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