2024-03-04 17:00:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !startmeeting F40-blocker-review
2024-03-04 17:00:41 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2024-03-04 17:00:40 UTC
2024-03-04 17:00:41 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'F40-blocker-review'
2024-03-04 17:00:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Roll Call
2024-03-04 17:00:57 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> !hi
2024-03-04 17:00:58 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Brandon Nielsen (nielsenb)
2024-03-04 17:01:31 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2024-03-04 17:01:33 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2024-03-04 17:01:51 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !hi
2024-03-04 17:01:52 <@zodbot:fedora.im> František Zatloukal (frantisekz)
2024-03-04 17:01:54 <@coremodule:fedora.im> Willing to act as secretary.
2024-03-04 17:02:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hi hi everyone
2024-03-04 17:02:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks coremodule
2024-03-04 17:03:12 <@pboy:fedora.im> !hi
2024-03-04 17:03:12 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Peter Boy (pboy)
2024-03-04 17:04:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> which part
2024-03-04 17:04:52 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> none apparently 🫣😄 
2024-03-04 17:05:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hehe
2024-03-04 17:05:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alrighty, let's get rolling
2024-03-04 17:05:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> boilerplate alert
2024-03-04 17:05:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Introduction
2024-03-04 17:05:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Why are we here?
2024-03-04 17:05:38 <@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.
2024-03-04 17:05:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info We'll be following the process outlined at:
2024-03-04 17:05:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
2024-03-04 17:05:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The bugs up for review today are available at:
2024-03-04 17:05:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
2024-03-04 17:05:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
2024-03-04 17:05:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
2024-03-04 17:05:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Beta_Release_Criteria
2024-03-04 17:05:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Final_Release_Criteria
2024-03-04 17:06:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info for Beta, we have:
2024-03-04 17:06:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 6 Accepted Blockers
2024-03-04 17:06:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 1 Accepted Previous Release Blockers
2024-03-04 17:06:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 4 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
2024-03-04 17:06:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 6 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
2024-03-04 17:06:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info for Final, we have:
2024-03-04 17:06:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 3 Proposed Blockers
2024-03-04 17:06:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> as there are no proposed Beta blockers, let's get started with:
2024-03-04 17:06:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Proposed Beta freeze exceptions
2024-03-04 17:06:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2267486) Include Java 21 as system Java Change in Fedora 40 Beta
2024-03-04 17:07:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267486
2024-03-04 17:07:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1488
2024-03-04 17:07:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, distribution, NEW
2024-03-04 17:07:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+2,0,-0) (+nielsenb, +frantisekz)
2024-03-04 17:07:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so honestly i'm not personally super happy with this. this is appearing very late. to make the early release target we need an image by tomorrow or wednesday at the latest
2024-03-04 17:08:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but given the choices of landing it now, landing it after beta, or unpicking the SCM commits...none of them looks great.
2024-03-04 17:08:22 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Aren't we likely snagged on shim anyway?
2024-03-04 17:08:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm assuming we'd waive shim if it can't be ready in time
2024-03-04 17:08:36 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> we're going to waive that imo
2024-03-04 17:08:43 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> *sigh*
2024-03-04 17:08:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i've asked pjones for a status update
2024-03-04 17:08:53 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> it may be ready for final
2024-03-04 17:09:07 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> but blocking beta on this doesn't make much sense
2024-03-04 17:09:10 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> can we just stop waiving it?
2024-03-04 17:09:23 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm tired of waiving it especially now it's becoming more problematic
2024-03-04 17:09:24 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> we'd be stuck on f36 in that case... :D
2024-03-04 17:09:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i agree with František Zatloukal for beta at least
2024-03-04 17:09:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: what's the alternative? we all sit on our hands till the great sb signing machine cranks its gears?
2024-03-04 17:09:51 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I don't think we're blocking on this, just FE
2024-03-04 17:09:53 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> realistically, we're going to waive it again at final :(
2024-03-04 17:10:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but anyhow, that's not the topic we're on
2024-03-04 17:10:42 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> All <del>gas</del> Java, no brakes
2024-03-04 17:11:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm probably gonna vote 0 on this because i don't really love any of the alternives
2024-03-04 17:11:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm probably gonna vote 0 on this because i don't really love any of the alternatives
2024-03-04 17:11:28 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> That's why I'm +1, everything else sucks more, but I can see a +0 too
2024-03-04 17:13:19 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> If it's going to break something, I would like it to start breaking stuff with the first beta
2024-03-04 17:13:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> please don't everyone vote 0, we'll never get anywhere. :P
2024-03-04 17:13:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> do as i say, not as i do!
2024-03-04 17:13:31 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> I am staying with +1 as in the ticket (also, thanks a lot adamw for fighting with the outfall in rawhide)
2024-03-04 17:14:03 <@pboy:fedora.im> +1 from me too, we need Java as planned
2024-03-04 17:14:04 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I'm also still +1
2024-03-04 17:15:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think that makes the vote +3
2024-03-04 17:16:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any other votes?
2024-03-04 17:17:29 <@amoloney:fedora.im> fwiw I'd be +1
2024-03-04 17:18:07 <@amoloney:fedora.im> maintainers seem highly engaged, they would likely be quite responsive to issues if any come up (fingers crossed things wont break though)
2024-03-04 17:18:48 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> This seems like more than an FE really, but I can be a weak +1 I guess... just landing it seems the least bad.
2024-03-04 17:19:09 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> More testing, more betterer
2024-03-04 17:19:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed 1agreed 2267486 AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is reluctantly accepted on the grounds that we don't really prefer the alternatives of landing it after Beta or unpicking the SCM changes, and on the Java team's assurance that they have tested the changes
2024-03-04 17:19:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> nirik: yeah, it really needs fesco signoff too, I guess
2024-03-04 17:19:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2267486 AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is reluctantly accepted on the grounds that we don't really prefer the alternatives of landing it after Beta or unpicking the SCM changes, and on the Java team's assurance that they have tested the changes
2024-03-04 17:19:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> when's the fesco meeting again?
2024-03-04 17:19:40 <@amoloney:fedora.im> today
2024-03-04 17:19:44 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> later today as it happens.
2024-03-04 17:19:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yes, what time i meant
2024-03-04 17:20:04 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> 2 hours from now?
2024-03-04 17:20:07 <@amoloney:fedora.im> sorry 1930 UTC I think
2024-03-04 17:20:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay
2024-03-04 17:20:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> maybe we can make it a conditional acceptance?
2024-03-04 17:20:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2267486 AcceptedFreezeException (Beta), conditional on FESCo approval - this is reluctantly accepted on the grounds that we don't really prefer the alternatives of landing it after Beta or unpicking the SCM changes, and on the Java team's assurance that they have tested the changes. As this is a late Change, it also requires FESCo approval at the meeting later today
2024-03-04 17:20:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposal adjusted
2024-03-04 17:21:21 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-04 17:21:41 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> How is it a late change?
2024-03-04 17:21:54 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> The original change was accepted by Fesco 2 months ago
2024-03-04 17:22:02 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> It just didn't land
2024-03-04 17:22:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Brandon Nielsen: it's a late Change. the testable and complete deadlines both passed already.
2024-03-04 17:22:18 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Ah, I see
2024-03-04 17:22:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the implementation of the Change is late, not its proposal
2024-03-04 17:22:34 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-04 17:23:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any more acks?
2024-03-04 17:23:22 <@coremodule:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-04 17:23:31 <@pboy:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-04 17:24:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2267486 AcceptedFreezeException (Beta), conditional on FESCo approval - this is reluctantly accepted on the grounds that we don't really prefer the alternatives of landing it after Beta or unpicking the SCM changes, and on the Java team's assurance that they have tested the changes. As this is a late Change, it also requires FESCo approval at the meeting later todayy
2024-03-04 17:24:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> gah
2024-03-04 17:24:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !undo
2024-03-04 17:24:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ....well now i don't know where we are.
2024-03-04 17:24:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2267486 AcceptedFreezeException (Beta), conditional on FESCo approval - this is reluctantly accepted on the grounds that we don't really prefer the alternatives of landing it after Beta or unpicking the SCM changes, and on the Java team's assurance that they have tested the changes. As this is a late Change, it also requires FESCo approval at the meeting later today
2024-03-04 17:24:49 <@amoloney:fedora.im> you might be able to edit the agreed statement directly
2024-03-04 17:24:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> there, if we get two, we get two
2024-03-04 17:24:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yes, but I don't know if meetbot understands that
2024-03-04 17:25:07 <@amoloney:fedora.im> oh I see...!
2024-03-04 17:25:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i didn't get a thumbs-up on the undo so i dunno where meetbot is at
2024-03-04 17:25:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i figured possibly having two agreeds is better than possibly having none
2024-03-04 17:25:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> aaaanyhoo
2024-03-04 17:25:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2267713) intel-media-driver-free inclusion in F40+ breaks system upgrades for users with media-driver in F<=39
2024-03-04 17:25:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267713
2024-03-04 17:25:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1492
2024-03-04 17:25:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, intel-media-driver-free, MODIFIED
2024-03-04 17:26:03 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> so, that is my package and my fe, fire questions away :)
2024-03-04 17:26:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> since they no longer explicitly conflict, what happens if you wind up with both? which wins?
2024-03-04 17:27:17 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> yeah, that is to be figured out, I asked kwizart in the pr, but didn't get answer (and didn't actually test that)
2024-03-04 17:27:20 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> freeworld does
2024-03-04 17:27:33 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> nonfree -> freeworld -> regular, is what I think he's doing
2024-03-04 17:27:49 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libva/c/ce2dd11f52f21df134b19d5a3727f08b52756137?branch=rawhide
2024-03-04 17:27:55 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> which would be a desired outcome I guess? users with fullblown installed before the upgrade stay with it
2024-03-04 17:28:20 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Is it documented somewhere what I give up by using the free one?
2024-03-04 17:28:31 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I get confused by all the different Intel media drivers
2024-03-04 17:28:34 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> in my brain unfortunately, I'll work on thath
2024-03-04 17:28:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> that's probably a good idea
2024-03-04 17:29:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> you don't want people examining your brain too often, it gets sticky
2024-03-04 17:29:07 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> 😅 , short tldr, the free one doesn't support non-free codecs and some post-process shaders, and unfortunately av1 due to bugs upstream
2024-03-04 17:29:28 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> this will also fix the mesa-freeworld issue too
2024-03-04 17:29:33 <@salimma:fedora.im> .hi
2024-03-04 17:29:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alright. if you all reckon this is an improvement, since it affects upgrades, I'm +1 (we like to fix upgrade issues during the freeze as upgrades don't run with u-t enabled usually)
2024-03-04 17:29:51 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I think I'm _supposed_ to use the other one on my hardware anyway, for some reason
2024-03-04 17:29:54 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> But yeah
2024-03-04 17:29:57 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1 FE
2024-03-04 17:29:58 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> BetaFE +1
2024-03-04 17:30:37 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Sorry I'm late. 
2024-03-04 17:30:43 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ! Hi
2024-03-04 17:30:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hi geraldo!
2024-03-04 17:30:57 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> !hi
2024-03-04 17:31:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed #2267713 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted on the grounds that upgrades usually run without updates-testing enabled, and this is a significant issue for the fairly large number of folks with this driver installed from a third-party source
2024-03-04 17:31:49 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-04 17:32:09 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Geraldo S. Simião Kutz (geraldosimiao) - he / him / his
2024-03-04 17:32:21 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-04 17:32:43 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Ack 
2024-03-04 17:33:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed #2267713 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted on the grounds that upgrades usually run without updates-testing enabled, and this is a significant issue for the fairly large number of folks with this driver installed from a third-party source
2024-03-04 17:33:10 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-04 17:33:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2259571) F40FailsToInstall: libzypp
2024-03-04 17:33:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259571
2024-03-04 17:33:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1491
2024-03-04 17:33:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, libzypp, MODIFIED
2024-03-04 17:33:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+1,0,-0) (+nielsenb)
2024-03-04 17:34:00 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> hmm, I don't know, we give out +1 to FTIs for Final
2024-03-04 17:34:05 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> but what's the gain for beta
2024-03-04 17:34:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: put your hand on your copy of the btrfs handbook and swear you didn't sneak any other changes in there
2024-03-04 17:34:16 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I swear :)
2024-03-04 17:34:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> František Zatloukal: same deal - upgrades run without u-t enabled
2024-03-04 17:34:31 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> yeah, fair point
2024-03-04 17:34:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so fti issues can prevent upgrade if you have the fti package installed
2024-03-04 17:34:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (unless you use `--allowerasing`, which is a bit dangerous)
2024-03-04 17:35:22 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> FE +1
2024-03-04 17:35:33 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> boost is evil :/
2024-03-04 17:35:47 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> FE +1
2024-03-04 17:36:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> +1 here too
2024-03-04 17:36:35 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> BetaFE +1
2024-03-04 17:36:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed #agreed 2259571 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted on the usual grounds that FTI issues can interfere with upgrades, so straightforward FTI fixes are typically accepted
2024-03-04 17:36:53 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-04 17:37:01 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-04 17:37:01 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-04 17:37:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2259571 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted on the usual grounds that FTI issues can interfere with upgrades, so straightforward FTI fixes are typically accepted
2024-03-04 17:37:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> you're all fired, you didn't notice the #
2024-03-04 17:37:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2266081) Consider LLVM 18 pull in during Beta Freeze
2024-03-04 17:38:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2266081
2024-03-04 17:38:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1478
2024-03-04 17:38:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, llvm, NEW
2024-03-04 17:38:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, but vote on this before security escorts you out. ;)
2024-03-04 17:38:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> there is *always* a test
2024-03-04 17:38:39 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> 🤔
2024-03-04 17:38:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> František Zatloukal: so, well, this is still NEW
2024-03-04 17:39:01 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> so, i see this similarly to the java stuff we've started with
2024-03-04 17:39:05 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah
2024-03-04 17:39:16 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> the builds are basically ready to be pushed: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?inherited=0&tagID=84965&order=-build_id&latest=1
2024-03-04 17:39:26 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> it is in rawhide since the last week
2024-03-04 17:39:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i would feel much happier if there was an update with +3 karma
2024-03-04 17:39:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> note "if it is built sufficiently early in the freeze process" from the bug
2024-03-04 17:39:39 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> but
2024-03-04 17:39:53 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> I'd need https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-fadeea3975 to be pushed under this/another FE for the LLVM to be able to land
2024-03-04 17:40:05 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> it needs spirv-llvm-translator rebuilt
2024-03-04 17:40:11 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> which requires the newer spirv-*
2024-03-04 17:40:20 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> that newer spirv is in f41 and f9
2024-03-04 17:40:22 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> *f39
2024-03-04 17:42:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it's just a lot of stuff. landing late. i'm really not happy with this or the java change. we need people to stick to schedules
2024-03-04 17:42:25 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> I mean, llvm people got better
2024-03-04 17:42:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but it's hard to say no to this after saying yes to java. which is another reason i hate saying yes to java.
2024-03-04 17:42:39 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> we used to argue about this before final go/no-go :D
2024-03-04 17:42:54 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> But is less testing really the right stick to get people to finish earlier?
2024-03-04 17:43:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the stick should be you don't get in the release
2024-03-04 17:43:17 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> and as a bonus, mesa isn't part of it now...
2024-03-04 17:43:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> get it done by beta freeze or it's in the next cycle
2024-03-04 17:43:22 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> well it will be
2024-03-04 17:43:30 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> it'll get rebuilt after the freeze, wouldn't it?
2024-03-04 17:43:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> mesa not being part of it helps, sure
2024-03-04 17:43:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> what will get rebuilt after the freeze?
2024-03-04 17:44:03 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> mesa against llvm 18
2024-03-04 17:44:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh. great.
2024-03-04 17:44:37 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> but Conan Kudo may correct me here? mesa wasn't rebuilt in rawhide against llvm 18 yet, so I am extrapolating from that
2024-03-04 17:44:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i don't know why we bother having a change process at all! let's just let everyone land new major versions of everything two days before GA, that'll go fine
2024-03-04 17:44:50 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes
2024-03-04 17:45:11 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> adamw: don't get me started :/
2024-03-04 17:45:14 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Are you proposing we add another "F"? "Finished on time"?
2024-03-04 17:45:20 <@farchord:matrix.org> Lol
2024-03-04 17:45:49 <@humaton:fedora.im> there is a special place in hell for people who ignore schedules
2024-03-04 17:46:06 <@humaton:fedora.im> and I have the heat knob 
2024-03-04 17:46:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this just in, jednorozec is satan
2024-03-04 17:46:52 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> no no, just satan's hvac tech ;) 
2024-03-04 17:46:57 <@humaton:fedora.im> adamw: just deputy for java corner of the hell
2024-03-04 17:47:26 <@farchord:matrix.org> Humans are evil enough, no need for a mythological creature lol
2024-03-04 17:47:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, obviously that means lennart is satan, and the internet trolls were right all along!
2024-03-04 17:47:45 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> oof
2024-03-04 17:47:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it all fits, people
2024-03-04 17:48:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alrighty. anyhow. votes? i vote "meh".
2024-03-04 17:48:20 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> BetaFE +1
2024-03-04 17:48:23 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I hate that you make too much sense here
2024-03-04 17:48:25 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> +1 from me :)
2024-03-04 17:48:29 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I hate it to death, but that's my vote
2024-03-04 17:48:31 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1 FE meh
2024-03-04 17:48:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think, regardless, we need to set a harder policy in advance next cycle, notify it, and stick to it
2024-03-04 17:48:57 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> (the process thing, adamw do you need a separate fe for the spirv-* stuff? I can assign updates/reopen the bug just fine)
2024-03-04 17:49:08 <@humaton:fedora.im> + meh
2024-03-04 17:49:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> no, it doesn't need a separate FE if it's a necessary precursor. mark it as fixing the bug but *not* as 'close bugs on stable'.
2024-03-04 17:49:20 <@pboy:fedora.im> +1 too
2024-03-04 17:49:29 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> copy
2024-03-04 17:50:28 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> adamw: we're going to need a harder stick to get LLVM folks to push earlier
2024-03-04 17:50:53 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> they don't really want to, which is a huge part of the problem
2024-03-04 17:51:13 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> I believe the issue is a bit in the upstream schedule
2024-03-04 17:51:26 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> it can change api/abi in the rc cycle...
2024-03-04 17:51:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we can't really be synced with every upstream schedule
2024-03-04 17:51:41 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> so does gcc and glibc and we do it anyway
2024-03-04 17:51:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i feel like sometimes we are just gonna have to accept that something hits late
2024-03-04 17:51:50 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and GNOME too
2024-03-04 17:51:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but anyhow. we can argue about that outside the meeting
2024-03-04 17:52:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> GNOME's fine lately. 46 was in weeks ago,.
2024-03-04 17:52:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> GNOME's fine lately. 46 was in weeks ago.
2024-03-04 17:52:19 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> speaking of which... watabout the 46 rc, shall I propose a FE?
2024-03-04 17:52:26 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes
2024-03-04 17:52:34 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Yay, VRR
2024-03-04 17:52:44 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yuup
2024-03-04 17:52:53 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> now just get all the other things too :P
2024-03-04 17:53:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think i woke up in a weird parallel universe where "freeze" means "that time where you land major changes to three core components of your product"
2024-03-04 17:54:02 <@humaton:fedora.im> yup this release cycle is like that
2024-03-04 17:54:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> more than three :(
2024-03-04 17:54:09 <@humaton:fedora.im> everything is late
2024-03-04 17:54:17 <@farchord:matrix.org> Global warming. ‘Nuff said.
2024-03-04 17:54:31 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> even my stuff is late despite my best efforts to do everything early/on-time
2024-03-04 17:54:40 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it was out of my control :(
2024-03-04 17:55:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so we have +3 right now, but one of them is from franta, and we *do* of course have a strict conflict-of-interest policy that is written down in the same place as the docs on the libva drivers
2024-03-04 17:55:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any other votes?
2024-03-04 17:56:20 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> +1
2024-03-04 17:57:09 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> (funnily enough, if it weren't for F40 _itself_ being delayed due to mass build issues, I'd be in the same boat with KDE Plasma 6.0)
2024-03-04 17:57:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the schedule slipped enough that 6.0 GA landed before freeze'
2024-03-04 17:57:26 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the schedule slipped enough that 6.0 GA landed before freeze
2024-03-04 17:57:48 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Reluctantly 
2024-03-04 17:57:54 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah
2024-03-04 17:58:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i guess we should also make this subject to fesco approval
2024-03-04 17:59:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2266081 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) (conditional on FESCo approval) - this is reluctantly approved, along the same lines as the Java 21 approval, if FESCo also approves it
2024-03-04 17:59:11 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-04 17:59:24 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-04 17:59:34 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-04 17:59:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i also do not like the justification "Pulling it earlier may ease burden on the developers, QA and other parties that may come with pulling the change in after the beta release" - the alternative to "pulling it during freeze" should not be "pulling it after freeze" but "deferring it to the next release", in a properly-working process
2024-03-04 17:59:55 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I agree
2024-03-04 18:00:16 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> But then we'll very rarely be "First" 🫤
2024-03-04 18:00:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i am sure we did not used to have so many of these cases
2024-03-04 18:00:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and we still had First as a foundation then
2024-03-04 18:00:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we can't land literally everything the day it's done. it's just not feasible. that's not what First should mean,.
2024-03-04 18:00:52 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we didn't have RHEL so tightly linked to Fedora before too
2024-03-04 18:01:10 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I remember F34 being similarly chaotic
2024-03-04 18:01:25 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I think trying to sync to release schedules was a bit of a footgun
2024-03-04 18:01:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i don't think RHEL is driving the LLVM change. i've no idea about Java.
2024-03-04 18:01:46 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Being 3 months out of sync might almost be better
2024-03-04 18:02:14 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> At least in regards to Gnome / KDE
2024-03-04 18:02:41 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> well funnily enough KDE is eventually going to sync to our schedule :)
2024-03-04 18:02:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm not worried about gnome/kde
2024-03-04 18:02:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> both of those are in fine
2024-03-04 18:03:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2266081 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) (conditional on FESCo approval) - this is reluctantly approved, along the same lines as the Java 21 approval, if FESCo also approves it
2024-03-04 18:03:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> anyhow, more fun
2024-03-04 18:03:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2267754) Include GNOME Shell (etc.) 46 rc1 in Fedora 40 Beta
2024-03-04 18:03:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267754
2024-03-04 18:03:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1493
2024-03-04 18:03:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, distribution, NEW
2024-03-04 18:03:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ok, that's enough, i am -1 to this
2024-03-04 18:03:48 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> oof
2024-03-04 18:03:49 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> But I was just told Gnome was fine
2024-03-04 18:03:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we have a GNOME 46 build. it is fine for Beta. this is not time for a new one.
2024-03-04 18:03:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yes. GNOME *is* fine. it does not need a new build.
2024-03-04 18:04:03 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> but VRRRRRRRRRR
2024-03-04 18:04:16 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it's the thing everyone will talk about(tm)
2024-03-04 18:04:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> you can get VRR with a zero-day update if you like
2024-03-04 18:04:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> knock yourself out
2024-03-04 18:04:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it doesn't need to be in the images we are supposed to be building *tomorrow*
2024-03-04 18:04:34 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> lol
2024-03-04 18:04:49 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> but don't you need that on live too? for super-smooth spinners!
2024-03-04 18:04:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> there are a bunch of failures in the openQA tests for today's rawhide and i've no idea yet which of them are just needle updates and which might be real bugs
2024-03-04 18:05:05 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> (I am going to make that argument for hdr spinners in the future too!)
2024-03-04 18:05:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yup :P
2024-03-04 18:05:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/2462612 looks worrying though
2024-03-04 18:05:27 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> well okay, real failures is another issue
2024-03-04 18:06:01 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> I thought, it may make sense if we delay by one week to the #1 release target...
2024-03-04 18:06:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, sure, we can reconsider if there's a slip, and we have better info on any bugs caused by this change by then
2024-03-04 18:06:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i am -1 to it today, for this week
2024-03-04 18:06:33 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> shouldn't we punt then?
2024-03-04 18:06:55 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes
2024-03-04 18:07:13 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> if it's a toss-up based on whether we slip or not, then we should punt
2024-03-04 18:07:22 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Agreed
2024-03-04 18:07:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> eh, it doesn't make much of a practical difference
2024-03-04 18:08:03 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> (for getting out of the radar maybe? it'd stay in the web app if it's punted... idk)
2024-03-04 18:08:36 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah, I'd rather it stay in the web app
2024-03-04 18:11:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so is that three votes for punt?
2024-03-04 18:11:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> anyone else?
2024-03-04 18:13:03 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Punt +1
2024-03-04 18:13:29 <@pboy:fedora.im> +1 too
2024-03-04 18:15:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay
2024-03-04 18:16:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2267754 - punt (delay decision) - we do not want to accept this for a candidate to be built in the next day or two for release next week. that timeframe is too tight without any significant justification to pull in this update (and initial results from openQA suggesting it may cause at least one problem). we will reconsider this if the Beta release slips and we have more definite testing results by then
2024-03-04 18:16:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed #2267754 - punt (delay decision) - we do not want to accept this for a candidate to be built in the next day or two for release next week. that timeframe is too tight without any significant justification to pull in this update (and initial results from openQA suggesting it may cause at least one problem). we will reconsider this if the Beta release slips and we have more definite testing results by then
2024-03-04 18:17:00 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-04 18:17:02 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-04 18:17:08 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-04 18:17:15 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-04 18:17:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed #2267754 - punt (delay decision) - we do not want to accept this for a candidate to be built in the next day or two for release next week. that timeframe is too tight without any significant justification to pull in this update (and initial results from openQA suggesting it may cause at least one problem). we will reconsider this if the Beta release slips and we have more definite testing results by then
2024-03-04 18:17:29 <@pboy:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-04 18:17:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay, moving on to:
2024-03-04 18:17:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic proposed Final blockers
2024-03-04 18:17:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2247872) Don't write /etc/lvm/devices/system.devices when not doing an end-user install
2024-03-04 18:17:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247872
2024-03-04 18:18:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1438
2024-03-04 18:18:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST
2024-03-04 18:18:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-1) (-nielsenb)
2024-03-04 18:18:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> where are we at with this, Peter Boy ?
2024-03-04 18:19:04 <@pboy:fedora.im> +1 from me :-) we need the outsanding fixes to make the VMs equal to the iso installation. 
2024-03-04 18:19:42 <@pboy:fedora.im> It affects not only the aarch64 image, but specifically the default VM image, too.
2024-03-04 18:20:52 <@pboy:fedora.im> Unfortunately, these are the after-effects of a system-wide change that was not announced. 
2024-03-04 18:21:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> what is the exact concrete consequence if this isn't fixed?
2024-03-04 18:23:42 <@pboy:fedora.im> The default VM image will get unusable, unless you use a strict default KVM configuration. The same is true for aarch64, is you use direct installation (not arm-installer-image) which is a supported way for some boards, spec. Raspberrys
2024-03-04 18:24:04 <@pboy:fedora.im> Unsuable, because all the LVM administration tools doesn't work.
2024-03-04 18:24:41 <@pboy:fedora.im> And we would have different installation results depending on the media you use.
2024-03-04 18:24:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i don't see anything that could be described as "the default VM image" at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/releases/f40/blocking/
2024-03-04 18:25:08 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it's not release blocking
2024-03-04 18:25:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so that makes it hard for me to be +1 blocker. +1 FE, sure (though we're not in freeze yet for final)
2024-03-04 18:25:37 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1 FE
2024-03-04 18:25:37 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> +1 FE for sure
2024-03-04 18:26:02 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Isn't it only "unusable" in the sense you can't do LVM operations after the install, unless you modify a file?
2024-03-04 18:26:03 <@pboy:fedora.im> We have 3 standard way to distribute, dvd ise, net iso and VM wcow2
2024-03-04 18:26:10 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> The actual install succeeds
2024-03-04 18:27:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, that's not what the release blocking image list says, and that's canonical...if server WG wants the qcow2 image to be release-blocking, I think that needs to be run by fesco for approval?
2024-03-04 18:27:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (other teams get a vote, like quality, because it means we have to do more testing)
2024-03-04 18:27:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> as of right now, there is no openqa testing of the qcow2 image because it's not release blocking
2024-03-04 18:28:15 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Sorry folks, must go now 😔
Bye 
2024-03-04 18:28:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks geraldo!
2024-03-04 18:28:45 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> thanks, bye!
2024-03-04 18:29:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, i'm -1 blocker/+1 fe on this. i don't think qcow2 can be release blocking for f40, the list is locked in for this release cycle.
2024-03-04 18:30:04 <@pboy:fedora.im> Practically, FE should be enough, as the fix is already half finished. But coming out with an inferior distribution image once again is garbage. 
2024-03-04 18:30:21 <@pboy:fedora.im> F39 was bad enough.
2024-03-04 18:30:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> then, the thing to do is to propose making the image release blocking, if you want this process as a backstop
2024-03-04 18:31:19 <@pboy:fedora.im> OK, that's for the next release, I sppose.
2024-03-04 18:31:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yes. file a fesco issue and we could change it for f41.
2024-03-04 18:32:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> last i counted, we built over 80 images in each compose, and it's probably more than that by now. we can't block the release on every one of them, the list needs to exist for sanity's sake. :P
2024-03-04 18:32:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 83!~
2024-03-04 18:32:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 83!
2024-03-04 18:32:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (and that's just ones fedfind recognizes, some might have slipped in that it doesn't know about...I need to check)
2024-03-04 18:33:00 <@pboy:fedora.im> Not all may be equally important.
2024-03-04 18:33:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> right, which is why we have the list.
2024-03-04 18:33:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any other votes?
2024-03-04 18:33:31 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I'll hold my nose and vote
2024-03-04 18:33:33 <@coremodule:fedora.im> +1FE, -1 blocker
2024-03-04 18:33:37 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> FinalBlocker -1
2024-03-04 18:33:40 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> FinalFE +1
2024-03-04 18:35:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 2247872 RejectedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this cannot block the release as it affects the qcow2 image only, which is not in the release-blocking list for Fedora 40. As it's a significant issue in a non-blocking image, we grant it a freeze exception
2024-03-04 18:35:41 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-04 18:35:48 <@coremodule:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-04 18:35:52 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-04 18:35:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 2247872 RejectedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this cannot block the release as it affects the qcow2 image only, which is not in the release-blocking list for Fedora 40. As it's a significant issue in a non-blocking image, we grant it a freeze exception
2024-03-04 18:36:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2266050) [abrt] plasma-workspace-libs: _execute_child(): subprocess.py:1953:_execute_child:FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: 'qtpaths'
2024-03-04 18:36:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2266050
2024-03-04 18:36:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1481
2024-03-04 18:36:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, plasma-workspace, NEW
2024-03-04 18:36:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-0) (+nielsenb)
2024-03-04 18:37:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this isn't a 'system service' within the meaning of the act
2024-03-04 18:37:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (afaik anyway)
2024-03-04 18:37:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but could be a violation of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Final_Release_Criteria#SELinux_and_crash_notifications if there's a notification
2024-03-04 18:38:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> lruzicka: around to clarify?
2024-03-04 18:38:38 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> If it makes it to libreport, shouldn't it appear in abrt?
2024-03-04 18:38:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the bug kinda implies people are seeing a notification, but it'd be nice to be sure
2024-03-04 18:39:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i don't think openqa is
2024-03-04 18:39:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/2463555#step/desktop_notifications/31
2024-03-04 18:39:54 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I don't think I saw this the last time I tested a KDE image, but that was a bit ago now
2024-03-04 18:40:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> maybe punt for info?
2024-03-04 18:40:45 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> yeah, let's punt
2024-03-04 18:41:00 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I'm okay with punting
2024-03-04 18:41:49 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm fine with punting
2024-03-04 18:43:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alrighty
2024-03-04 18:44:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed 266050 - punt (delay decision) - it's not clear if a system service is actually failing here (as defined in the criterion and test case), or if this may alternatively be a violation of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Final_Release_Criteria#SELinux_and_crash_notifications . We'll delay the decision to ask lruzicka for more information
2024-03-04 18:44:19 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-04 18:44:25 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-04 18:44:56 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-04 18:45:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed 266050 - punt (delay decision) - it's not clear if a system service is actually failing here (as defined in the criterion and test case), or if this may alternatively be a violation of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Final_Release_Criteria#SELinux_and_crash_notifications . We'll delay the decision to ask lruzicka for more information
2024-03-04 18:45:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2248071) systemd-oomd doesn't kick in on high memory pressure, leading to system lockup
2024-03-04 18:45:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2248071
2024-03-04 18:45:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1454
2024-03-04 18:45:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, systemd, NEW
2024-03-04 18:45:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-2) (-nielsenb, -catanzaro)
2024-03-04 18:46:45 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I would like to know why systemd-oomd doesn't kick in
2024-03-04 18:46:53 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> But I don't really see how it can be a blocker
2024-03-04 18:47:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah...there just doesn't seem to be enough buzz around this
2024-03-04 18:47:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it's one of those things where i feel like if there was a serious widespread problem, more people would be complaining
2024-03-04 18:47:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> has anyone here had issues?
2024-03-04 18:47:48 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I mean, none of us managed to make systemd-oomd kick in, did we?
2024-03-04 18:47:56 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> We all got the kernel killer
2024-03-04 18:48:37 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> I am usually also not hitting the mem + swap limit (which is around 42 gigs in total, and I learned to close my chrome before building huge things... :D )
2024-03-04 18:48:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> not with the specific reproducer from the bug, i guess
2024-03-04 18:49:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i suppose i mostly try to avoid getting into the situation where *any* oom killer should kick in...:P
2024-03-04 18:49:11 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Yeah
2024-03-04 18:49:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> still...is it a release blocking bug if systemd-oomd never works? it's hard to see how, really
2024-03-04 18:49:29 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Just because I can reproduce the issue, doesn't mean I have a problem
2024-03-04 18:50:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we released a whole lot of releases without systemd-oomd at all!
2024-03-04 18:50:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it's kinda easier to see "systemd-oomd kills too many things" as a blocker than "it doesn't kill enough things"
2024-03-04 18:51:14 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I agree
2024-03-04 18:51:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any other thoughts?
2024-03-04 18:53:03 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I think it's easier to say that this is a problem if it results in hangs or freezes
2024-03-04 18:53:14 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> but if that's not happening, it's... less an issue
2024-03-04 18:55:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, that's what the reporters upstream say, but still...if you run your system out of memory, something bad is gonna happen, is the bottom line
2024-03-04 18:55:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> maybe something gets killed, maybe the whole thing freezes
2024-03-04 18:55:28 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i have a difficult time calling any particular result in that situation *release blocking*
2024-03-04 18:55:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so i'm -1 to this
2024-03-04 18:56:00 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> yeah, great description for rejecting, -1
2024-03-04 18:56:51 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Yeah
2024-03-04 18:56:56 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I'm still FinalBlocker -1
2024-03-04 18:57:14 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> -1
2024-03-04 18:57:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> proposed !agreed #2248071 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - we can't find a justification for calling this a release blocker. Even if systemd-oomd never kicks in at all, we have no release criteria covering what should happen if you run your system out of memory, and it will always be *something* bad. There's no requirement in Fedora that the bad thing be "systemd kills an app" rather than "the kernel kills an app" or "everything seizes up".
2024-03-04 18:58:15 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-04 18:58:18 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-04 18:58:51 <@coremodule:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-04 18:59:00 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-04 19:00:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !agreed #2248071 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - we can't find a justification for calling this a release blocker. Even if systemd-oomd never kicks in at all, we have no release criteria covering what should happen if you run your system out of memory, and it will always be something bad. There's no requirement in Fedora that the bad thing be "systemd kills an app" rather than "the kernel kills an app" or "everything seizes up".
2024-03-04 19:00:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay, and we're at time
2024-03-04 19:00:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> very quickly:
2024-03-04 19:00:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info accepted Beta blocker status - I'm poking the artwork team, I'm poking pjones for shim, and I'm poking pbrobinson for ARM. lots of poking is occurring
2024-03-04 19:00:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Open floor
2024-03-04 19:00:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any other wildly important business?
2024-03-04 19:01:18 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> regarding the llvm/openjdk fesco approvals, shall I create a tickets so it doesn't get stuck?
2024-03-04 19:01:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i was hoping nirik would ensure it gets brought up
2024-03-04 19:02:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> there is a "#3173 F40 Change Proposal Status: Incomplete Changes" topic on the agenda
2024-03-04 19:02:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> which should be the place
2024-03-04 19:02:13 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I can try and remember... thats a whole 30min from now!
2024-03-04 19:02:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'll be there too
2024-03-04 19:02:28 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> (the llvm one is pretty expected I think)
2024-03-04 19:03:03 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> okey dokey, thanks to anybody who'd remind that, if there's any comment needed from me (for llvm), please do feel free to ping
2024-03-04 19:03:53 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> coremodule: would you be able to handle the secretary duty before CET morning? I'll handle that tomorrow otherwise, no problem
2024-03-04 19:04:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i will handle the critical ones if necessary
2024-03-04 19:05:30 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> if you need/prefer them handled asap, otherwise don't overwork yourself 😁
2024-03-04 19:06:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alrighty, thanks for coming everyone!
2024-03-04 19:06:35 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> 👋
2024-03-04 19:08:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !endmeeting