<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:01:52
!startmeeting F40-blocker-review
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:01:53
Meeting started at 2024-02-26 17:01:52 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:01:53
The Meeting name is 'F40-blocker-review'
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:02:09
!topic Roll Call
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:02:28
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:02:29
Peter Boy (pboy)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:02:58
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:02:59
Aoife Moloney (amoloney)
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:03:20
Aloha
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:03:25
o/ seems like people are going in here just cause of adam, sigh, let's wait a bit for hopefully more to come 😁
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:05:46
!hi
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:06:31
seems like we can go on, hello hello everybody :)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:06:46
!info We'll be following the process outlined at:
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
!info The bugs up for review today are available at:
!link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
!info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Beta_Release_Criteria
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Final_Release_Criteria
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:07:06
huh
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:07:13
zodbot hasn't responded to me yet
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:07:44
hmm :( , I guess we can move on, hopefully we didn't crash the poor bot
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:08:04
!info for Beta, we have:
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:08:20
!info 4 Proposed Blockers
!info 6 Accepted Blockers
!info 0 Accepted 0-day Blockers
!info 1 Accepted Previous Release Blockers
!info 5 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
!info 10 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:08:39
!topic Proposed Beta blockers
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:08:59
!topic (2263952) Update the background-logo extension for 46.beta
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2263952
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1460
!info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell-extension-background-logo, NEW
!info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+4,0,-2) (+asciiwolf, +catanzaro, +geraldosimiao, +lruzicka, -adamwill, -nielsenb)
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-0) (+lruzicka)
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+1,0,-0) (+asciiwolf)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:10:11
hmm, it seems not much has changed with this one, we don't have a criterion that would cover such a request, we can't make it a blocker, unless somebody would like to come up with such a criterion?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:10:55
František Zatloukal: just FYI, I just proposed another blocker - rhbz 2266096
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:11:39
noted, will include that one, it should take us more than 30 minutes before we finish with blockers, so the web app will pick it up
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:12:12
I'd say clearly Blocker -1 here, but plenty of people voted +1 in the ticket
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:12:28
-1, no criterion
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:12:35
those with +1 should try to justify it
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:13:04
-1 BB, +1 FB based on Fedora Art criterion
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:13:51
that leaves us with -5 Blocker, +3, that wouldn't be enough to reject it unfortunately
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:13:52
lruzicka: you mean this one? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Final_Release_Criteria#Artwork
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:14:12
that only talks about the wallpaper
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:14:48
well, not just about the wallpaper, it's written more generally, true
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:15:45
let's focus on Beta for now
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:16:03
yeah, we can reevaluate final when it comes to it
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:16:19
Yeah, I meant that one. For some reason I thought it was applicable to Beta, too.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:16:30
František Zatloukal: you can try to ping those 3 people here on in the ticket and wait if they respond. If not, I wouldn't count their votes, we need a fluent communication otherwise we would be stuck forever
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:16:54
+1 FinalBlocker
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:17:07
+1 FE (for Beta)
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:17:25
Do we have a process to movepropose this so that we don't forget?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:18:06
sure, just change the tracker to FinalBlocker
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:19:42
yeah, we can make it a FinalBlocker, +1 from me, we're at +3, under the criteron @lruzicka proposed
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:20:26
Ok, let me do it right away.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:20:45
well you shouldn't right now
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:20:52
before the Beta status is clear
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:21:20
FinalBlocker 0
I'm not really sure if the criterion is intended to work this way (mandating that an extension works)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:22:10
let me rephrase. You can add FinalBlocker right now, but shouldn't BetaBlocker, before we decide it
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:22:26
let me rephrase. You can add FinalBlocker right now, but shouldn't remove BetaBlocker, before we decide it
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:22:41
what about this?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:22:46
proposed !agreed 2263952 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of "The proposed final Fedora artwork must be included and used as the background on release-blocking desktops. All Fedora artwork visible in critical path actions on release-blocking desktops must be consistent with the proposed final theme.".
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:22:50
I'm pretty sure we've blocked the release before on ensuring the extension works
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:22:57
I am going to add Final Blocker proposal right now and not touch the beta stuff
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:23:01
because it is a major part of our branding
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:23:29
whether it's an extension or something else is really an implementation detail, the coverage is about ensuring our artwork and branding is present
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:23:33
yeah, the final criterion makes sense, imo
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:23:34
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:24:20
if we had a blocking spin where the fedora logo wasn't showing up, I would also have it fall under that criterion
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:25:18
anymore acks/nacks :) ?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:25:53
Im just here lurking and catching up from being off :)
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:26:12
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:29:20
one more?
<@sumantrom:fedora.im>
17:29:46
Ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:30:01
!agreed 2263952 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of "The proposed final Fedora artwork must be included and used as the background on release-blocking desktops. All Fedora artwork visible in critical path actions on release-blocking desktops must be consistent with the proposed final theme.".
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:30:03
Thanks
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:30:16
!topic (2236356) the software raid disk becomes unusable after click "Rescan" twice
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236356
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1321
!info Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, POST
!info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+3,0,-0) (+nielsenb, +geraldosimiao, +adamwill)
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+2,0,-0) (+lruzicka, +nielsenb)
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+2,0,-0) (+asciiwolf, +lruzicka)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:30:51
That seems pretty clear cut
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:30:58
I guess, we will not have to deal with this one any more, do we?
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:31:23
I guess, we will not have to deal with this one any more, will we?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:31:32
yeah, I'd say, +1 BetaBlocker
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:31:44
+1 BetaBlocker
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:32:12
+1 Beta (+1 final)
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:32:16
Is this not the WebUI stuff?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:33:15
afaik it affects the blivet codepath, which is used also by the gtk installer
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:33:28
If I remember correctly, that notexacltly clear
<@m4rtink:fedora.im>
17:33:46
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236356#c14
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:33:53
Ok, in that case +1 BetaBlocker
<@m4rtink:fedora.im>
17:33:56
I think thats a reproducer for GTK GUI.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:35:38
proposed !agreed 2236356 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of "The installer must be able to detect and install to hardware RAID storage devices."
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:35:54
ack
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:36:56
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:39:47
one more anybody :) ?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:41:25
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:41:39
!agreed 2236356 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of "The installer must be able to detect and install to hardware RAID storage devices."
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:41:49
!topic (2244744) POSTIN scriptlet dbus-common
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244744
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1477
!info Proposed Blocker, rpm, NEW
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:43:11
so, it seems like bunch of collections are failing to be installed using the non-live medias
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:44:54
I'd say +1 Blocker based on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Beta_Release_Criteria#Package_set_selection
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:47:59
+1 Beta Blocker
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:48:06
+1 There still seems to be a lot that is unclear.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:48:56
And non-live installation is a wish of many.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:49:34
+1
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:49:40
proposed !agreed 2244744 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of "When installing with the generic network install image, interactively selecting a package set other than the default must work."
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:49:53
ack
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:50:00
ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:56:01
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:56:39
!agreed 2244744 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of "When installing with the generic network install image, interactively selecting a package set other than the default must work."
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:56:50
!topic (2247873) U-Boot doesn't find and load the Fedora provided DTBs from /boot/dtb
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247873
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1471
!info Proposed Blocker, uboot-tools, ASSIGNED
!info Ticket vote: BetaBlocker (+3,0,-0) (+adamwill, +nielsenb, +geraldosimiao)
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:58:11
I think, the voting is clear, +1 Beta blocker
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:58:48
+1 Beta Blocker for sure
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:58:52
+1 BB
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:59:27
yeah, +1 Beta Blocker
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:00:34
proposed !agreed 2247873 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of "All release-blocking images must boot in their supported configurations." as the affected hardware is a supported platform and Server is a blocking deliverable.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:00:43
ack
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:00:48
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:02:25
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:03:23
!agreed 2247873 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of "All release-blocking images must boot in their supported configurations." as the affected hardware is a supported platform and Server is a blocking deliverable.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:03:36
!topic (2266096) updates-testing is disabled, when it shouldn't
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2266096
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1479
!info Proposed Blocker, fedora-repos, NEW
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+1,0,-0) (+asciiwolf)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:04:15
I'm not really sure if there is some grounds to block on it
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:04:17
welp, do we have a criterion for it?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:04:26
we have a final criterion that correct repos must be defined
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:04:32
but we have nothing like that for beta
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:04:51
hmm, I'd say something that hampers testing could fit...
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:05:07
I think we had some note somewhere that if a bug severely reduces QA coverage, it can be a blocker. But I can't find it now.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:05:16
Isn't there a criterion to support testability?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:05:23
can you find it?
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:05:29
let me se
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:05:34
let me see
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:06:08
overall, if we release Beta without updates-testing, the world will not burn. I'm not sure if it should be a blocker in the first place. But it will definitely reduce QA coverage from community.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:06:15
I think it's kind of self-explanatory. In Beta you must be a able to test :-)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:06:38
I mean, worst case of having it as a FE wouldn't hurt, I'd expect the fix to be trivial
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:07:42
if we want to get into wording battles, it could violate "The installed system must be able appropriately to install, remove, and update" as it doesn't appropriately update, but...
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:08:11
yeah, seems bout perfect lruzicka
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:08:34
According to the Release Criteria, a beta blocker is a bug that hinders execution of required Beta test plans :D
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:09:04
lruzicka: please post a link for the meeting log
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:09:13
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Beta_Release_Criteria#Beta_Blocker_Bugs
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:09:18
Sure, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Beta_Release_Criteria#Beta_Blocker_Bugs
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:09:43
+1 Beta Blocker
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:09:44
now the question is whether it "dramatically reduces test coverage"
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:10:01
the community coverage, I'd say yes. But the release validation test cases, not really.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:10:31
I suppose, if you overlook that updates-testing is off, you will not be able to test anything until Beta freeze :D
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:10:40
the criterion doesn't specify that, on purpose I'd say?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:11:04
+1 Beta Blocker
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:11:12
+1 Beta Blocker
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:11:21
just a moment
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:11:37
in https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-40/f-40-key-tasks.html I see "Bodhi updates-testing activation point" to be tomorrow
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:11:56
I wonder if releng could possible only want to enable u-t at the same time? I don't know
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:12:13
it doesn't matter in the end for the blocker designation
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:12:20
but in the past, I believe it was enabled right with branching
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:12:30
anyhoo
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:12:32
right
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:12:39
so I guess +1 beta blocker
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:12:42
proposed !agreed 2266096 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as it "hinders execution of required Beta test plans or dramatically reduces test coverage".
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:12:51
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:13:01
ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:14:39
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:14:52
!agreed 2266096 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as it "hinders execution of required Beta test plans or dramatically reduces test coverage".
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:15:56
!topic Proposed Beta exceptions
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:16:20
Hm, what about 2247872 ?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:17:00
that's final Peter Boy
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:17:14
ah OK
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:17:24
!topic (2265238) anaconda fails to start on AArch64 lmc runs
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2265238
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1473
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, NEW
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:18:37
yeah, I'd say +1 FE here
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:18:52
the only working aarch64 live composes are from osbuild right now
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:19:06
and that has (or had, didnt check for some time) its own issues
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:21:45
+1 FE
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:22:06
I have no idea here, so am I copying Kamil Páral , +1 FE
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:22:32
hey, I was just copying Frantisek!
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:22:36
same to me
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:24:58
proposed !agreed 2265238 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as it "breaks composing of non-blocking aarch64 live images. The working composes come from the osbuild, and we'd deem fit to have a working comparison for this new tooling".
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:25:11
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:25:17
ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:25:31
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:26:44
!agreed 2265238 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as it "breaks composing of non-blocking aarch64 live images. The working composes come from the osbuild, and we'd deem fit to have a working comparison for this new tooling".
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:26:51
!topic (2265210) Firefox does not show in GNOME Software anymore
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2265210
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1472
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, firefox, MODIFIED
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+2,0,-0) (+asciiwolf, +nielsenb)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:29:12
+1 FE, poor firefox not being in gnome software, ehm, it seems like a low-risk fix
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:29:16
+1 FE
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:29:29
+1FE
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:29:33
this might actually be proposed as a final blocker: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Final_Release_Criteria#Installing,_removing_and_updating_software
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:29:39
"List locally-installed software coming from the official Fedora repositories"
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:29:55
but, that criterion was really created for this case
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:30:25
it seems it will be fixed before we need to discuss it, fortunately
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:30:47
but, that criterion wasn't really created for this case
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:32:08
proposed !agreed 2265210 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as it "is an easy and low-risk fix for something that may fit final blocking criterions. There is no harm in fixing it earlier in the beta stage.".
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:32:39
ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:32:43
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:32:43
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:33:57
!agreed 2265210 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as it "is an easy and low-risk fix for something that may fit final blocking criterions. There is no harm in fixing it earlier in the beta stage.".
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:34:06
!topic (2264930) Cannot access GNOME because of wrong layout (US) in GDM (PASSWORD with wrong layout)
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264930
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1470
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-shell, NEW
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+3,0,-0) (+lruzicka, +asciiwolf, +nielsenb)
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+1,0,-0) (+nielsenb)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:35:18
I'd say +1 FE here
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:35:29
it probably, again, would be accepted as final
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:36:08
František Zatloukal: I just noticed that you post all the lines together, as multiline. The meeting minutes will be completely broken, unfortunately. The bot can only handle commands on individual lines, not multiline.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:36:25
meh, thanks, too late for fixing it now
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:36:41
zodbot: bad bot
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:37:00
I submitted an RFE, but no response yet
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:37:20
+1 FE for sure
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:37:29
do we want to vote on final blocker as well?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:37:42
I am planning to skip that section for today
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:37:48
ok
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:38:21
why wouldn't this be a Beta blocker?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:38:26
this seems pretty broken
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:38:57
Is #2265422 an issue to discuss here? It is a spin off form 2247872, probably not a blocker, but a FE?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:39:48
Conan Kudo: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Final_Release_Criteria#Keyboard_layout_configuration is a final criterion
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:43:58
any more votes for fe?
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:44:16
+1 FE
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:44:23
+1 FE
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:44:28
I am totally affected by this one
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:45:20
proposed !agreed 2264930 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as it "is a probable final blocker, it affects user-experience in a significant way, and can't be fully addressed by an update"
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:45:50
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:46:38
yeah, from a quick look, feel free to propose it as a FE
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:46:50
ack
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:47:18
František Zatloukal: yes I do
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:50:35
ackitty ackitty acks :) ?
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:51:05
ack
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:51:14
Oj I already did, sorry
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:51:24
😁😁
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:51:51
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:52:02
!agreed 2264930 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as it "is a probable final blocker, it affects user-experience in a significant way, and can't be fully addressed by an update".
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:52:10
!topic (2266081) Consider LLVM 18 pull in during Beta Freeze
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2266081
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1478
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, llvm, NEW
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:52:19
this is mine, after chatting with llvm guys
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:52:42
I'd say punt here, and let's see when the builds are ready, I'd rather not pull them late in the freeze
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:52:55
this is the first thing that occurred to me - is this another one of frantisek-bugs?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:53:02
yep
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:53:09
punt sounds fine
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:53:31
+1 punťa
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:55:01
It's quite critical, so +1 punt seems so be best at the moment.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:55:16
proposed !agreed 2264930 - punt (delay the decision)(BetaFE) - the decision was delayed, let's see when the builds are ready and decide how far are we in the freeze by that point.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:55:23
uff
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:55:27
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:55:28
#undo
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:55:48
proposed !agreed 2266081 - punt (delay the decision)(BetaFE) - the decision was delayed, let's see when the builds are ready and decide how far are we in the freeze by that point.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:55:53
the bugid was bad
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:55:57
?? !undo ?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:56:09
maybe not necesary for propose
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
18:56:26
Well. I'm here. Totally spaced it being on Matrix. I can handle the secretary duty if someone else hasn't gotten it already.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:56:29
I'd say only messages starting with ! have an effect
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:57:01
I'd love if you can do that, the minutes will probably be borked, but I can send you overview of secretary actions to do off-meeting
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
18:57:32
...oh no... I take back the bit about being willing to be secretary for the meeting. 😂
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
18:57:41
Just kidding, sounds great.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:58:09
so, acks for the corrected proposal pretty please ?
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:58:21
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:58:31
ack
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
18:59:28
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:59:39
!agreed 2266081 - punt (delay the decision)(BetaFE) - the decision was delayed, let's see when the builds are ready and decide how far are we in the freeze by that point.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:59:54
!topic (2264306) mesa-24.0.1 is available
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264306
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1475
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, mesa, NEW
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+1,0,-1) (+asciiwolf, -nielsenb)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:01:01
here, you know me, I am all for FEs... on the other hand, it isn't necessary (we can re-evaluate if there are important fixes, or, we would get that anyway if the LLVM 18 is accepted , as it would include mesa rebuilt)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:01:09
so -1 FE
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
19:01:43
-1 fe
<@pboy:fedora.im>
19:02:13
You think all thar 24.0.1 could be provided as updates?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:02:40
yeah, I skimmed over the changelog, it doesn't seem that necessary for the beta live usage
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:03:03
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2024-February/226151.html
<@pboy:fedora.im>
19:06:27
Yeah, it's a lot and generates some risk. Increases the probability of new issues. -1 fe
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:06:53
proposed !agreed 2264306 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected as it "doesn't seem to bring in any super-critical fixes needed for the live media usage, and can be re-evaluated if such need arises at a later point".
<@pboy:fedora.im>
19:07:32
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
19:08:13
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:10:43
one more final ack for today ?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:10:50
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:10:56
kamil wins the prize!
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:10:57
!agreed 2264306 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected as it "doesn't seem to bring in any super-critical fixes needed for the live media usage, and can be re-evaluated if such need arises".
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:11:22
!info we will skip the proposed Final blockers as the meeting is over its time limit
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:11:32
!topic Open floor
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:11:41
thanks everyone for coming in here today!
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
19:11:53
You are welcome.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
19:12:04
Now, I must rush away. See you later.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:12:17
coremodule: the notes have arrived to you as of now on Slack
<@pboy:fedora.im>
19:12:17
Bye bye
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:13:02
anyone has anything? closing in 60 otherwise
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
19:13:16
thanks Frantisek
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:13:27
thanks for helping!!
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:14:38
okey dokey, see ya all next week, next time with proper Adam instead of this Adam from wish... 😎
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:14:40
!endmeeting