2024-02-19 17:00:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !startmeeting F40-blocker-review
2024-02-19 17:00:07 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2024-02-19 17:00:06 UTC
2024-02-19 17:00:07 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'F40-blocker-review'
2024-02-19 17:00:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Roll Call
2024-02-19 17:00:52 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> I want to apologise, I need to go out and can't take part. I have voted online. Sorry about that.
2024-02-19 17:01:25 <@pboy:fedora.im> !hi
2024-02-19 17:01:27 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Peter Boy (pboy)
2024-02-19 17:01:53 <@coremodule:fedora.im> !hello
2024-02-19 17:01:54 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Geoffrey Marr (coremodule)
2024-02-19 17:01:58 <@coremodule:fedora.im> Willing to act as secretary.
2024-02-19 17:02:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks!
2024-02-19 17:02:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> how's everyone doing?
2024-02-19 17:02:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> lruzicka: thanks for voting!
2024-02-19 17:02:55 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2024-02-19 17:02:57 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2024-02-19 17:03:05 <@davdunc:fedora.im> !hi
2024-02-19 17:03:06 <@zodbot:fedora.im> David Duncan (davdunc) - he / him / his
2024-02-19 17:03:10 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> !hi
2024-02-19 17:03:11 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Jiří Konečný (jkonecny)
2024-02-19 17:04:24 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !hi
2024-02-19 17:04:25 <@zodbot:fedora.im> František Zatloukal (frantisekz)
2024-02-19 17:04:33 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> !hi
2024-02-19 17:04:34 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Sumantro Mukherjee (sumantrom) - he / him / his
2024-02-19 17:06:11 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !hi
2024-02-19 17:06:13 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Aoife Moloney (amoloney)
2024-02-19 17:06:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hi hi folks
2024-02-19 17:06:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alrighty, let's get rolling, boilerplate time
2024-02-19 17:06:52 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Hi everyone
2024-02-19 17:06:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'll try to move things a bit faster this week, sorry about last week
2024-02-19 17:06:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Introduction
2024-02-19 17:06:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Why are we here?
2024-02-19 17:07:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs.
2024-02-19 17:07:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info We'll be following the process outlined at:
2024-02-19 17:07:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
2024-02-19 17:07:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The bugs up for review today are available at:
2024-02-19 17:07:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
2024-02-19 17:07:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
2024-02-19 17:07:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
2024-02-19 17:07:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Beta_Release_Criteria
2024-02-19 17:07:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Final_Release_Criteria
2024-02-19 17:07:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info for Beta, we have:
2024-02-19 17:07:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 9 Proposed Blockers
2024-02-19 17:07:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 5 Accepted Blockers
2024-02-19 17:07:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 1 Accepted Previous Release Blockers
2024-02-19 17:07:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 1 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
2024-02-19 17:07:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 6 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
2024-02-19 17:07:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info for Final, we have:
2024-02-19 17:08:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 4 Proposed Blockers
2024-02-19 17:08:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info coremodule will act as secretary
2024-02-19 17:08:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> let's get started with:
2024-02-19 17:08:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Proposed Beta blockers
2024-02-19 17:08:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2264419) webui: non-root btrfs subvolumes are not mounted correctly
2024-02-19 17:08:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264419
2024-02-19 17:08:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1464
2024-02-19 17:08:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST
2024-02-19 17:08:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+2,0,-0) (+lruzicka, +geraldosimiao)
2024-02-19 17:09:50 <@kparal:matrix.org> +1 blocker
2024-02-19 17:10:02 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> +1 Beta Blocker
2024-02-19 17:10:03 <@kparal:matrix.org> you just can't simulate a default partition layout with this bug
2024-02-19 17:10:25 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1 blocker
2024-02-19 17:11:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> jkonecny: do you have any thoughts on this one?
2024-02-19 17:12:24 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> +1 blocker
2024-02-19 17:12:28 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> I voted in. Its a +1BetaBlocker for me
2024-02-19 17:12:53 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> There is already fix provided
2024-02-19 17:13:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2264419 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of "Create mount points backed by ext4 partitions, LVM volumes or btrfs volumes, or software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions", applied to the webui partitioning flow
2024-02-19 17:13:22 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-02-19 17:13:40 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2024-02-19 17:13:50 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> ack
2024-02-19 17:14:10 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2024-02-19 17:14:43 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> ack
2024-02-19 17:15:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2264419 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of "Create mount points backed by ext4 partitions, LVM volumes or btrfs volumes, or software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions", applied to the webui partitioning flow
2024-02-19 17:15:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2263964) Cockpit storage: cannot "Remove a planned storage volume from the planned layout" as required in the release criteria
2024-02-19 17:15:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2263964
2024-02-19 17:15:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1459
2024-02-19 17:15:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, distribution, ASSIGNED
2024-02-19 17:15:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+1,1,-1) (+asciiwolf, geraldosimiao, -frantisekz)
2024-02-19 17:15:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, this is the big controversial one
2024-02-19 17:16:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the criterion violation seems clear enough. the question is what to do about it. i'd kinda want to wait till we hear from fesco on https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3169
2024-02-19 17:16:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> though it'd be nice to see a bit more movement on that ticket
2024-02-19 17:16:30 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1 blocker
2024-02-19 17:16:40 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> What movement do you expect to see?
2024-02-19 17:16:42 <@kparal:matrix.org> in my view fesco should decide whether this is ok or not. Our place is to make sure software works as designed, this was one designed without planning.
2024-02-19 17:17:05 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> as I said in the voting ticket, I eel this is for someone else to decide, and from a qe standpoint, this feels more like an rfe, imo
2024-02-19 17:17:27 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm honestly a little shocked that this isn't a thing. Being able to tally up actions and only submit it to udisks when we're ready to apply seems like a logical thing to do given all the other partitioning tools do similar things.
2024-02-19 17:17:39 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> as I said in the voting ticket, I feel this is for someone else to decide, and from a qe standpoint, this feels more like an rfe, imo
2024-02-19 17:17:43 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> The bug is not a bug. It is about preference and agreement. 
2024-02-19 17:17:59 <@kparal:matrix.org> I agree it's a UX regression for users. But I don't think blocker meeting is the right place to accept or reject it.
2024-02-19 17:18:20 <@kparal:matrix.org> it's not a bug, it's an intentional design change
2024-02-19 17:18:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> jkonecny: well, the ticket asks for fesco to 'weigh in' , i guess i'm expecting their input on whether they think it's ok to change the criteria and land this now, or whether they want to put it on a delayed schedule, or whatever
2024-02-19 17:18:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i doubt they'd say 'no you must revert to blivet-gui!' or 'no you must rewrite udisks!' because they don't generally dictate engineering decisions like that, but it's hard to prejudge
2024-02-19 17:19:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i doubt they'd say 'no you must revert to blivet-gui!' or 'no you must rewrite udisks!' because they don't generally dictate upstream design decisions like that, but it's hard to prejudge
2024-02-19 17:19:21 <@kparal:matrix.org> also I don't expect that that criterion was written with "planning must be present" in mind
2024-02-19 17:19:26 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Issue is that is exactly what is discussed on the bug
2024-02-19 17:20:46 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I don't feel this was an agreed-upon intentional design change. I know that I and other members of FESCo were completely unaware of this consequence.
2024-02-19 17:21:02 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> We had no idea this was going to happen with web UI anaconda
2024-02-19 17:21:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> jkonecny: there are nine people in fesco, only three have posted on the bug (and only two have had really strong opinions)
2024-02-19 17:21:10 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> What would be outcome of taking this as a blocker? It means that the design is rejected, isn't it?
2024-02-19 17:21:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so nothing there is particularly decisive
2024-02-19 17:21:16 <@kparal:matrix.org> it's intentional and not agreed upon 🙂
2024-02-19 17:21:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> jkonecny: it would, but i don't think we're intending to do things that way around
2024-02-19 17:21:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> which is why i'm suggesting we defer to fesco
2024-02-19 17:22:22 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> likely if fesco pushed about this, we'd wind up deferring webui in Fedora another cycle
2024-02-19 17:22:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but given how close we are to beta freeze and release, we do need this tracked as at least a proposed blocker, because it affects the release process. it needs to not get forgotten
2024-02-19 17:22:30 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that's the safest outcome
2024-02-19 17:22:35 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> In that case Anaconda team can't fix it and close it as Won't fix. There is just not a way to fix it.
2024-02-19 17:22:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> you might think it's too big of a deal to forget, but you'd be amazed what i can forget when it comes to filing RC tickets. :P
2024-02-19 17:23:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> jkonecny: it's not Anaconda to fix, since this is now a cockpit problem
2024-02-19 17:23:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> jkonecny: we need it to be open to keep it tracked. i moved it back to 'distribution' to make it clear the responsibility is not really on anaconda team atm.
2024-02-19 17:23:25 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> but users do not care whether it's anaconda or cockpit or something else... it's part of the integrated flow
2024-02-19 17:23:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it is not a "bug" in anaconda, precisely. it's a situation we need to manage at a distribution level.
2024-02-19 17:23:43 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> The bug would end up on F41 and we are still on the same page. Which is blocking the implementation.
2024-02-19 17:24:25 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Cockpit can't resolve that
2024-02-19 17:24:35 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> You are blocking the whole effort by this
2024-02-19 17:24:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i will point out there seems to be one member of fesco present here
2024-02-19 17:25:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we cannot make fesco's decision in this meeting
2024-02-19 17:25:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so there isn't much to be gained by arguing about it here
2024-02-19 17:25:36 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> fesco's meeting is two hours from now, y'all can argue about it there
2024-02-19 17:25:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: btw, why isn't this issue tagged for the meeting?
2024-02-19 17:26:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> marcdeop: sorry, we are getting into process weeds a bit
2024-02-19 17:26:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> normal service will be resumed shortly :P
2024-02-19 17:26:11 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I have no idea
2024-02-19 17:26:13 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm tagging it
2024-02-19 17:26:16 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Still I don't understand the outcome of this bug
2024-02-19 17:26:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks
2024-02-19 17:26:34 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> In any case it can''t be fixed 
2024-02-19 17:26:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> jkonecny: basically my expectation is that what we do with the bug will be determined by what fesco decides
2024-02-19 17:26:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm intending to attend the fesco meeting and try to explain the practical options
2024-02-19 17:27:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i guess you'll come too? or is it too late?
2024-02-19 17:27:04 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> OK, I see 
2024-02-19 17:27:53 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Not sure, even now I'm taking care of kids. It could be pretty challenging for me to join 😞
2024-02-19 17:28:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> as i said, we need the bug to exist more or less for procedural reasons. the proposed/accepted blocker list is pretty much the Official Task List for releases. if something isn't on the blocker tracker it more or less doesn't exist so far as the release process is concerned. the existence of the bug and its proposed blocker status is entirely because of that.
2024-02-19 17:28:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, if you're not there i'll try and make sure all your points are covered
2024-02-19 17:29:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so:
2024-02-19 17:29:37 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Thank you, hopefully someone else from installer will be able to join
2024-02-19 17:31:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2263964 - punt (delay decision) - this is clearly a criteria violation, but it is not a straightforward "bug", rather an upstream design choice which was not understood downstream until recently. it is part of an official Change, but was not fully covered in that Change's scope. as this is well outside of the scope of a "bug" process and involves the Change process, we will defer to FESCo's decision on https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3169 in deciding the status of this bug.
2024-02-19 17:31:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2263964 - punt (delay decision) - this is clearly a criteria violation, but it is not a straightforward "bug", rather an upstream design choice which was not understood downstream until recently. it is part of an official Change, but was not fully covered in that Change's scope. as this is well outside of the scope of a "bug" process and involves the Change process, we will defer to FESCo's decision on https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3169 in deciding the status of this bug, and whether to change the release criteria.
2024-02-19 17:32:44 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-02-19 17:32:48 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> ack
2024-02-19 17:33:07 <@kparal:matrix.org> ack
2024-02-19 17:33:10 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> ack
2024-02-19 17:33:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2263964 - punt (delay decision) - this is clearly a criteria violation, but it is not a straightforward "bug", rather an upstream design choice which was not understood downstream until recently. it is part of an official Change, but was not fully covered in that Change's scope. as this is well outside of the scope of a "bug" process and involves the Change process, we will defer to FESCo's decision on https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3169 in deciding the status of this bug, and whether to change the release criteria.
2024-02-19 17:34:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2264795) Workstation iso filesystem has incorrect filesystem label
2024-02-19 17:34:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264795
2024-02-19 17:34:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1466
2024-02-19 17:34:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, distribution, NEW
2024-02-19 17:34:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+3,0,-0) (+lruzicka, +geraldosimiao, +sumantrom)'
2024-02-19 17:34:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this got +3, but i don't think it's correct. it regards an image that is not release-blocking.
2024-02-19 17:34:39 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> what?
2024-02-19 17:34:47 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> yeah, wanted to ask, how is it with osbuilder
2024-02-19 17:34:47 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Workstation is release-blocking
2024-02-19 17:35:01 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> this is an issue on the osbuild image only afaik
2024-02-19 17:35:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the osbuild live image for aarch64 is very not
2024-02-19 17:35:20 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the osbuild images are not RB at all
2024-02-19 17:35:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the only blocking aarch64 workstation image is the .raw.xz disk image
2024-02-19 17:35:36 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> however, I would gate issues like this on it ever graduating to RB
2024-02-19 17:35:54 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I don't know how to handle voting in that case though
2024-02-19 17:35:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> marcdeop: it's https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FedoraWorkstationImageBuilder
2024-02-19 17:36:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: well, even then, the live .iso for aarch64 is not release blocking
2024-02-19 17:36:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but still, it's well outside this meeting's scope
2024-02-19 17:36:27 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> does it affect x86_64?
2024-02-19 17:36:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> for blocker purposes, it's very easy to handle, we vote -1. like this :D
2024-02-19 17:36:36 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> lol
2024-02-19 17:36:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: dunno. worth checking, i guess, but still not blocking
2024-02-19 17:36:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the bug should block the change tracker bug i guess
2024-02-19 17:36:52 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> not blocking until it is :P
2024-02-19 17:36:53 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> but sure
2024-02-19 17:36:54 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> -1
2024-02-19 17:36:56 <@marcdeop:matrix.org> -1
2024-02-19 17:37:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'll do that
2024-02-19 17:37:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it would not surprise me if the labels are wrong for all osbuild artifacts
2024-02-19 17:37:35 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> last I checked, this is not configurable
2024-02-19 17:37:40 <@kparal:matrix.org> -1 blocker
2024-02-19 17:37:53 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> last I checked, this is not configurable (though it should be)
2024-02-19 17:38:04 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Sorry I'm late 
2024-02-19 17:38:08 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> anyhow, -1 blocker
2024-02-19 17:38:13 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> !hi 
2024-02-19 17:38:14 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Geraldo S. Simião Kutz (geraldosimiao) - he / him / his
2024-02-19 17:38:55 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> In that case, I retact to -1 
2024-02-19 17:38:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hi geraldosimiao 
2024-02-19 17:39:14 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Oh, that image is non blocking material? 
2024-02-19 17:39:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah - see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/releases/f40/blocking/
2024-02-19 17:39:29 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> So I revert to -1
2024-02-19 17:39:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: yes, thanks for that
2024-02-19 17:39:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> although, if it had been blocking, we'd obviously be testing it harder
2024-02-19 17:39:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i *still* need to wire up openqa to test the osbuild image...sgih
2024-02-19 17:40:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I was very much worried that the basics wouldn't be in good shape
2024-02-19 17:40:13 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> given my own experiences with it
2024-02-19 17:40:35 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> build systems and deliverables we get off the new buildsystem should never ideally be made blocking
2024-02-19 17:40:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, with that i think we have -7 / +1 (lruzicka isn't around to revote), so:
2024-02-19 17:41:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> there is no new build system, but deliverables need blocking status to be tested and ensured useful
2024-02-19 17:41:16 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it's not a technology issue, it's a process and quality issue
2024-02-19 17:41:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, do we want to +1 FE it?
2024-02-19 17:41:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah
2024-02-19 17:41:28 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1 FE
2024-02-19 17:41:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> +1 FE for me too
2024-02-19 17:41:36 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> +1 FE, why not
2024-02-19 17:41:46 <@marcdeop:matrix.org> +1 FE
2024-02-19 17:41:50 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> sure +1 FE 
2024-02-19 17:41:51 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Yeah +1 FE
2024-02-19 17:41:58 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> +1 FE
2024-02-19 17:41:58 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> (on the other hand, you know me, I am +1 FE on anything basically ...)
2024-02-19 17:42:33 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Let the packages run free
2024-02-19 17:42:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2264795 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected as it concerns an image which is not release-blocking . However, it's accepted as FE on the general principle we accept this kind of issue in non-blocking images as FE instead, but we will only land a fix that could not endanger blocking images
2024-02-19 17:42:46 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ;) 
2024-02-19 17:43:06 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Ack
2024-02-19 17:43:10 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-02-19 17:43:48 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2024-02-19 17:44:12 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> ack 
2024-02-19 17:44:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2264795 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected as it concerns an image which is not release-blocking . However, it's accepted as FE on the general principle we accept this kind of issue in non-blocking images as FE instead, but we will only land a fix that could not endanger blocking images
2024-02-19 17:44:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2264415) Raspberry Pi 4 and 400 won't boot into graphical environment
2024-02-19 17:44:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264415
2024-02-19 17:44:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1463
2024-02-19 17:44:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, gdm, NEW
2024-02-19 17:44:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+0,0,-1) (-catanzaro)
2024-02-19 17:44:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> brb, call of nature - discuss among yourselves
2024-02-19 17:45:16 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> wait, we can boot on RPi 400? since when?
2024-02-19 17:45:38 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> so, for this one, we're planning to give kde spin a try with lbrabec, to at least find out if it's a gnome or some lower in the stack issue
2024-02-19 17:46:09 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> cool
2024-02-19 17:46:09 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> he tested that pretty recently, a few days before making the report, so I don't have tighter time-frame hen this went south
2024-02-19 17:46:14 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> you anticipated my question :)
2024-02-19 17:47:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it's odd that this is attempting to boot X instead of Wayland though
2024-02-19 17:47:07 <@marcdeop:matrix.org> kde spin on rpi would be great... :-)
2024-02-19 17:47:23 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it shouldn't be doing that in the first place
2024-02-19 17:48:29 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> I didn't understood clearly if this is a software or hardware issue 
2024-02-19 17:49:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> to be honest, i'm not sure it matters
2024-02-19 17:49:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> arm is a bit different from x86_64 here
2024-02-19 17:49:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> on arm we have a list of supported platforms and we expect the criteria to be met on those
2024-02-19 17:49:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> pi 4 is definitely on that list
2024-02-19 17:50:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if we're sure pi 4 doesn't get to a desktop in the only blocking desktop image, that's a blocker for me
2024-02-19 17:50:57 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> KDE on AArch64 isn't blocking? I thought it's supposed to be.
2024-02-19 17:51:04 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I vaguely thought I asked for this a few releases back...
2024-02-19 17:51:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (kde is not blocking for aarch64)
2024-02-19 17:51:21 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> something to fix then
2024-02-19 17:51:41 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> no way I tolerate AArch64 breakage for KDE Plasma
2024-02-19 17:52:12 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> yeah, we're pretty sure about pi 4 too here
2024-02-19 17:52:34 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> KDE was meant only to figure out if the issue is (not) in GNOME or some different component
2024-02-19 17:52:38 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> (esp since KDE Plasma is the flagship for FAR)
2024-02-19 17:53:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/releases/f40/blocking/
2024-02-19 17:54:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria#Basic_Release_Requirements
2024-02-19 17:54:28 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'll talk to you after this meeting about fixing that so we have KDE AArch64 as release blocking
2024-02-19 17:54:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> "The term release-blocking desktops means all the desktop environments in which bugs are currently considered capable of blocking a Fedora release. The current set of release-blocking desktops for x86_64 is GNOME and KDE, and for aarch64 is GNOME."
2024-02-19 17:54:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> that would be a rather major change that'd need some discussion i think
2024-02-19 17:54:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> anyhoo
2024-02-19 17:55:00 <@marcdeop:matrix.org> let's have that discussion then :-)
2024-02-19 17:55:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm +1 on this at least for now
2024-02-19 17:55:09 <@marcdeop:matrix.org> (not now)
2024-02-19 17:55:19 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> At this point, the KDE SIG considers both x86_64 and aarch64 at the same level, so I don't think it's as significant it may fear to be. :)
2024-02-19 17:55:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it would be a bunch more testing on annoying hardware for us, for a start
2024-02-19 17:55:40 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> anyway, _this_ issue is blockery, so +1 Blocker
2024-02-19 17:55:40 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Ok, so BetaBlocker +1
2024-02-19 17:56:32 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> BetaBlocker +1

but what about the criterion?
2024-02-19 17:56:41 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> catanzaro mentioned the proposed is not the proper one
2024-02-19 17:56:46 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> in the voting ticket
2024-02-19 17:57:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> no, I think the criterion is fine
2024-02-19 17:57:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i just think mcatanzaro maybe wasn't thinking about the specifics of ARM
2024-02-19 17:57:40 <@marcdeop:matrix.org> BetaBlocker +1
2024-02-19 17:57:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if he was here we could chat about it, but he doesn't seem to be
2024-02-19 17:58:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'll add a comment to the ticket for him, we can always re-discuss if he has concerns
2024-02-19 17:58:23 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Good idea 
2024-02-19 18:02:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hmm, actually
2024-02-19 18:02:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we can cite "Release-blocking ARM disk images must boot to the initial-setup utility" in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria#Expected_image_boot_behavior , that seems clearer-cut
2024-02-19 18:02:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> since it comes right under the "Supported ARM platforms" definition
2024-02-19 18:03:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the bug does violate that, right? we don't reach g-i-s on the workstation image?
2024-02-19 18:03:15 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes
2024-02-19 18:03:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> since gdm doesn't load, we don't get to g-i-s
2024-02-19 18:03:39 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Interesting there is criteria for Initial setup. Good to know
2024-02-19 18:03:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, that's not really the intent
2024-02-19 18:04:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the intent is "images must boot to the thing they're supposed to boot to"
2024-02-19 18:04:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so it's just a laundry list of "intended things to boot to" for all the blocking image types. if the intent changes, we'd have to update the list
2024-02-19 18:04:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> criteria wording, it's a whole thing
2024-02-19 18:05:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2264415 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of Basic criterion "Release-blocking ARM disk images must boot to the initial-setup utility" for the ARM Workstation disk image (which is release-blocking) on the Raspberry PI 4 (which is a "supported ARM platform" as defined right above that criterion)
2024-02-19 18:06:03 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2024-02-19 18:07:59 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> yes
2024-02-19 18:08:11 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Ack 
2024-02-19 18:08:15 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-02-19 18:10:03 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> ack
2024-02-19 18:10:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2264415 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of Basic criterion "Release-blocking ARM disk images must boot to the initial-setup utility" for the ARM Workstation disk image (which is release-blocking) on the Raspberry PI 4 (which is a "supported ARM platform" as defined right above that criterion)
2024-02-19 18:10:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2263952) Update the background-logo extension for 46.beta
2024-02-19 18:10:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2263952
2024-02-19 18:10:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1460
2024-02-19 18:10:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell-extension-background-logo, NEW
2024-02-19 18:10:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+4,0,-1) (+asciiwolf, +catanzaro, +geraldosimiao, +lruzicka, -adamwill)
2024-02-19 18:10:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+1,0,-0) (+asciiwolf)
2024-02-19 18:10:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so this got +4, but i left it on the list because you're all wrong, damnit :P
2024-02-19 18:11:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> does somebody have a criterion to cite for this? AFAIK there is not one
2024-02-19 18:11:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we could add one, but... there isn't one.
2024-02-19 18:11:35 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we should have a branding criterion
2024-02-19 18:12:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the closest thing is the background criterion, but it is specifically about the *background* (not a logo superimposed on it) and it's for Final not beta
2024-02-19 18:13:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i am certainly +1 FE, though
2024-02-19 18:14:10 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1 blocker (on principle) +1 FE
2024-02-19 18:14:12 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> yeah, we can go +1 FE now
2024-02-19 18:15:14 <@kparal:matrix.org> -1 blocker +1 FE
2024-02-19 18:16:17 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> -1 Blocker
2024-02-19 18:16:36 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> +1 FE
2024-02-19 18:17:33 <@pboy:fedora.im> Sorry, I have to leave because of a work date. Adam knows about the current state of Server aarch64 issue.
2024-02-19 18:17:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks peter
2024-02-19 18:18:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> geraldosimiao: do you want to keep your vote or change?
2024-02-19 18:18:39 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> I can change 
2024-02-19 18:18:48 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> But keep FE 
2024-02-19 18:19:08 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> -1 BetaBlocker
+1 FE 
2024-02-19 18:19:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alright, so we have a split blocker vote and a clear +1 fe now
2024-02-19 18:20:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2263952 - punt (delay decision) on blocker status, AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - the vote for blocker status is split, +4 / -4 at present, with no criterion cited. There is a clear consensus for FE status, however.
2024-02-19 18:20:52 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-02-19 18:20:58 <@kparal:matrix.org> proposal: grant double votes to all people present 😉
2024-02-19 18:21:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> better proposal: grant me all the votes
2024-02-19 18:21:22 <@kparal:matrix.org> sure, ack
2024-02-19 18:21:33 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> aand lets start premium qa membership while at it, pay to vote the quadruple!
2024-02-19 18:21:36 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> ack 
2024-02-19 18:21:37 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Ack 
2024-02-19 18:21:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ooooh i like that one
2024-02-19 18:21:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> also you get a blue check next to your nickname in matrix
2024-02-19 18:22:08 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> 👌👌😁
2024-02-19 18:22:13 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Google likes this 😊
2024-02-19 18:22:36 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Wow 😄
2024-02-19 18:22:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2263952 - punt (delay decision) on blocker status, AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - the vote for blocker status is split, +4 / -4 at present, with no criterion cited. There is a clear consensus for FE status, however.
2024-02-19 18:22:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2264794) Need to include devcietree files on aarch64 systems iso media
2024-02-19 18:22:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264794
2024-02-19 18:22:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1465
2024-02-19 18:22:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, lorax, NEW
2024-02-19 18:23:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> as bcl says, this needs more details, but I *suspect* this also involves non-blocking media
2024-02-19 18:24:00 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1 blocker, +1 fe
2024-02-19 18:24:21 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> +1 Beta Blocker 
2024-02-19 18:24:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm +/-0 ATM
2024-02-19 18:24:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> since we don't know what image or hardware is affected
2024-02-19 18:24:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> that seems like important information
2024-02-19 18:24:47 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> yeah, +1 punt?
2024-02-19 18:26:08 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> (we can make it a fe anyway though)
2024-02-19 18:27:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i've added a comment on the bug asking for that info
2024-02-19 18:29:07 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> +1 punt
2024-02-19 18:29:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2263952 - punt (delay decision) - the report does not explain which images or hardware platforms are affected by this, which seems like required information to make a blocker decision
2024-02-19 18:30:34 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2024-02-19 18:31:50 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> ack
2024-02-19 18:32:25 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-02-19 18:33:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2263952 - punt (delay decision) - the report does not explain which images or hardware platforms are affected by this, which seems like required information to make a blocker decision
2024-02-19 18:33:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2264814) AArch64 livemedia creation fails due to running out of space
2024-02-19 18:33:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264814
2024-02-19 18:33:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1467
2024-02-19 18:33:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, lorax, NEW
2024-02-19 18:33:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> again, i don't believe this can be blocking as the medium in question is not.
2024-02-19 18:34:21 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Ack
2024-02-19 18:34:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> -1 blocker
2024-02-19 18:35:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> heya jednorozec 
2024-02-19 18:36:13 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> -1 Blocker
2024-02-19 18:36:28 <@humaton:fedora.im> -1
2024-02-19 18:36:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> +1 FE
2024-02-19 18:36:56 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> yeah, sure, +1 FE, but I'd say the fix would be infra side?
2024-02-19 18:37:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, but they consider the freeze as applying to infra stuff
2024-02-19 18:37:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so it's useful if we grant things FEs
2024-02-19 18:37:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2264814 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this concerns an image that is not on the blocking list at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/releases/f40/blocking/ (the aarch64 Workstation live ISO), so it cannot be a blocker. However, as it's always good for images to build, we do grant an FE
2024-02-19 18:38:13 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-02-19 18:38:20 <@humaton:fedora.im> ack
2024-02-19 18:41:40 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> I guess no more acks for ya adamw , bunch of seens...
2024-02-19 18:42:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hehe
2024-02-19 18:42:05 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> adamw:  ack 
2024-02-19 18:42:06 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack 
2024-02-19 18:42:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> cya sumantro, thanks for coming
2024-02-19 18:42:07 <@sumantrom:fedora.im> :)
2024-02-19 18:42:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, let's go in two-ack mode to get through the list
2024-02-19 18:42:14 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> gnight sumantro!
2024-02-19 18:42:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2264814 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this concerns an image that is not on the blocking list at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/releases/f40/blocking/ (the aarch64 Workstation live ISO), so it cannot be a blocker. However, as it's always good for images to build, we do grant an FE
2024-02-19 18:42:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2236356) the software raid disk becomes unusable after click "Rescan" twice
2024-02-19 18:42:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236356
2024-02-19 18:42:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1321
2024-02-19 18:42:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, ASSIGNED
2024-02-19 18:42:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+2,0,-0) (+nielsenb, +geraldosimiao)
2024-02-19 18:42:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-0) (+lruzicka)
2024-02-19 18:42:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+2,0,-0) (+asciiwolf, +lruzicka)
2024-02-19 18:43:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think we were waiting for more info from lnie on f40 status here
2024-02-19 18:43:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i've added a needinfo
2024-02-19 18:44:16 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> okey, we can punt then
2024-02-19 18:45:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alrighty
2024-02-19 18:46:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2236356 - punt (delay decision) - we're still clarifying exactly the status with f40 here. installer team is also back looking at a fix. we have added a needinfo to the bug
2024-02-19 18:46:32 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-02-19 18:46:52 <@humaton:fedora.im> ack
2024-02-19 18:47:15 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2024-02-19 18:48:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2236356 - punt (delay decision) - we're still clarifying exactly the status with f40 here. installer team is also back looking at a fix. we have added a needinfo to the bug
2024-02-19 18:48:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2249392) libblkid returns incomplete information for partitons (e.g. UUID and TYPE are missing) preventing assembly of md raid devices
2024-02-19 18:48:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249392
2024-02-19 18:48:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1446
2024-02-19 18:48:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, util-linux, NEW
2024-02-19 18:48:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+3,0,-0) (+nielsenb, +geraldosimiao, +lruzicka)
2024-02-19 18:48:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so this one was actually closed but got reopened
2024-02-19 18:48:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm not really clear what issue the person who reopened it is running into. it may not be the same as the original reporter.
2024-02-19 18:49:44 <@humaton:fedora.im> there is not much info in the last comment
2024-02-19 18:50:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah
2024-02-19 18:52:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'll set a needinfo
2024-02-19 18:52:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> on the whole i'd be inclined to reject this without clearer indication there's a reproducible issue affecting f40
2024-02-19 18:52:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but we can punt it for a bit
2024-02-19 18:52:51 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> we have a RAID system in the office, I can ask lruzicka to try it out tomorrow (the machine is connected to piKVM, so I'd prefer not to disconnect/reconnect it)
2024-02-19 18:52:56 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> but punt for sure
2024-02-19 18:53:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> there seems to be some subtlety regarding the details of the raid set here :/ the concrete bug that got fixed related to what version of mdadm created it, for e.g.
2024-02-19 18:53:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (earlier versions put some metadata in a different place on the disk)
2024-02-19 18:53:50 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ahh, sounds fun...
2024-02-19 18:54:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2249392 - punt (delay decision) - the reporter who reopened this issue may not have the same bug as the original reporter, the situation seems less clear-cut than it was for that reporter. we will delay the decision while attempting to get more information on Sandro's case, including testing on Fedora 40
2024-02-19 18:55:11 <@humaton:fedora.im> ack
2024-02-19 18:55:12 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-02-19 18:55:22 <@kparal:matrix.org> František Zatloukal: also, mdraid is software raid, I believe. That's not the same as a firmware raid which we have in the office.
2024-02-19 18:55:48 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> yeah, fair point, but we can still do a sw raid test on that machine with 2 HDDs
2024-02-19 18:55:59 <@kparal:matrix.org> or just in a VM, that's easier
2024-02-19 18:56:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, mdraid is actually used to manage most fimrware raid these days
2024-02-19 18:56:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> as well as software raid
2024-02-19 18:56:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so that's also a confusion point
2024-02-19 18:57:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i believe this bug relates to software RAID, though
2024-02-19 18:57:18 <@kparal:matrix.org> ok, thanks for info
2024-02-19 18:57:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2249392 - punt (delay decision) - the reporter who reopened this issue may not have the same bug as the original reporter, the situation seems less clear-cut than it was for that reporter. we will delay the decision while attempting to get more information on Sandro's case, including testing on Fedora 40
2024-02-19 18:57:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, we're nearly at the time limit
2024-02-19 18:57:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> everyone OK with skipping the proposed final blockers so we can all go home? :D
2024-02-19 18:58:03 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> yep
2024-02-19 18:58:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info we will skip the proposed Final blockers as the meeting is almost at its time limit
2024-02-19 18:58:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Open floor
2024-02-19 18:58:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> anything very urgent to bring up?
2024-02-19 19:00:29 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> enjoy the story!
2024-02-19 19:00:45 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Nothing urgent 
2024-02-19 19:02:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, thanks for coming everyone!
2024-02-19 19:02:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !endmeeting