 - waive to Fedora 40 Final - this is waived for the same reason we waived it before: it's a complex bug and we still don't really have a great idea for fixing it. Nothing we can commit to landing in a week or two, so it is not appropriate for it to hold up the Beta release. We really need someone to have an idea to fix it soon, or we'll have to declare it unfixable
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:29:44
!action Aoife Moloney to keep track and make sure this doesn't get forgotten about again
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:29:52
there aoife, your first time being thrown under the action bus by me :P
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:29:58
aw damn
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:30:02
ha. 🚌
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:30:16
Nothing new there for me :)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:30:20
okay, I believe with that, all outstanding blockers are addressed or waived
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:30:30
!info with the decisions taken above, all outstanding blockers are addressed or waived
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:30:32
but new from you adamw ! Im honoured to hit that bus
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:30:34
whew.
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:32:01
!link https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/dnf-plugins-core/-/blob/c9s/0006-Fix-boot-time-derivation-for-systems-with-no-rtc.patch?ref_type=heads
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:32:04
geraldosimiao has already given cookies to amoloney during the F39 timeframe
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:32:08
so that doesn't get lost in the scrollback :D
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:33:25
farribeiro gave a cookie to amoloney. They now have 31 cookies, 10 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
18:33:49
I went back
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:34:13
i think back to Aoife Moloney now?
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:34:23
for the weather?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:34:39
Cloudy, with a chance of meatballs
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:35:00
Were actually approaching Test Matrices
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:35:22
Ikea weather?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:37:51
!info All accepted blockers have been addressed for RC 1.10 beta
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
18:38:13
ack
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:41:47
ok next section of the proceedings is Test Matrices
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:42:07
!info Topic: Current Status - Test Matrices
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:42:24
!info Link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fedora_40_Test_Results
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:43:19
I think we are in reasonable shape... adamw? ;)
<@bittin:fedora.im>
18:43:55
tested rc 1.8-1.10 the workstation images install in gnome-boxes atleast, have not had time to test more then that
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:43:57
yeah, sorry, just juggling laptops and jetsons and usb cables here...
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:44:17
and beta 1.9 is pretty good to
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:44:39
we are missing cloud aws testing
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:44:46
which...i was gonna do in some tab lying around here...
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:44:54
if we merge most of 1.9 and 1.10 we get a full matrix
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:45:08
mostly
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:46:31
I was gonna do that the other day, but no uploads were happening. ;(
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:46:37
!info with 1.9 and 1.10 results combined, coverage is almost complete, except cloud ec2 testing
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:46:48
let me blow through the ec2 tests real quick here
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:47:24
We can set the topic to 'waiting'
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:47:35
if anyone wants to do aarch64 while i do x86_64 that'd be great
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:47:42
i will transfer 1.9 desktop results to 1.10 page after that
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:48:07
Any takers for x86_64 then?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:48:32
Any takers for aarch64 then?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:48:43
sorry, had that msg completely backwards
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:48:48
no, that's right
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:48:50
i'm doing x86_64
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:48:57
can do aarch64 after but parallelization is great :D
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:49:10
yeah I edited it because it was reading a bit mental ha
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:49:43
I can do aarch64.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:50:34
!info ec2 tests are being run on both aarch64 and x86_64, there will be a slight pause in the meeting to allow these tests to complete before continuing
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:50:48
!info Toic: Waiting
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:50:55
!info Topic: Waiting
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:50:58
hum... is 1.10 up there?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:51:24
nirik: yes?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:51:39
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_40_Beta_1.10_Cloud#arm64_hvm_gp3_AMIs
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:53:05
okay, all tests are good on x86_64
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:53:10
k, must have fat fingered it. I see it now
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:54:15
urgh, does anyone know if t2.micro is xen or kvm?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:55:24
The aarch64 one seems fine. I do see "Mar 21 18:53:19 localhost kernel: Unknown kernel command line parameters "no_timer_check BOOT_IMAGE=(hd0,gpt2) vmlinuz-6.8.0-0.rc6.49.fc40.aarch64", will be passed to user space." in boot messages tho
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:55:26
i think xen...
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:56:22
i believe xen, yes
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:56:39
ok, x86_64 results reported
<@bittin:fedora.im>
18:56:42
guessing the actual release will use a stable 6.8 kernel and not an rc6 not sure if that helps however
<@bittin:fedora.im>
18:57:04
seeing as the test week starts on Sunday: https://testdays.fedoraproject.org/events/184
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:57:14
nirik: huh, wonder if that's a kiwi consequence. i think it's harmless though
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:57:29
there's also a weird gpt message, but also harmless I think.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:58:16
``` [Thu Mar 21 18:53:20 2024] GPT:Primary header thinks Alt. header is not at the end of the disk.
[Thu Mar 21 18:53:20 2024] GPT:10485759 != 12582911
[Thu Mar 21 18:53:20 2024] GPT:Alternate GPT header not at the end of the disk.
[Thu Mar 21 18:53:20 2024] GPT:10485759 != 12582911
[Thu Mar 21 18:53:20 2024] GPT: Use GNU Parted to correct GPT errors.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:59:12
anyhow, PASS
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:00:02
excellent
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:01:45
so, we good on text coverage then?
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:01:50
neil has already given cookies to kevin during the F39 timeframe
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:02:45
i believe so
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:03:28
this seems to be going well :)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:04:20
!info There is sufficient test coverage on the Beta RC to continue the meeting
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:05:05
!info Topic: Fedora CoreOS & IoT check-in
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:05:15
dustymabe: around for coreos?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:05:21
Peter Robinson: you can represent iot, i guess?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:05:27
for iot, do we need a new build with bootupd turned off?
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
19:05:31
👋
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
19:05:58
adamw: i'm pretty confident we can ship `next` using F40 content next Tuesday
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:06:19
awesome
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:10:41
on iot, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora-IoT_40_RC_20240319.2_General looks good , just waiting for input from peter/paul/geoff
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
19:11:12
No issues found with the candidate release, we wanted 20240319.2 to be the beta.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:11:55
i was thinking about https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270154#c8
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
19:11:56
A few of the tests require specialized ARM hardware or virtualizing it at the cost of literally days to spin up an emulated aarch64.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:12:01
pwhalen: what's the status on that?
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
19:12:25
A few of the tests require specialized ARM hardware or virtualizing it at the cost of literally days to spin up an emulated aarch64 machine.
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
19:13:43
adamwthe bootupd change is included in 19.2
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
19:14:01
*revert
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:14:12
oh great
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:14:16
so sounds like we're good to go there
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:14:51
!info IoT team has signed off on 20240319.2 for Beta release, CoreOS team is confident they can have the 'next' stream with F40 content next week
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:15:53
Before I 'info' the next part, it is 1.10 that we are going to use, correct? Theres been a few mentions of 1.9 *and* 1.10, so I just wanted to make sure
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:16:19
1.10
<@bittin:fedora.im>
19:16:22
i am guessing 1.10 is being used as 1.9 had broken cinnamon and budgie if i remember correctly what adamw wrote
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:16:28
IoT "0319.2" is a different thing (IoT has its own composes)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:16:53
Luna Jernberg: 1.10 fixed the fallback path secureboot thing, mainly. and we slipped in a few other fixes around the kiwi images, iirc.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:17:28
Perfect, just final checks before we depart :)
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
19:17:37
The iot compose today (0321) included the changes in RC 1.10
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:18:04
!info Release Candidate - 1.10
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:18:48
!info The RC 1.10 is the current release candidate, is there anything missing?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:18:55
nope!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:18:58
oh, well
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:19:00
nothing blocking
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:19:31
I will have to reword that next time :)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:20:13
we are missing:
* Design suite (because blender is FTBFS and FTI)
* Robotics suite (because I missed dropping a retired package from the kickstart as well as comps)
* LXQt, Workstation, i3 and KDE aarch64 lives because of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247319
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:20:28
that last one isn't as bad as it sounds since typically arm users use disk images, not lives
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:20:43
but we sure would like to get that bug fixed anyway. sigh
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:20:52
yeah, its anoying for sure.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:21:28
Thank you for capturing that summary
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:22:29
After cycling through blockers, tests and missing items, we have reached the decision point of the meeting. So if we are all satisfied with the results so far, I think we can get straight to it
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:23:23
👍
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:23:43
!info Topic: Go/No-Go Decision
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:24:12
!info I will now poll each team. Please reply 'Go' or 'No Go'
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:24:21
FESCo?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:24:24
Go
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:24:31
Rel-Eng?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:24:38
go
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:25:12
QA?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:25:14
per our policy, we're go
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
19:25:14
Go
<@jnsamyak:matrix.org>
19:25:27
go go go
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:25:40
!info Agreed: Fedora Linux 40 Beta is GO
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
19:25:50
Go
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:26:05
!info Fedora Linux 40 Beta will release on the current target date 2024-03-26
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
19:26:05
Yay
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:26:13
hurray!
<@bittin:fedora.im>
19:26:15
yes
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:26:18
thank you all :)
<@copperi:fedora.im>
19:26:25
👍️
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:26:25
we have open floor too
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
19:26:35
WOO! 🥳
<@bittin:fedora.im>
19:26:37
yay :)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:26:48
!action @amoloney to announce decision
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:27:00
!info Topic: Open Floor
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:27:14
is there anything else we would like to discuss before closing the meeting?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:27:19
(spoiler: I have one item)
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
19:28:00
I like to thanks the academy, and all the great team...
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
19:28:06
😂
<@copperi:fedora.im>
19:28:32
teams
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:28:39
i'd like to thank none of you bums, i had to do all the work myself! you're all fired
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:28:41
Open Floor, also known as the Silly Time
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
19:28:45
Yes
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:28:47
(that's my oscars speech)
<@jnsamyak:matrix.org>
19:29:06
XD
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
19:29:17
oh _now_ it's silly time? 🤔
<@copperi:fedora.im>
19:29:21
adamw: I love you too
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:29:48
Before we go off the rails completely, I do want to ask about our current Final Freeze date
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
19:30:19
Ok
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:30:24
per our schedule, we are releasing beta next tuesday 26th March, and Final Freeze starts a week later on 2nd April
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:30:36
is that a usual amount of time to give? A week?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:30:59
That seems very short
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:31:00
it's the policy
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:31:24
it was decided a while back (i forget by whom, and why) that we don't slip the final dates when beta slips
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:31:31
I don't think it's a big deal; a few hundred updates will land in that week, then we'll Freeze and solidify things for GA
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:31:38
unless fesco (I think) decides to do it
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:31:48
adamw: I'm pretty sure it was a combined FESCo/Council decision
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:32:27
I can get behind this decision, but I am wondering how successful Beta will be in terms of users finding bugs, fixes, refinement, etc
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:32:27
So, we should assume that plan unless fesco wants to change things or whatever.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:32:59
Aoife Moloney: we can grant FE status to any significant bugs found, but yes, that's a consideration indeed
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:33:01
Is it worth a FESCo ticket?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:33:10
stephen?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:33:21
I know its a bit crystal-ball-ish
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:33:52
adamw: Adam? (Sorry, what's the implied question?)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:34:16
should I open a ticket w/fesco about the short time between beta and ff
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:34:20
the question aoife asked
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:34:25
do we want to change the schedule to allow more time between beta and final freeze?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:34:38
Aoife Moloney: Feel free to open the ticket.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:34:47
Probably better to discuss there than to extend this meeting further
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:35:05
I agree, thanks for the guidance :)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:35:37
or a discussion/list thread
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:35:42
!action @amoloney to open a ticket with FESCo highlighting the short time between Beta release and Final Freeze to discuss the possibility of delaying Final Freeze
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:37:00
I'll reach out to the marketing team too about highlighting the need for pro-active testing on Beta too as part of the release announcement
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:37:19
we can try not delay final freeze as much as possible
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
19:37:34
For the IoT release, should we ship our RC 1.10 equivalent ? Which is todays compose
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
19:40:03
Must be going. Thanks everyone.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:40:54
adamw: nirik jnsamyak I reckon one or all of you would be best to advise pwhalen on that
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:40:58
geraldosimiao has already given cookies to lruzicka during the F39 timeframe
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:41:06
neil has already given cookies to lruzicka during the F39 timeframe
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:41:21
farribeiro gave a cookie to lruzicka. They now have 25 cookies, 3 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:41:22
I thought you would ship the one that was tested? 19.2? or am I confused?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:41:33
pwhalen: i would say ship whichever you're more confident in, if it's tested
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
19:41:43
I always forget about cookies
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
19:41:43
Personally, I vote no, as I haven't done any testing on today's compose...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:41:46
if we want to ship something other than 19.2, it should at least have a matrix page created and the tests run on it
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
19:42:00
For whom I already give
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
19:42:31
I'd be OK spending time today testing it, but what if we find an issue?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
19:42:41
For whom I already give cookies
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
19:42:43
Do we revert back to 19.2?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:42:47
yeah, i guess
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:42:50
pwhalen?
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
19:43:19
I've tested it a bit. OpenQA is happy, I think it should be fine and I'm Ok to test as well
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:45:15
what are the differences between 19.2 and 20.0 or whatever todays is?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:45:27
the stable pushed updates?
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
19:46:05
I think the big one is shim really, I'm ok to do 19.2 if there is concern, just wanted parity :)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:46:23
i'd say i'm fine leaving it up to you/peter/geoff to figure out
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
19:46:42
ok, thanks!
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:46:46
sure, thats fine. ;)
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
19:47:03
I think this scenario reiterates the need to figure out *how* we pick which nightly will become a milestone for IoT.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:47:29
*puts this on the list for the retrospective topics
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
19:48:35
@coremodule. Right, I believe you have a ticket for that, we can discuss more in channel.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:48:48
coremodule: so far, the answer is "we ask at this meeting and hope someone answers", i think. :D
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
19:49:19
no, I pinged on the matrix shortly after you had an RC
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
19:49:36
Yeah, sounds good to me. I haven't worked on the ticket because there are different answers for how we do it going around... I'm not sure which is valid.
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
19:50:46
I do a compose shortly after I see whats needed and get it ready, then I pinged. Let me know how you prefer
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
19:51:12
sure, sorry nirik, we can discuss this in channel.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:51:36
thanks again everyone for all the hard work gone into the Beta!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:51:42
!endmeeting